On Monday, Auckland Transport started consultation for some pretty sweet cycleway proposals for Pt Chevalier to Westmere, which is being funded in part by the government’s Urban Cycleway Fund. These cycleways, when built, will add to the others being planned for the inner-west to help create the backbones of a solid network for the area.

The proposal will see separated cycleways built on Pt Chevalier and Meola Roads, from the Great North Road intersection, along Meola Road and Garnet Road, up to the Westmere shops. It is shown in yellow in on the map below.

On the project, AT say the key features are:

  • Safe cycling facilities for Pt Chevalier Road, Meola Road and Garnet Road, physically separated from traffic where possible.
  • Layout changes to key intersections (Pt Chevalier Road and Meola Road, Meola Road and Garnet Road) to improve safety and better manage traffic.
  • Improvements to side road intersections to slow traffic, improve visibility and create a safer road environment for all users.
  • A new pedestrian crossing on Pt Chevalier Road near the Formby Avenue and Wakatipu Street intersection.
  • Improvements to the existing pedestrian crossing on Pt Chevalier Road north of Tui Street intersection.
  • A pedestrian refuge on Meola Road upgraded to a zebra crossing.

We are investigating the feasibility of a peak hour south-bound priority lane (bus/T2/T3) for Pt Chevalier Road, from Great North Road to Wakatipu Street, to improve the public transport commute during evening peak times. If this goes ahead, the bus lane would only operate during evening peak time, and parking would be permitted in this space at all times. If it does not go ahead, on-street parking will be permitted at all times.

There is limited space available along this route to share between traffic, parking, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. To create space we propose to relocate some roadside features (such as street lighting, trees and other services), remove some on-street parking and change the layout of some key intersections.

The proposal shows what’s possible if we’re prepared to reallocate road space and so could be a template for many roads across Auckland. It retains exactly the same number of vehicle lanes as present but still manages to add in the cycle lanes and even a bus lane in one section simply by using the vast central median and rethinking on-street carparking.

What is proposed changes at different locations along the route and the first section is on Pt Chevalier Road from Great North Road to west of Wakatipu Street. The proposal would see all modes accommodated within the existing street with vehicle lanes, cycle lanes and even a southbound bus lane. This is achieved by removing the central median and moving the existing street trees, including giving them larger tree pits.

The New Network will see this section of road served by two frequent routes, the Outer Link and a crosstown route, along with a less frequent crosstown route too. One concern is they say the bus lane will only operate in the evening peak. It would be good to see that operating in the morning peak too. Off peak parking is allowed in the bus lane.

Between Wakitipu St and Walker St is the same general layout but with wider footpaths, carparking instead of the bus lane.

Between Walker St and Meola Rd the parking makes way for a median to allow for right turns but the cycleway remains.

At are still designing the intersection of Pt Chev and Meola Rd but they say they propose to install traffic lights.

In the first section along Meola Rd, from Pt Chev Rd to Meola Park, AT propose widening the road slightly on the northern side to make enough room for the cycle lanes.

In a few sections they’re also proposing carparking bays inside the cycleway to replace lost carparking. Having parking inside of the cycleway isn’t ideal but to implement them and put cyclists next to the kerbs means cyclists have to weave in and out which isn’t ideal either. Given there are not too many of these it may not be too much of an issue but it’s worth submitting on.

From Meola Park to Seddon Fields is the only section that doesn’t doesn’t get a dedicated on street cycleway on each side with AT proposing a shared path on the northern side and another, short section on the southern side. This is to retain some carparking (on the southern side).

Once over the Meola Rd bridge, the proposal reverts to two traffic lanes each way with a protected cycleway each way too, up to Garnet Rd.

At the Garnet Rd roundabout AT say they are still finalising the design but the intention is to return it to a single lane roundabout including adding speed tables and pedestrian crossings.

Finally, the last section is on Garnet Rd through to West End Rd. Here AT have protected bike lanes inside of parked cars

In addtion to these plans, AT say they intend to install raised tables across many of the side streets along this route which will help make things safer for those on bikes and particularly for those walking.

On the whole I think these plans are some of the best AT have produced. My biggest gripe is we can’t roll them out to more of the city

Feedback is open till Sunday 23 April. There are also two public sessions

  • Saturday 8 April, 10am – 2.30pm at Pt Chevalier Library, 1221 Great North Road, Pt Chevalier.
  • Wednesday 12 April, 5pm – 8pm at Nomad Restaurant and Bar, 5 Pt Chevalier Road, Pt Chevalier.
Share this


  1. Isn’t there enough space for proper separation of the bike paths? A bus 30cm from my shoulder is still no fun, even if I’m in my own bike lane.

    1. I’d be more concerned when cars are parked there. Most of the sections with car parking next to a cycleway don’t seem to feature a buffer of any note for passenger car doors to open

      1. It’s not detailed design yet – you will notice that those cycleways next to parking are 2.1m wide. Enough to put in a proper door buffer.

        1. …except then they become narrow protected cycleways, not really conducive for easy overtaking others – maybe that’s not really a thing in Auckland yet?

  2. Here we go again

    I checked out the new St Lukes cycle lane last weekend and was shocked at the lack of room afforded to the main users of the road. There is absolutely nowhere to go as a driver if anything goes wrong as can happen from time to time. There will be more crashes on this road courtesy of the cyclelane, of that I have no doubt.

    Then hot on the heels of that failure we have the next case of Inadequate Vehicle Provision (IVP). Having lived in the area I can see some major issues with this proposal. The most obvious being the existing roads aren’t wide enough for the above proposal. It’s insanity to try and cram this proposal on the existing roading infrastructure in this area. There are many houses in the area that require substantial on-street parking as they were built pre-vehicle and don’t have vehicular facilities. Then there is the soccer club which has inadequate parking on it’s premises and requires substantial parking support in the immediate area.

    There is very little walking in this area because there is nowhere to go and nothing to see. This proposal sucks.

    1. Wow, you realise that they haven’t changed the lane allocation on St Luke Rd right, they’ve just installed plastic wobble posts to stop drivers illegally driving in the cycle lanes… so basically, you want no impediment to driving over the cycleway and over the footpath should you decide to swerve? Maybe you should just hand in your license if you can’t deal with staying in your lane under a range of conditions.

      1. Given the lack of cycle lane usage it makes perfect sense to leave a level of flexibility between road and cycle lane. Why cut off the cycle lane when a driver could potentially utilise it to avoid a crash? Likewise if a cyclist can utilise the road in a safe manner why pin them into the cycle lane?

        1. >> Given the lack of cycle lane usage it makes perfect sense to leave a level of flexibility between road and cycle lane.

          FTFY: ‘Given how many drivers think they should be allowed to treat the cycle lane as part of the general traffic lane, it makes perfect sense that cycling uptake is depressed.’

        2. Some flexible plastic posts are too much of a restriction & danger to these lords of creation. Deary me. Are you the person who complained when they started putting footpaths on a kerb too?

          Drive to the conditions. The condition is: You. Are. In. A. City.

    2. There hasn’t been on street parking on St Lukes Road for years. Nothing is changing apart from making it more difficult for vehicles to intrude into the cycle lane.

    3. Good lord your on form today! As a hint don’t ever move to Wellington as I don’t think you would be able to cope with driving on their narrow roads.

      The residents might have to retrofit off-street parking for some of those houses if they value storing their private possessions that highly.

    4. So you want to be able to swerve blindly into the cycle lane if something unexpected happens? Gosh, that makes me feel super safe riding on painted lanes.

    5. Blimey, you really are creative with your facts TRM. Go back on site, walk the whole site, look closely again at how the (upgraded) bike lanes are deployed, then tell us that your claims are still 100% accurate. Facepalm.

    6. Wait, who will you be crashing into on St Lukes Rd? There is a massive grass median separating the lanes of traffic. So who would you need to swerve into the cycle lane to avoid?

      All the drivers I’ve seen in the St Lukes cycle lane were either treating it as a car lane or had pulled over (on yellow lines) to talk on the phone…

    7. A+ trolling!

      (I know Max gave you an A- for hyperbole, but I’m giving you full marks for letting me do this)

      “There is very little walking in this area because there is nowhere to go and nothing to see.”

      Come for a walk with me. I promise we’ll stay inside a circle with a radius of less than 1.5km, centred around the middle of Meola Road. I’m sure we’ll find you something to see.
      – Auckland Zoo
      – Motat 1
      – Motat 2
      – Western Springs Park
      – Seddon Fields
      – Meola Dog Park
      – Pt Chevalier Scout Hall
      – Western Springs College
      – Pt Chevalier Primary
      – Pt Chevalier Shops (including the library)
      – Westmere Primary
      – Garnet Road shops (kick-ass butcher!)
      – Meola Coastal Walk
      – Pt Chevalier Cub Den
      – Coyle Park
      – Route to NorthWestern Shared Park
      – TAPAC
      – Te Mahurehure Cultural Marae
      – Pasadena Intermediate
      – Pt Chevalier Beach
      – Probably 10-15 daycare centres
      – Westpoint Performing Arts Centre
      – Jaggers Bush Reserve
      – Westmere Kindergarten
      – Hawke Sea Scouts Hall
      – Walker Park
      – West Lynn Shops
      – Coxs Bay Reserve
      – St Francis School
      – Selwyn Village
      – Pt Chevalier tennis, bowling, croquet clubs
      – My mum’s place
      – My sister’s place
      – Nearly all of my kids’ friends houses
      – 5-10 Pt Chevalier Road cafés and restaurants
      – About 15 small reserves and playgrounds

      …and that’s just off the top of my head, having walked and ridden around the area for a few years and noticed stuff. Pretty cool area to live in, eh. Any of these tickle your fancy? If you don’t like zoos, for example, we could stop for a beer or a soda water and talk about cars. I quite like cars. In the right context.

  3. With St Lukes Road the solution is simple – you drive with your right hand wheel on the grass in the middle. It will turn the grass into a soggy mess, but that can be fixed with asphalt.

  4. Looks good but still appears a little lacking at the intersections (both the T and the roundabout) for right turning cyclists.

  5. Meola Rd is already very tight and in reality at the moment it cannot accommodate the buses that use it with opposing traffic and parked cars. I can’t see where the extra road width is going to come from unless the footpaths that do exist especially at the Pt Chev Rd end are going to get even skinnier, meaning tough shit for pedestrians yet again.

    Speed tables at intersections only slow everything right down to the point of dysfunction. Buses have to traverse at about 10 km/hr lest they bottom out and throw passengers about. And dear god, traffic lit controlled intersection at Pt Chev Rd. The answer to a question that does not exist. Bound to be traffic problems after that one. Have AT got a bottomless pit of money with those kind of unnecessary add ons?

    1. Actually, the situation on Meola is arguably getting better for drivers (more width), because currently parking is allowed on BOTH sides.

    2. You’re right, Waspman. I have measured the width of the Meola Rd bridge and it cannot accommodate the design at all. It can, if it uses the design for further up Pt Chev Rd, without the parking bays, and keeping the footpaths tiny tiny as they are.

      But no pedestrian crossing to replace the removed pedestrian refuge at the Meola Rd bridge? Jaysus, those Springs students have to walk single file unless they cross over. Be nice if we could actually have designs for our youth.

      No pedestrian crossing by the mid-Meola Rd bus stops either. Would be nice to have the students, Motat and Zoo visitors be able to come by bus – safely!

      1. Huh, what do you mean – I see loss of stretches of on-street parking along Meola and Pt Chev Road…
        I’m all for it, but surely it’s false to say there’s no loss?

  6. A very real issue here, and why these lanes at the very least are needed, is the likely gridlock at the Pt Chev motorway junction that the opening of Waterview will bring. This is likely to significantly increase drivers on SH16 and outer Great North Rd avoid SH16 towards the city and rat run on Pt Chev/Meola and inner GNR even more than they do now, which is already seeing a big increase.

    This is tragic because a primary justification in building these enormous structures is ‘relieving local roads’, sadly when these are as badly conceived and designed as the SH16 upgrade has been, with no Rapid Transit component, this benefit not only will not occur, but in fact the reverse is the more likely outcome.

    Bigger motorways and lack of alternatives induce more driving, and more efficiently bring infarcting clots of traffic to constriction points, and drivers, being rational, are thereby incentivised to use any opportunity to avoid the clogged motorway.

    Unless local streets are slowed, protected, and narrowed, they will fast become parallel arterial traffic sewers to the often dysfunctional motorways instead of the ‘received’ local places as promised…

    1. +1, this is a big part of the reason we desperately need separated cycle lanes and transit lanes on what will be the ‘missing link’ of GNR from Waterview to Surrey Crescent.

    2. You’re spot on as usual, Patrick. This is the real problem: the huge festering wound of traffic volume (induced demand) can’t be fixed with a tiny bandaid. I just popped out on my bike to count the trees that will be lost on Pt Chev Rd (12 Pohutukawa many of which are getting to a good filtering-the-air size). And was breathing in foul fumes even in the middle of the day.

      Real solution – increase housing density, stop building roads.

      Solution for Pt Chevalier – lower speed limit to 20 km on residential roads (nice and safe for bikes on all the back roads, then). Make buses free for children – currently it costs $35 to take soccer kid with two team mates and a sibling down to soccer practice if you’re coming from Three Lamps – or $21 if you’re coming from Alberta Ave. ATrocious. And stop through traffic. After all, isn’t that what Spaghetti West is for?

      1. Sounds like you’re not using hop cards?
        4 kids @ 99c each = $8 return
        + your own fare $3.15 = $6.30 return
        = $14.30 from three lamps on a weekend
        = $20.70 on a weekday

        1. I do use HOP cards and I purposely quoted the cash fare. You can see the cash fare is unreasonable to start with, anyway? Concessions are fine, but why should the cash fare be so high?

          The reason I quoted the cash fare is that the AT HOP has so many issues, parents in this situation often end up paying the cash fare. I have just lodged a letter of feedback about this. Some of the issues are:

          -child cards can randomly revert to charging adult fares (roughly equivalent to the cash fare). Who knew? I have years owing me for the difference in child and adult fares, and it was a bus driver who alerted me to why the card was doing this, so it’s obviously something others have experienced
          -it is inappropriate for adults to register child cards to a child if that child is not their own. So if children are driven to soccer by one family one week, taken by bus the next week, the bus user parent is unable to get a card for the child, and it is inappropriate to ask the other family to pay for the bus because they are already paying their share with petrol and car costs.
          -keeping multiple cards (eg 5 – for Mum or Dad, soccer kid, sibling, two team mates) all topped up and not lost is a genuine hassle, made worse by the delay for the top up to be accessible. Many cash fares are paid because the card has only just been topped up. And auto top up is not an option when you’re scared you’re going to lose or lose track of some of the many cards.
          -why would you want to multiple cards for a child when the child turns 16 and all of a sudden they are invalid. Well, that’s a simplification of a whole new basket of problems, but in essence, a 16-year-old is only allowed one concession card, and it can’t have a concession on it if it was linked to the parent’s account. so they have to set up a new account with a new card…

          I could go on. I call it AT HOP FAIL. Having said that, I love the buses, and I want AT to sort this so more people can enjoy them too. I seriously believe many, many of our congestion problems would be solved by making children ride free.

  7. We are making progress. But, some thoughts:

    The parking bays left of the cycle lanes is a weak point. The problem won’t be limited to dooring, but also cars parking too far from the kerb and partially blocking the cycle lane. About dooring, doesn’t anyone over here teach their children to not open car doors into traffic?

    About the speed tables:

    – Are those similar to the one for example across Park Avenue in Grafton? It is a bit odd to have a treatment like that, and still have priority for cars crossing that speed table.
    – Also in that sketch the stop line is still in the wrong place (flush with car lanes). Will we at least have the cycle lane painted across those side streets?

    And those other intersections:

    – Is there any way we can get those cycle lanes to continue across intersections? The current default — having cycle lanes only between intersections, is a problem especially when turning right. Same goes for that roundabout. When turning right on a bicycle, will you have to give way three (!) times to cars? Or go all vehicular, which is weird in the presence of cycle lanes.

    – And, on that roundabout the raised speed tables are back. Are those used as some kind of politically correct zebra crossing or what?

  8. “simply by using the vast central median” – actually a former tram ROW, it wasn’t designed as a vast median. So bus lanes would just be reclaiming the original function.

    I wonder if there is a plan for Seddon Fields parking on the days they are fully in use (where very full on street parking is the current norm). In this case actual full cars of children + adults are coming from wide areas to this magnet facility.

    1. Re: weekend soccer: As a parent of kids who use the area, I’m fascinated to see how quickly the carparks-for-bikelanes equation balances out. I know of four families in our street alone (Warwick Ave) who drive one kid each to soccer at Seddon Fields, at the same time. Four cars, a 5-minute drive. We ride our bikes whenever possible – you get a warm-up in before the game, you can park at the stairs leading up to the clubrooms, and it’s just plain fun. But we’re rabid bikers, whereas other families are far less confident. So, a lack of parking, + great safe bike infrastructure, might just = more riders, fewer parkers. Healthier kids, healthier parents, more drinks sold by dairies on the way home… bring it on.

      1. The numbers who cycle will obviously increase with better/safer cycling lanes but you have to be realistic about Meola Rd and parking.

        There are many visiting teams to Seddon Fields for whom it is simply not practical to cycle or ride to the fields. Also, asking your young kids to ride home uphill, tired, wet and cold at night in the middle of Winter is a high hurdle.

        It’s also not only Seddon Fields, when MOTAT has an open day parking is tightand many of those visitors are not local.

        The answer is the big chunk of land that MOTAT owns and has earmarked for parking, see slide 5


        1. More parking provided – more traffic generated.

          Make buses free, instead, at least for the children. I’m a cycling mum and have done the soccer mum thing with both my boys. Sometimes the bus would just have been easier on little exhausted kiddies. But waaay too expensive.

        2. It’s already 99c for any journey with children, would making it any cheaper actually make any difference?

        3. Well, I’m open to hearing your ideas. The 99 cent fares are for children during weekends and public holidays. (Although my son was charged $2.78 to go from Pt Chevalier to Takapuna on Tuesday.) If the 99c fare is now all the time, please let me know. I can’t find anything on the AT site to suggest it though. Maybe they’ve responded to my campaigning? Yay.

          So as I think it stands, the 99c fare won’t affect the weekday afternoon and evening practice chaos.

          Besides, the cash fares are what people will experience when they first experiment with using the bus, and they are not 99c fares, but $1.80 and $3 per child per leg. That will put them off.

          Maybe I’m foolish to think that it would make a difference, but I do think that people will choose the bus when they are just comparing car costs with one person’s bus fare. It doesn’t stack up when there’s a car load of children. Yet they are the citizens we need to most encourage to use the bus.

        4. Sorry, was thinking weekends. I actually agree that child fares should be 99c all of the time

  9. Totally off topic but funny on air discussion today about Kapiti Expressway, people complaining their commute is now slower because of a new bottleneck that’s been created. Now everyone’s looking forward to Transmission Gully to finally fix all congestion problems forever. Wonder what the next great hope will be once the realisation sets in that TG isn’t a cure for cancer after all

  10. It’s great to be able to re-allocate road space but soon they will have to seriously consider widening to include bus and cycle lanes. Is that verboten?
    A local example is Carrington Rd (~25 k vehicles/day, 1.6 km): There is space for two lanes of general traffic and some cycle lane provision but no space for bus lanes. The New Network was going to allocate 12 buses each way per hour, 12 hours a day. The final plan is eight buses each way. Doesn’t that justify a bus lane(s)?
    A similar example is Great North Rd between West Coast Rd and Clark St. (~45 k vehicles/day, 4 lanes, ~1.5 km long).
    The New Network (West) allocates a minimum of nine buses per hour each way (7 am-7 pm). How can this be reliable at the peaks? This will be one of the PT trunks feeding New Lynn Train Station in a designated metropolitan centre.
    So, will widening for bus lanes and active modes on ‘local roads’ ever pass a business case in Auckland?

  11. Great work from AT. I hope the public consultation gets a lot of positive feedback for the safer cycle lanes.

    But why the public consultation phase? I see they’ve chosen not to listen to the 75% who voted Option 3 on the Mt. Albert Town Centre Upgrade – They’ve gone for Option 1 which got 3% of the vote… sad not to mention a little suspicious.

    1. It will be part of the Notice of Requirement (like a Resource Consent) that they have to consult I suspect

      Do you think the plan is

      A. Very good
      B. Incredibly Good
      C. Extremely Good

      I read somewhere that the cost associated with consulting over the placement of a new Bus Stop is far more than the cost of the Bus Stop itself.

  12. There are some really good aspects to this plan but I think there a a few issues

    1. How are they planning to handle the bus stops on Meola Rd?

    2. I think the single laning of the Meola roundabout could be troublesome, the traffic backs up there already in the morning and evening rush hours. 80% of the traffic does go around the roundabout but stopping the “straight through” lane will be frustrating.

    3. By far the biggest and most contentious will be removing all the parking on the Northern side of Meola.
    This will be problematic for Seddon Fields, MOTAT and the dog walking park not matter how much you encourage locals to cycle to Soccer.

    Can the conversion of the large tranche of vacant land that MOTAT owns on it’s Southern side to parking be progressed before the parking is removed from the Northern side of Meola Rd? That land is apparently earmarked for parking but there are drainage and cost issues.

    1. I agree. This design has completely failed to understand the Meola section. The dog park and Seddon fields are mostly ignored. This is the only central dog park. I expect this cycle lane to be blocked continually by vehicles (as we see with the bottom of Nelson St). I commute this route by bike and the north side (by the dog park) usually has overflow from the inadequate car park. Seddon fields parking spills over continually. You would expect it to be mostly weekends but it happens weekdays with practices too.

      1. Agree. The dog park needs more parking (but not in AT scope of course! ). It is not like dogs are allowed on buses! And I’m sure the other cyclist won’t want dogs tethered to bikes in their precious lane. So parking needs to stay on North side near park as not really safe to cross road with dogs plus kids etc. Maybe remove it from South in that area. However there is plenty of room for shared paths on both sides of Meola by making the new north side path and widening the south. Note the plan removes the marked centre line on Meola as the width is less that AT’s own minimum for a 16k vpd road which is 3.0 meters per lane. The preferred width is 3.5m.

    2. Making the whole roundabout single lane with smaller raised centre will be a nightmare if you are not with 90% traffic. What it needs is a slip lane at top of hill turning left into Garnett to keep traffic flowing. For the opposite direction it probably does need to be single line from Garnett north but two lane from south to give cars a cane to enter safety.

  13. It sure is a pity this conversation has dried up. The sections show relocated trees on the footpath of Pt Chevalier Rd – but AT have confirmed to me that there won’t be any trees put there – they are still looking for places for trees! (So why were they drawn in??) How many cyclists have supported this plan not realising it’s going to be a treeless ugly streetscape?

    The cycle lanes – which are shown typically as 1.8m, but range from 1.5m to over 2m – will probably have the half a metre buffer between bikes and cars subtracted from it. I can’t imagine them taking it from the car lane. This will leave 1.0m to 1.3m (typical) and so on, including the gutter. This does not provide for “cyclists of all confidence levels”. Who wants to be stuck in a gutter? Who wants to be stuck behind a 7 year old on a bike? Worse, AT indicated a buffer space on the Garnet Rd section, but didn’t on the other sections. (Why not? They obviously knew about the space required!) How many cyclists have supported this plan because they thought they’d actually get the 1.8m typically shown?

    Sorry, Great Auckland, if this is some of AT’s best work, we are doomed. Not that I blame the cycling and walking team – they were just hamstrung by the general road-building thrust of AT.

    This is a plan for cars, and makes the cyclists, pedestrians, stormwater and nature fight it out for the little bit of space left over.

  14. Westmere Resident.
    I am pleased that there is a consultation process as I am sure this will improve the eventual outcome.
    The family has been in Westmere for over fifty years and two generations have attended the local college. I hope people appreciate that these ideas are just my own and I don’t have any affiliations and or agendas. My Background is in transport engineering (Vehicles not roads) and teaching although I have ventured out into other fields of industrial design.
    For me this exercise is about the best melding of a number of usage demands with the physical reality of the sites under consideration. Fortunately for us the former Tram system on Garnet Road and the width of Point Chevalier Road lend themselves to more flexibility of design.
    Unfortunately the current layout of most of Meola road is not adequate for the peak traffic flows it currently experiences. The simple reality is that it is a narrow suburban road that is being used as a major arterial route and is not appropriately functional for its current usage.
    In the future I can see a “Greening” of the private traffic fleet and potentially autonomous vehicles operating, however I believe we will be dealing predominantly with vehicles of a similar physical size, weight, and speed in this area. It is my view that Meola road will remain an important arterial route in the inner city and it is far more likely to experience greater peak traffic flows in the future with the opening of the Owairaka Tunnel and the increasing population and housing density in Auckland.
    It would be fundamentally dishonest to ignore the significance of this opportunity to ensure that Meola Road is also addressed for its current deficiencies as a vehicle road; given that the vast majority of its users and its fundamental purpose is transportation. I would be very surprised if the vehicle to cyclist count on this route is lower than 500:1 and the pedestrian count something like 50:1
    I believe it is clearly understood that the safest place for a cyclist is not on a road. I have personally witnessed both cyclists and pedestrians being struck by negligent drivers. Despite the ethical/legal rights and wrongs of the situation the cyclist and pedestrian bore the entirety of the major physical injuries.
    The removal or reduction of risk to both pedestrians and cyclists is a matter of simple physics. The collision of pedestrians’ v cyclist or cyclist v cyclists is on a hugely lower scale of intensity and potential harm than either of the above group’s v vehicles. However the risks of vehicle on vehicle collision should also not be lost sight of in dealing with this issue holistically.
    I believe a dedicated off road pedestrian and cycle safe zone is vital given that the vast majority of these users are attending schools in the area. We do not only have a large pedestrian and cyclist population in the area, they are the more vulnerable and less experienced With the redevelopment of Springs and the continuation of Pasadena being zoned schools for Both Point Chevalier and Westmere communities this is not likely to change.
    At a secondary level we have a number of community facilities on Meola road that need to remain functional and serviceable going forward. Eg Motat, Scout Den, Performing arts, Dog park, Meola reef walkways, and the Sports fields.
    From my perspective the Meola road section of this upgrade simply does not have sufficient physical width in a number of differing sections to accommodate the more generous solutions able to be achieved on garnet and Point Chevalier roads. If near complete separation is to be achieved within the space available then it is my view that something else has to give. The space and economics do not support having dual cycle ways, parking, dual footpaths and a functional road.
    If you are not going to encroach or remove houses then the only other spaces are the on road car-parking or the green berm. They both have amenity value to the community.
    My Solution
    As I have stated I believe it is unnecessary to have a cycle way on both sides of Meola road. The volume of Cycle traffic going to the Scout Den, reef, or Dog Park is negligible. The vast majority of these ambulatory users are going to the Schools and the sports fields.
    The single cycle way needs to be on the Schools and Sports ground side of the road.
    However that means that the ability of both cyclists and pedestrians to cross the Meola section at a number of points needs to be included and improved as far as possible. If the Meola/Pt Chev junction becomes light controlled a pedestrian sequence would be automatic.
    From my perspective the need for parking on the roads to support the local community and big facilities is more significant than the retention of the green berm and given the constraints we have that is what we need to sacrifice to meet the new objectives. Given that most of the old trees that were pollarded years ago are not native their removal could be mitigated by further planting in the open green spaces on Meola Road , Jagger’s bush or the reef area.
    In the Point Chev residential section removing the green berms give the necessary space to allow for full footpaths, a single dedicated cycleway , or cycleway integrated with the pedestrian space, and a slight road widening that allow the parking to be retained and the traffic to still flow when a bus stops in either direction. There would need to be widening or a new dedicated pedestrian bridge at the crossing of Meola creek. The existing green berm would need modification to allow space for the continuous cycleway on the city side.
    I believe that a slight widening of the road and improved turning bays to facilitate safer access to the community services are required and the space exists to achieve this. Where turning bays and Bus stops don’t encroach further parking opportunities that are not in conflict with traffic flow could be included.
    A light controlled or patrolled crossing at the Motat entrance will be required to interconnect with the existing undersize bus stop. This should be tied to the completion of the pedestrian foot path section absent from the seaward side of the centre of Meola road so that the school population can transition safely to either side of Meola road away from the heavy traffic intersections and avoid the dash across the traffic that currently exist in a couple of pinch points.
    An additional footbridge at Motions creek would be needed to service the cycle way. This could be either separated or integrated.

  15. Hi, all good points, CMF. I agree with a good many of them. You probably won’t get many people reading this forum now, unfortunately. Even though the submission period is over, it is probably worth writing to AT with these ideas. You may be interested in reading the submissions of others, once they are available. In particular, you might be interested in the submission by Transition Pt Chevalier, which highlights many of the points you raise. We have a slightly different set of solutions but basically see the same issues that you do.

    The needs of children crossing to Meola Rd are definitely something the plan needs to accommodate, as the bus stop location and the pedestrian refuges are accidents-in-waiting.

    It sounds like your family must have moved to the area fairly soon after Meola Rd was built. Pity that the building of that road has resulted in the slow development of an arterial route through Pt Chev Rd, Meola Rd, Garnet Rd, West End Rd. Bike Auckland has some wonderful posts by Jolisa Gracewood on the history of transport in the area. Happy reading:



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *