Yesterday the NZTA (and AT) published and later pulled down – although we already saved a copy – a newsletter giving details about Seapath, the walking and cycling route alongside SH1 between Northcote and Esmonde Rd and importantly linking into Skypath. In the newsletter, the NZTA and AT call the project a critical link as it will combine with other projects in the future to improve options for walking and cycling on the North Shore and I suspect it will be very popular, much like the Northwestern cycleway is. The NZTA’s website suggests the project will cost an estimated $17-21 million.

The project actually started life as a result of the work done for Skypath in response to the complaints from some of the Northcote Residents. Here’s how they describe it.

During our consultation phase in 2012 – 2013, the Northcote Residents Association advised SkyPath shouldn’t proceed until we had a walking & cycling network link to Takapuna. Good idea we thought – so we developed the link, called it “SeaPath” and provided our SeaPath report to NZTA and AT. NZTA then commissioned further investigation and prepared a preferred option.

The project is one of the ones the NZTA said would benefit from a rule change last year allowing the agency to designate cycleways by themselves.

Like many other cycleways, Seapath will be a 3m shared path and the agencies say three route options were considered:

  • a landward route on the western side of the motorway
  • a coastal edge route on the eastern side of the motorway
  • a seaward route on a boardwalk on the eastern side of the motorway

They say the landward route is the preferred option and one of the advantages of it is it would provide easier connections to other local routes.

Seapath March-16 Route
click to enlarge

Interestingly the NZTA say another reason for the route selected was due to the it minimising the impacts on Shoal Bay which is home endangered species like Dotterels.

Shoal Bay and the surrounding area has a number of important ecological, cultural and historical characteristics.

Shoal Bay is a natural heritage location of regional significance and is home to extensive mangroves, saltmarsh and shellbank communities. It is also a key feeding and roosting area for migratory and coastal wading bird species including Oystercatchers, Caspian tern and NZ Dotterel.

It’s funny how that same concern doesn’t seem to manifest in the plans for an additional harbour crossing – which based on the last report envisages significant reclamation in the area

AWHC reclaimation needed

I suspect it’s the desire to plough more lanes through the area as part of an additional crossing that is actually the key reasons why the NZTA want it on the western side of the motorway.

That’s a shame as a seaward path like proposed alongside the motorway between Petone and Ngauranga in Wellington could be fantastic.

Wellington Petone to Ngauranga cycleway 1

Below shows the wider network and how Seapath would fit in.

Seapath March-16 connections

Overall this is a good project and it’s positive to see it being progressed. When combined with Skypath will really help in generating change and providing new options for people to travel. With them Takapuna would be 10km by bike from heart of the CBD. I’m already looking forward to both projects being completed.

As this would also help in providing options for people on bikes to avoid Northcote Point I wonder if it will help in the environment court mediation Skypath are currently involved in.

I understand the NZTA will be conducting some consultation on the route, possibly even starting today.

Share this

101 comments

    1. I was at a Skypath/Seapath meeting in Northcote last year and the reason the western route (not root) was being pushed by the environmental people is because people walking near the birds will disturb them (I initially didn’t think this was a big deal, but I learned that it is: it really stresses the birds and they’ve got very few other options of places to do their living). This seemed strange to me since trucks and buses were hurtling by, so I asked the main environment guy whether the motorway traffic disturbs the birds and the answer was apparently they’re not bothered. I changed my mind about which side of the motorway Seapath should go after learning that.

      The take-away is: you (can) learn something every day.

    2. I live on College Rd and if Seapath was built the easiest way for me to bike to the isthmus would be to ride through Tuff Crater reserve and on to Seapath then Skypath. If Seapath was on the east side of the motorway I couldn’t get to it. Remember all transport is all about access.

  1. Surely they can go in front of the police station. That seems a weird detour.

    They will need seriously sort out the East to west link through Esmonde Rd. Currently it’s a mess.

    1. Probably due to the fact that police station does all the highway stuff has it’s own ramps to the motorway, with cop cars flying off to incidents regularly.

      1. Edit: Whoops looks like they are going in front of the police station. The little detour is for no reason at all. (Most likely because they couldnt think of a way to get people exiting the motorway at Stafford to give way to cyclists safely. I could give them some ideas.)

        1. Unless they install physical barriers / fences, I would imagine that that detour will quickly be ignored by most users. Desire lines have a way of winning out.

      1. No. Traffic can be slowed down, the crossing narrowed, and its not THAT heavy people couldnt then cross safely and do so without serious delays, I think.

        But we definitely need grade separation over (or under) the edge of the Onewa Road interchange.

  2. Seaward side is obviously only good for people on it already and who want a scenic exercise route. Whatever their true reasoning, their justification being that people need to actually, you know, get to it, is extremely important.

    Utility first, scenery second. (see Quay Street…)

    1. A connector bridge can always be built to connect the western side of the motorway to the SEAPATH. The view would not only attract cyclist but walkers and sightseers. Have you seen how beautiful the city is from this angle? We need to unlock its potential by unlocking this site.

      1. What do we gain by attracting sightseers? I understand the appeal, obviously, but we still treat cycling as ‘leisure’ rather than transport. If we built roads and footpaths in such a manner we would never hear the end of it, but it’s celebrated when it’s a bike.

      2. sure, but arguably that view will be better from Skypath, so for me the accessibility aspects of the eastern route beats the amenity aspects of the west and the bush and creek views of the east are not unattractive in themselves

    2. Yeah, they should have built the Westhaven boardwalk behind the motorway so it could connect with the streets behind! Not!

      PS: There is already a bridge across the motorway at Tuff Crater and from Onewa road it is not a big detour to go towards the bridge to get under the motorway.

      1. 100% missed my point: The westhaven one is on the side with the things that people would actually want to get to. No one needs access to the motorway from the westhaven boardwalk.

        I really shouldn’t have to explain this still.

        Next time you’re in the city as a pedestrian, look at the footpaths and imagine that the store you were trying to get to didn’t have one. That’s what it’s like cycling in Auckland.

        1. I agree with your point that utility should trump views but in this case the utility of both sides is pretty similar. The landward side route is cut off from the local roads and houses by cliffs and mangroves so there aren’t many extra connections that it will allow.

          1. The west side allows more connections with Northcote Pt, a connection with Onewa Road, a connection at Heath Reserve and a connection into the Warehouse campus area. That is quite a bit.

          2. No David is right here; access utility trumps building for views on nice days, you’ll be able to have all the view you can eat from SkyPath. Bryce has a good point too; often the relative shelter of the inland route will be welcome.

          3. The planned seaward route (see: https://www.bikeauckland.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/3options-800×498.png) was to start on the west side at Wayhouse Way and cross over the motorway via the (upgraded) existing overpass. So the extra connections would only be a few at Northcote Point and at Onewa Rd. The Nortcote Point connections won’t make a big difference as it’s such short stretch and there is the existing underpass at the old toll area. The big one is obviously the Onewa Rd connection but this could be (at least partially) solved by adding the boardwalk section from the landward plan from Onewa to the existing underpass. So I don’t think the added connections for the landward route make a huge difference to the utility of the path. The exposed nature of the seaward route may be an issue, I’m not sure how significant that would be. Of course the added cost of the seaward route is a big issue. In any case, this is really all academic as NZTA is never in a million years going to build it on the seaward side – it would interfere with adding more motorway lanes.

          4. Well now we know how much they care about the seabirds, it will be interesting to see how the manage to do that at all.

    1. Well at least Patrick and I agree on one thing – a 3 meter shared path for a major transit root is unthinkable, and it is presented as a major transit route for pedestrians and cyclists many of which will be motorised. Has to be at least 5 meters or for safety 6/8 meters if it is to be used safely! No wonder NZTA took it down.

      1. Wow. Jenette you do know which transport mode kills and/or maims people everyday in New Zealand don’t you? Hint; it isn’t the bicycle. Why not put your energy into dealing with the real problem rather than attacking something that is part of the solution?

          1. Making it 3m wide would really concern me – especially on boardwalk sections (there may not be many, but some are included) that would be WAY too tight – this will be chocker with people, especially on weekends. It might come to a level where there’s too many pedestrians for riders to ride at any speed, meaning it would come with its own glass ceiling. The Bike AKL / genZero submission will make extra width for better sharing / separating a key point.

            If Brisbane can do it, why would we do a path that is not providing dedicated zones, and would be narrower than the SkyPath retrofit??? SkyPath is 4m, why throttle it down to 3m on a brand new facility?

            http://freeaussiestock.com/free/Queensland/brisbane/brisbane_cycleways.jpg

          2. I agree that it should be wider I was just being a bit facetious. The point I was trying to make was even narrow cycleways are going to be safer than – cyclists in traffic or people driving cars, so if they encourage less car driving they will improve safety.

  3. So. The North Shore is already the richest region of Auckland.
    They are getting…
    Skypath
    Seapath
    Takapuna Redevelopment

    Down here in New Lynn, when we can pick our way past the homeless sleeping in Memorial Square, we are getting what exactly? CRL in 10 years?

    1. Hopefully we shall not be getting SkyPath but pedestrian/cycle lanes with Second Harbour crossing which does not look so far away now.

      1. We already have a second harbour crossing and it already has a path on it, I even rode home over it yesterday.

        But the plans for AWHC also include walking and cycling on the existing bridge and NZTA support Skypath.

        1. Yes, but ideally on the spare lanes when the second harbour crossing is built. In fact it look as if the plans for SeaPath are in place for this to happen. This is what should happen as it will solve a lot of problems of access. Perhaps SkyPath should consider this as the touch down. Of course it has to be wider but then SkyPath has to be wider.

          1. NZTAs plans do not have spare lanes on the bridge even with the AWHC. Their plan is for skypath to take walking and cycling.

      2. Funny how this post is getting both NIMBY comments from Jennette and anti-NIMBY comments from Early Commuter (or are they BINIMBY comments – but it’s not in my back yard?). I wonder if they both get together in the same room would it be like matter and anti-matter getting together? Would they annihilate each other in a flash of ill-conceived self-interested arguments? I guess as they are in phase in their opposition it is more likely they will exhibit constructive interference resulting in new heights of absurdity.

        1. My name is Janette Miller not Jenette! I live next door to a 480 seat cinema, a 50 seat restaurant, an antique shop, two cafe’s, a senior citizens hall and a Tongan Church for 40 years. I have lived in Central London too. In all my time I have never had a park in front of my home and I live with it. I wonder if you do? Do you deal with crowds? I dealt with crowds all my life. I know how dangerous uncontrolled crowds can be. SkyPath’s crowds are huge. It would be wrong of me not to raise the issue however unpopular it may seem. It is never pleasant to question some one’s dream. SkyPath has to be safe to use for everyone. Properly designed and managed cyclists and pedestrians can go safely over the bridge for free. We have waited 60 years we can wait a few more and not cost Auckland Ratepayers a fortune.

          1. I’m sorry but I don’t understand what your point is. It seems a bit incoherent to me. Are you saying you are ochlophobic? How is that relevant? Crowds are not dangerous, I grew up in Malaysia amongst crowds much larger than you ever see in NZ. I’ve never seen or heard of anyone get hurt from being in a crowd.

          2. Skypath’s crowds are not huge. At the busiest peaks maybe up to a person every five seconds, most times far quieter. It will not cost ratepayers a fortune, far from it. The only way it will cost ratepayers anything is if it fails to meet its patronage targets by a long way.

            Stop using safety to justify your opposition, when you don’t seem to be concerned about the genuine problems of hundreds of people, including pedestrians, cyclists, children, being killed each year by vehicles. It’s distasteful. At least be honest about your nimbyism.

          3. Yes Janette, Skypath will have huge crowds of up to 2,000 people and we all know that violence and carnage resulted when 200,000 people were in downtown Auckland for the Santa Parade.

          4. If you’re concerned about Auckland ratepayers (who won’t be on the hook for SkyPath, especially not if it is as popular as you seem to fear), I suggest you immediately start pushing for a rail-only third harbour crossing.

            Also, maybe you can wait a few more years to get over the bridge, but the number of submissions in favour of SkyPath suggest that many people feel otherwise. And if you’ve lived in London, you will know from experience that the sort of numbers that are expected to use Skypath are in no way dangerous.

            I’m not sure what your park comment is in relation to???

          5. Hi Janette,

            Its great you are interested in crowd safety. Its not an externality of relevance to resource consent issues though is it?

          6. “We have waited 60 years we can wait a few more and not cost Auckland Ratepayers a fortune.”

            So a privately-funded, user-pays cycleway over the harbour bridge will cost ratepayers money, while a $5bn set of motorway tunnels will somehow be free for taxpayers and ratepayers?

            Yeah, nah. AWHC will cost 100 times as much as Skypath and Seapath combined.

            Also, I can offer you a cast-iron guarantee that more people will die in cars than on bicycles outside your house. Think of how unsafe it is to have cars and trucks speeding through underwater tunnels at 80+ km/hr! Terrifying!

          7. Janette, I just watched your video (it is really is something to behold). So I now have a better idea of what you are getting at, although I still don’t understand how you could seriously believe what you are saying. The numbers of concurrent users on the skypath is going to be strictly controlled (each end is gated as you know). There will never be a dangerous number of people on it. Contrary to what you state in your video, there has been a lot of research into crowd control and minimising dangers of dense crowds. See the below for a reasonably detailed discussion of the issue:
            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/hajj-crush-how-crowd-disasters-happen-and-how-they-can-be-avoided

            You speak of stampedes but contrary to popular belief, a panicked stampede seldom causes many serious injuries or fatalities. It is really crushes that cause the fatalities you are talking about. These only occur in specific situations and the bottom line is they only occur when there is sufficient crowd density. The density has to be at least above 4 people per square metre for there to be any danger of a crush. I believe the number of people allowed on the skypath at one time is to be set at 1,500-2,000 at most. This number of people will be spread out over the whole of the structure (with perhaps a bit of concentration at the viewing points). I’m not sure what the total area of the skypath will be but a rough calculation of 1km long at 4 m wide gives an area of 4000 square metres. With 2,000 people on the skypath that would be 1 person per 2 square metres. So it is not anywhere near being dense enough to cause a dangerous crush even if there was an incident that caused everyone to rush to the exits. You must remember that with people spread over the entire length of the skypath, 2,000 people will not be arriving at once at the exits. A large proportion will have a distance to cover meaning it will take them a while to get there even if they were running in a panic.

    2. Bit of a whinge @Early Commuter. You already have a NW cycleway and new electric trains, we can go on and on about what you have and what we have. Be happy for every improvement that completes the network, and stop whining like that, it’s childish.

    3. Oh please. Stop complaining.
      Manukau which has higher importance relative to New Lynn has just gotten its Train Station which is in most stupidest of places. Still waiting on its Bus Station and NO PLAN FOR ANY CYCLE LANE. South Auckland has again been left out. We are still an car dominant part of Auckland because the alternative isn’t good enough.

    4. A cyclepath is being developed from New Lynn citybound – which follows the railway line. Unfortunately that doesn’t suit commuting inbound from Kelston or Glen Eden as it’s neither direct nor flat, but good for New Lynn as connections from there are tricky. I look forward to eventually sorting out a safer cycling route along Ash/Rata Sts as less hilly and conveniently located to numbers of schools.

    5. Don’t know what EC is smoking, but New Lynn has done very well in terms of central/regional investment.

      Undergrounding the rail line through New Lynn cost $120 million. Plus new bus interchange for say $12 million, plus ancillary investments in upgraded town centre etc.

      But don’t let facts get in the way of your grand-standing.

      1. *** This comment has been edited for violating our user guidelines ***

        Stu, 1. the double-tracking was for the entire network’s benefit, not just New Lynn; second the bus station was done for the same reasons.

          1. Undergrounding New Lynn and double-tracking were two separate projects, even if they were ultimately implemented in a coordinated fashion. It would have been perfectly possible to double-track without undergrounding.

            The primary benefit from undergrounding the rail line through New Lynn is travel-time savings to local traffic, which would have otherwise been caught at the level crossings. The secondary benefit from undergrounding the rail line through New Lynn is amenity benefits to local properties, which would otherwise have been blighted by barrier effects. Benefits to rail users were marginal in comparison.

            And by the way: What makes you think Sea Path and Sky Path won’t benefit the wider city? Taking cars off the harbour bridge and CMJ has to be good for the operation of the wider highway network.

            And by the way: Undergrounding New Lynn cost $120 million. That’s a buttload more than these cycle projects.

        1. And perhaps SeaPath / SkyPath will do very well to benefit some of the less well served and less wealthy parts of the Shore. Have you been to Northcote, Birkdale, the inland side of Beach Haven? Kaipatiki is one of the least well-served areas in Auckland for transport, so having something like this happen on it’s eastern boundary is fantastic. Hopefully it will be a catalyst to form a safe cycling/walking network through to Highbury and Glenfield town centres and beyond.

      2. New Lynn is great – really thriving. Easy to cycle around, and btw I notice quite a lot of bikes on the western line which I use frequently. My only relatively small gripe is the continuing 4 hour stretch in the rail timetable limited to 2tph. I had hoped there might be some improvement when the new timetable comes out in May but maybe that won’t happen until next year.

      1. *** This comment has been edited for violating our user guidelines. ***

        Good PT is an incredible weapon for the progressive cause, as is city design. If used properly.

        1. When was the last time you traveled through Northcote EC? You might want to go have a look before you assume its all multi-millionaires.

          1. Northcote – as opposed to Northcote Point maybe – is not a particularly rich area. Sure, richer than, say, Otara, but not exactly the land of endless plenty either.

          2. Yes, there are poor people on the shore.
            There are more poor people in New Lynn/Avondale.

            More rich people will benefit from Skypath than from an equivalent path from New Lynn.

            If AT wanted to be progressive they could rollout 10 tph from New Lynn tomorrow, and 5 minute bus frequency as well.

          3. Early Commuter, what on earth does the relative wealth of areas have to do with determining where infrastructure is built? Deciding on what to build should be based on which infrastructure will be of the most benefit. These projects fill in a big gap in the infrastructure of Auckland (pedestrian and cycling access across the harbour). They should be built because they will benefit large numbers of people, both from the North Shore and the rest of Auckland.

  4. So is this SeaPath or Northern Motorway Path?
    Is adding boardwalks like the ones in Orakei really affect the wildlife. Its not like were adding in asphalt to build a motorway onramp.

    1. This is Seapath. The Northern Cycleway will take over from Esmonde Road onwards, but doesn’t have funding or programmed timeframe yet. There have however been studies on it, which indicate it will likely be on the west side, with the first section being Esmonde to Tristram (or, potentially, Constellation to Greville, as part of the wider Northern Corridor works).

      1. “There have however been studies on it, which indicate it will likely be on the west side”
        The map I linked to downthread shows the Constellation to Greville cycleway on the eastern side. I have been wondering how they would deal with getting around all the bus stations given that it’s pretty tight for space, especially around Sunnynook.
        Western side does make a lot more sense (though possibly not from Contellation to Greville).

  5. The western side might be more sheltered in rough weather. It’s concerning to read of the prospect of mass destruction of natural heritage areas for the sake of building More Roads. One of the things I enjoy about the nw cycleway is the scenery to the west of mangroves and birdlife.

  6. I’m happy with the inland route – a boardwalk would be pretty, but the ability for riders and walkers to join the route anywhere along it’s length is far more important than having a nice view. Separated paths are no good when they are separated from connections, and a motorway is a significant obstacle, an expensive one to cross.

    I can’t tell from the map if there will be a proper and safe connection to the Takapuna – Devenport green route, but this and SkyPath would join a safe route from Devonport all the way to St. Helliers. With a direct ferry in between during the tourist season and summer weekends, that would be a great family day out.

    1. A connection from Akoranga to the end of Francis Street should be considered as there is talk of removing the Lake Road cycleway.

      1. Never going to happen. AT’s corridor management plan was presented to the local board this week and far from removing the cyclelanes it proposes beefing them up into proper separated lanes.

        It also, quite correctly, points out that congestion on Lake Road isn’t much of an issue, and it is Esmonde Road that is the problem. It’s highly unusual for a car journey along Lake Road between Takapuna and Devonport or vice versa to take more than 10 minutes, no matter what time of day it is.

        With the likelihood of intensification in Belmont there is an even more pressing need to ensure that good alternatives to driving exist, especially when they can be provided with no impact to traffic, as they can on Lake Road.

        There’s always noise in the local papers there about the cycle lanes, but that’s just Devonport for you.

    2. Looks like they’re taking it up the western side of the Esmonde Rd off ramp and just stopping there. The connection to Takapuna and Devonport from here is rubbish with slip lanes galore, too narrow shared paths and long waits at beg buttons.

  7. I live nearby and I commute to city on a regular basis. While I can see the scenic benefits of sea-side path, I think that the benefits of the western side are actually greater for a commuter AND community, including safe cycling for school kids and getting to the bus station. The additional connections to the local community is a biggie. Western side would go under the pohutukawas, and it’s more sheltered for the rainy and windy days. There’s access to the sea through the Exmouth Rd pedestrian bridge and Onewa toll plaza tunnel (which would make a very nice skypath loop through sulphur bay). The Exmouth Rd perhaps could receive some more love than what it is right now (overgrown, a bridge to nowhere kind of thing). The local connections are: Onewa Rd cycleway, Onepoto Basin, Exmouth Rd, Tuff Crater, The Warehouse Way businesses AUT and the Akoranga Bus Station. There’s also an argument of Forest and Bird of endangered birds nesting on the sea side – see their Naturepath brochure: http://goo.gl/54Idfl – but that could become a joke if the Waitemata Additional Harbour Crossing goes ahead, but we’re all hoping this will be a MRT tunnel instead so the western/pohutukawa side is actually an excellent solution.

    1. Agreed. There are lots of people on the western side. Northcote town centre is one of the most upzoned areas in the UP. (So much that HNZ thought it looked OK). This also has the advantage of completing the tuff crater loop. Overall it wont be an unpleasant ride either. Just need to sort out the connection to the east at Esmonde.

      1. Agree. Just make sure there are plenty of good direct links on/off it for locals to join with ease. Bikes are all about freedom and choice, bike motorways are not what’s required. Freedom!

    2. I also live in the area and plan to commute using this route but I’m not convinced by this argument. Sure more connections are better in principal but most of those are easily handled by existing connections and a little bit of extra infrastructure. The boardwalk from Onewa Road to the underpass at the old toll booth area would take care of all the first couple of connections while a footbridge/boardwalk over the mangroves at Tuff crater would allow the connections from Warehouse Way/AUT via the existing overbridge at Exmouth. The birds argument is also not particularly convincing, I don’t see how adding a shared path could possibly have any affect on the birdlife over and above that of the existing motorway. As Matt points out, I’m sure the desire to make it easier to add extra motorway lanes on the seaward side is the real reason NZTA has chosen the Western side.

    3. There is nothing stopping the extension/expansion that will probably be needed before the AWHC being placed on the seaward side, increasing the choice and amenity for everyone, although I’d guess that the epansion won’t be a 3m wide path.

    1. There’s a northern cycleway planned? I thought I was paying attention, but the reference on the map is the first time i’ve seen anything

      1. Earliest plans go back at least to late 2000s, when I was given an early high level concept by NZTA. But yes, wasn’t really discussed publicly much, and certainly there haven’t been any public announcements about timeframes or funding. If Skypath and SeaPath go ahead, the talk & pressure will pick up.

    1. A good job explaining the issues particularly the reasoning for choosing the landward side (much better than NZTA has done). It would be nice to see some numbers on the estimated extra cost of the seaward option though. Sure it would cost more than the landward option but it may be worth it for a better outcome in the long run. NZTA seems to be releasing very little information on this (or maybe I missed it?)

        1. With all those cars streaming past already would the birds even notice a few cyclists and walkers? I very much doubt it. The only possible negative impact is people’s dogs getting onto the shore which could be prevented with a short fence.

        2. You support AWHC, you are therefore disqualified from ever pretending to give a single toss about the ecological wellbeing of that wetland.

  8. Thanks for the pic of the proposed Wellington Petone link. That distance is very walkable. In fact it will be worthwhile alighting from a train or bus at either Petone or Ngauranga and walking that part of the waterfront. A coffee cart halfway along on weekends probably wouldn’t go amiss and there will be any number of places to while away the hours with a fishing rod watching ships come and go.

    1. Railways are very clever at putting the cycleway on the seaside of the rail along Wellington Harbour. Damage to tracks and rolling stock by waves has been a regular event between Petone and Wellington. The cycleway will be exposed to the full force of the Wellington winds and will be washed by waves regularly. Just the place for a gentle cycle (this is irony).
      I expect major carriageway clearing and scour-out filling will close the walkway/cycleway for a significant part of the year, every year. Not a great model for a harbour-side cycleway.
      I imagine a coffee stall would quickly blow away, either literally or financially.

  9. I personally think more use should be made of existing footpaths to expand the cycleway network at a faster pace. One thing I have observed while driving around town commercially is the sheer number of cyclists on the roads, and once away from the shopping areas, schools and the like, the almost complete absence of pedestrians.
    I’m not saying that all footpaths would be suitable, but by showing some commonsense by both cyclists and pedestrians, I’m sure it could work as it already does on some shared cycleways

    1. Dreadful idea – any decent city encourages people to walk, rather than force them to share with a largely incompatible mode od transport. If there are enough cyclists to create an issue on the road, there are far too many to share the footpath – and pedestrians have nowhere else to go.

  10. I’m not talking about every footpath here, and there are several around with large green berms on the road side that, with the addition of a bit of asphalt or concrete, would make a great path for cyclists. One that springs to mind is St Lukes Road on the south side between Sandringham Road, and Wagner Place. That stretch of road is not cyclist friendly by any stretch of the imagination at the moment, but for a very low cost, could be made so. St Lukes Road, north of Wagner Place, could also get similar treatment. I am not talking about putting down a cycle way where the Tour de France could be held, but rather a place that commuters, and family groups, could use.

    1. Evan can I suggest that trying to understand walking and cycling needs ‘while driving around town’ is not the best way? You are essentially saying get the cyclists off the road and out of my way by putting them in the way of pedestrians.

      Furthermore if you see an absence of pedestrians and people on bikes that is almost certainly because you are in a place that has designed them out of existence. So less ‘motordom’ not more is in fact the answer.

      And separating pedestrians and riders is always the best for all road users wherever possible.

  11. Sorry Patrick, but because I drive a truck, it doesn’t mean that I am one of those morons that you seem to have assigned all other motorists to. I both ride a bike and am a pedestrian, and that section of St Lukes Road is one that I ride regularly simply because it is in my neighbourhood, and I can see a large grassy berm alongside the footpath that would make a lovely cycling pathway for myself and others that use that road, including a large number of people riding electric assisted cycles (it could also get the kids on bikes off the footpath proper and leave it for pedestrians). Furthermore, that cycling pathway could be built very quickly, at a very reasonable price, and probably do more to encourage cycling than some of the multi-million dollar projects I see promoted here.

Leave a Reply