The Nelson St Cycleway has been a fantastic addition to the city and phase two, from Victoria St to Market Place is currently under construction. Auckland Transport are now consulting on the third and final stage which will see the cycleway extended to link in to the Quay St cycleway.

The route will see the cycleway travel along the tree lined Market Place, before turning down Customs St west and then along Lower Hobson St. This is shown on the map below. You may recall this route was the outcome of an earlier consultation in which AT had proposed sending the cycleway along Sturdee St and would have been a poor, and less attractive, outcome for users.

As part of the proposal there will be a number of changes to the three streets, including turning Market Place into a one-way street. AT have broken the information down into three sections, one for each of the affected streets. Here’s what AT have to say about them:

Market Place (between Pakenham Street East and Customs Street West)

To create space for the cycleway and retain parking, we would need to change Market Place to 1-way northbound traffic movement only.

The cycleway would be located on the western side of the road at road level, separated from traffic by raised buffer islands and at driveway crossings by rubber speed humps.

Angle parking on the western side of the road would be removed, and parking on the eastern side would change from parallel to angle parking. This rearrangement minimises the loss of parking on Market Place to only two spaces.

Trees along Market Place would be retained

Removing an entire direction of traffic must have caused consternation for some at AT but good on those involved for looking at the option. In addition to the cycleway, the new pedestrian infrastructure, like the crossings on the raised tables at each end of the street, will help improve walkability and be a welcome addition to the plans.

Moving on, here’s what is said about the 4th of the series

Customs Street West (between Market Place and Lower Hobson Street)

We propose locating the cycleway on the northern side of the road and separating it from traffic by raising it level with the existing footpath.

So deliveries are not impaired, we would ensure surfaces are flush by using painted and/or textured surfaces to delineate walking and cycling areas.

A buffer zone in the first 1.2m of footpath would provide a landing area for deliveries.

A 41m loading zone (which is greater than the current loading allocation) would be installed adjacent to the footpath.

Delivery people and other users would need to cross the space allocated for cyclists, and care would need to be taken while everyone adjusts to the new arrangement.

Some trees may need to be removed or relocated.

Four car parks on the north side of the road would be removed, and the angle parking on the south side would change to parallel. Overall, the number of car parks would reduce by 16; however, this would be offset by large car parking buildings in the area.

The thing that concerns me the most about this section is that the proposed layout (on AT’s site) shows the cycleway at just 2.8m wide which is fairly narrow.

and the final section

Lower Hobson Street (between Customs Street West and Quay Street)

We propose locating the cycleway on the western side of the road and separating it from traffic by raising it level with the footpath.

So deliveries are not impaired, we would ensure surfaces are flush by using painted and/or textured surfaces to delineate walking and cycling areas.

The tour coach parking would be moved to Customs Street West. The Explorer Bus would be relocated outside of the project area.

The loading zone and taxi stand would shift to the outside edge of the cycleway, and operation would be restricted to between 7pm and 7am. This would mean that, during the day, we maintain 2 northbound traffic lanes.

For daytime loading activities, we are proposing a number of options, including re-allocating 7 car parking spaces to 5 Loading Zone spaces under the adjacent flyover for smaller delivery vehicles and providing a 20.5m loading zone on the eastern side of Lower Hobson Street. The design plan shows 4 options, and we would like to hear from delivery people which arrangement would best support deliveries in the area.

A raised crossing at the traffic lights where Customs Street West meets Lower Hobson Street would provide flush access between the new loading zones and the western side of Lower Hobson Street.

Overall I think AT have done a decent job here. It’s a pretty tricky area of town to thread things through.

Feedback is open till Sunday 1 October.

Share this


  1. I guess we’ll build up our own statistics about two way cycleways. I’ve read Finnish research that shows they are more dangerous. Personally, I hate cycling at night next to oncoming traffic because I can’t see anything with the headlights directed right into my eyes.

    I like the cycleway being raised to footpath level, but 2.8m is way too narrow for a two way cyclelane.

    Hope the trees can stay. Wonder why the arborist couldn’t ascertain whether they could stay before the documents were finished. Seems to be standard practice, and needs to change.

    1. Yes – I was knocked off my bike on the 2 way bike lane on Quay St as I was approaching the ferry terminal from the east. The driver exiting Queens Wharf habitually looked to his right to check for cars on his side of the road – and – crash, he rolled into me. Luckily I read the situation, braked hard and bailed off unhurt. But buckled front wheel and other more minor damage to the bike.
      So no, I’m not too keen on the 2-way aspects of this plan

  2. This seems like a really good way to maintain essential access and allow safe cycling journeys. I think we are too worried about the width; this is a narrow road with competing demands and cyclists should be going slow.

    1. Yes think they done a pretty good job from what I can see, do you know how wide is the bi-directional existing Nelson St Cycleway for reference?

  3. They are proposing a two-legged hop to cross Quay Street, which seems unnecessary – is it not already a Barnes dance?

      1. Yes, that’s what everyone will do, so it should be permitted with road markings (or removal of all directional crossing markings) to avoid confusion and conflict.

  4. As an aside, AT’s website was confusing, as seems to have labeled Phase 2 heading wrong (“Phase 2: Nelson Street to Quay Street and Beresford Square to Hobson Street”) & doesn’t have nice design PDF maps of this phase (ie the one already under construction) – just has the blurry ones buried in the feedback report. Sure is a confusing intersection area there.

    1. Originally, Phase 1 was Lightpath and Nelson Street as far as Victoria and Phase 2 was K Road to Nelson Street (via Pitt Street) and Victoria Street to Quay Street. Their website is a bit of a mess of this old phasing and the new phasing.

  5. It’s pretty disappointing that, in the second image, AT haven’t included the Victoria Street, Franklin Road, K Road, or Great North Road cycleways which are coming up, or the rest of the completed Beach Road cycleway.

    1. Probably take Market Place to Pakenham Street East to Customs Street West to Viaduct Harbour Avenue to Halsey Street to Fanshawe Street.

      Either that, or just go East on Customs Street West.

      1. Is quite right? Market Pl will be one way north not south. But only after Pakenham St E ie, towards the North Shore direction. Ahhh maybe you mean if you start on the southern end of Market Pl, but in that case you can just go south.

    2. Market Place strikes me as the sort of street that should just be turned into a shared space, like Jean Batten Place and that end of Fort St. Then we wouldn’t need a dedicated bike bit along that stretch

  6. I wonder if angle parking should be backed into in these areas as a start to a universal change for NZ. Australian experience makes it a far more preferable way of dealing with angle parking.

  7. Can someone intelligent (that rules out a lot of you) tell me why AT is doing separate consultation for stage 3 of a project?

    Not only is this cost inefficient it’s mind numbingly stupid. These cycle paths form a network so stage 3 affects stages 1&2 and vice versa. If there was a potential issue with stage 3 this should be dealt with prior to stage 1 being built.

    The only reason you would do this is to subvert democracy by building the first two stages. By doing so any issues with stage 3 become insignificant relative to completing the network rather than being dealt with in a civilised and professional manner.

    1. So you want people to treat you “in a civilised and professional manner.” and you then write “Can someone intelligent (that rules out a lot of you).” Hypocrisy seems to be your main trait – either that or a complete lack of self insight.
      And by the way, of course someone “can” tell you but whether they “would” or not is another matter entirely.

    2. He would have opposed it either way. So nothing to see here but his ideology and, as you say, lack of real insight into the issue at all.

    3. Stage three wasn’t confirmed when Stage 1 and 2 were planned. It had a couple of options that were dependent on other projects and on consultation with residents and stakeholders. At one point they were looking at not doing it at all and moving on to other cyleways instead. They thought the residents on Market Place would be against using that road for a cycleway, but turns out they weren’t once they had some exposure to the design and input. Rather than subverting democracy they were not being autocratic by forcing a predetermined solution.

      You’re do it all at once or never do anything approach is, frankly, foolish. Thats simply not an effective way to develop a living, breathing, growing city, and certainly how things can get done in practice.

  8. Unfortunately I drive southbound on Market Place every day to get out of the city from Quay St without getting stuck on the overpass. When the overpass also goes, I guess I’ll have to find a way to Customs St but that doesn’t seem like it’ll be particularly easy (considering it already isn’t). Ideally, I wouldn’t leave the city by driving across it anyway… but the SH16 port to SH1 connection is barely functional. Motorways should connect to motorways without metering, otherwise city streets do get “misused”.

    1. So quite a positive outcome for the area then isn’t it, I’m sure there are many others like yourself that rat-run through the area to avoid ‘traffic’ in reality simply spreading the traffic you are yourself a part of, making it more unpleasant for those living, working, walking, driving, biking, dining here. Now that this option is gone for you, the area can be enjoyed, rather than have cars driving through it on the way to a freeway.

      1. Hey… like I said, I wish it wasn’t the best way to avoid burning fuel in traffic, but it is. I’m hoping that as Market Pl can be made into a better Market Pl, so the SH16 to SH1 North connection can be made better too… then people like me can get from the eastern CBD to the north without driving across the CBD at all. (BTW… I take slight offence at it being called “rat running” when this site also clearly hates the overpass… I’m avoiding using it to help prove it need not be there).

        1. The Grafton Gully motorway was built for the promised purpose that it would remove rat-running through the city such as from East to North Shore. What else is it you want? An elevated freeway along Quay Street as was also originally proposed.

          No offence intended and not sure why you are taking offence at me saying you’re rat running. Taking this short cut as well as driving across the central city rather than using the motorway is the definition of rat running.

          “Rat running or rodent running or cut-through driving is the practice by motorists of using residential side streets or any unintended short cut such as a parking lot, delivery service lane or cemetery road instead of the intended main road in urban or suburban areas.”

        2. I want the motorways to actually connect without a traffic light so it’s not faster to use city streets.

        3. I live here, next to the Market Place, and this sort of rat running manefests itself in high speed encounters between cars and people – with us trying to cross the road, bicycle or navigate pushing a pram. It’s not ok.

  9. Seems unclear with AT’s Option A Loading Zone West Side of Lower Hobson St (last graphic – main picture) is the existing 5 angled parking places to be replaced with foot path like in option C? Same blue colour, so would think so, but could be one big loading zone that they mean (I would doubt it is). Think I’m with Bike Auckland on this one where option D should be taken. “Option D is likely to be best: it provides the most loading zone flexibility, which reduces risk of issues with parking on the cycleway.”

  10. It’s actually not too bad a design. If only we had more one way roads, then we could fit cycle ways in everywhere. I expect the cycle lane will be too small in a few years as the cycle network grows. A

  11. Why don’t they close the short section of Pakenham Street East between Market Pl and Sturdee St. There were plans to turn the public toilets into a cafe. A new “Pakenham Plaza” could be great here.

Leave a Reply

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