Last week the Climate Change Commission released their draft recommendations and the supporting evidence on how to meet our domestic 2030 and 2050 emissions targets. There was a lot to be positive about, such as them linking transport emissions to urban form and it was good to see them linking together that some solutions to address climate change can also go a long way to addressing some of our other urban challenges.
However, one area we’ve been particularly disappointed about with the recommendations has been the unambitious position the commission has taken on the role of mode-shift in meeting our targets. In fact in some cases, their suggestions would mean we’d have to slow down the growth of non-car modes.
In addition to changing the vehicles we drive, changes to how and how much New Zealanders travel play an important role in our path. We assume the average household travel distance per person can be reduced by around 7% by 2030, for example through more compact urban form and encouraging remote working. We also assume that the share of this distance travelled by walking, cycling and public transport can be increased by 25%, 95% and 120% respectively by 2030. Overall, this would see total household vehicle travel staying relatively flat despite a growing population
These are national figures, even so, they seems to considerably underestimate the opportunity we have available to us, in particular with cycling. This is because while the levels of public transport growth required are mainly going to need to be met in Auckland and our few other major cities, increasing rates of cycling is something that could be easily achieved in towns and cities of all sizes all over the country.
There are now mountains of studies that show the single biggest determinant to getting people to ride bikes is the availability of a quality and connected bike network made up of safe infrastructure. This was highlighted even more visually last year during lockdown when the absence of cars created temporary ‘safe’ routes and resulted in huge numbers of people exploring their neighbourhoods by bike.
While our lockdown was thankfully short, the downside was it meant we didn’t get the chance to embed more permanent changes to our streets. That isn’t the case overseas though and some cities are seeing a huge boom in people riding bikes. Paris is one of those cities and recent research has highlighted the temporary cycle lanes have encouraged significant numbers of new riders with nearly 60% of users being new cyclists.
According to a report from the Ile de France department,(link is external) the Hotel de Ville – Paris’s equivalent of London’s City Hall – undertook a study to better understand who is using the new bike lanes. It found that 42 per cent of the cyclists interviewed at 12 different locations within the city were already riding there, prior to December 2019.
Some 14 per cent began cycling during the public transport strike of December 2019 and January 2020, before the first cases of coronavirus in France.
The study also revealed that prior to the pop-up bike lanes being put in place, women made up 36 per cent of cyclists in Paris, which has now risen to 41 per cent.
The proportion of women among new cyclists will therefore, by implication, be even higher – and as studies around the world, including the UK, have consistently shown, perception of danger is one of the biggest barriers to getting more women cycling, and providing safe infrastructure is regularly near the top of the wish list of those who would like to ride bikes.
The map below shows the extent of the existing and temporary cycle network with the latter significantly boosting and connecting up the network (interactive version here).
Rue de Rivoli, Paris, 7 juillet 2020 à 8h45. pic.twitter.com/mCxWm8t1JX
— Brice Perrin (@briceperrin) July 7, 2020
What’s more, 62% of Parisians favour making those lanes permanent.
Locally, what few bits of safe infrastructure we have tends to be largely isolated meaning we have few examples of a connected network. But in those few places we we have some semblance of connection, we’ve seen impressive results. Probably the most notable here is the Northwest path. Over the last decade or so the path has been extended, upgraded and had new connections added to it. Every time a new improvement has been added, usage has increased had doubled in the four years to early 2020 before COVID hit.
To highlight this, I’ve put together this video showing usage at Kingsland and Te Atatu since 2012 and the network of ‘safe’ infrastructure that exists. It’s worth noting that much of this network is shared paths rather than dedicated cycling infrastructure and in some cases the quality isn’t always the best, being too narrow/steep/bumpy etc.
Here’s the Kingsland graph just by itself.
To me the map also highlights just how small the actual network of safe routes we have is – and it’s not just me saying this, this is largely based of these maps by Auckland Transport.
A climate appropriate response would be to see a massive and rapid roll out of a safe network. That would open up the opportunity to cycle to a huge amount more people. What’s more, this is something that could be done in pretty much every town in the country.
Over in the UK, they’re setting an ambitious vision for walking and cycling and have set themselves this target.
In particular, there are many shorter journeys that could be shifted from cars, to walking, or cycling.
We want to see a future where half of all journeys in towns and cities are cycled or walked. 58% of car journeys in 2018 were under 5 miles. And in
urban areas, more than 40% of journeys were under 2 miles in 2017–18.
For many people, these journeys are perfectly suited to cycling and walking.
In Auckland, the recent report looking at congestion pricing found that half of all trips in the city are under 6km and 75% are under 12km.
And those <6km trips are happening over large parts of the region.
When it comes to New Zealand as a whole, Auckland and to a lesser extent Wellington, will be somewhat anomalous with having a higher proportion of long commutes. Many of our towns are barely 3km end to end, an easy cycling distance.
What’s more those longer distances become even easier when you consider the role e-bikes are increasingly playing. Local and international research has shown that e-bikes enable people to travel further by bike and also help in encouraging more women to cycle. This interview with local researcher Kirsty Wild helps highlight some of the local findings while this one from a study in Norway highlights an international example.
All of this suggests a less than doubling of cycling rates significantly underestimates or undervalues the role bikes can play in addressing our climate challenge.
A climate appropriate response would be to rapidly roll a comprehensive network of safe routes in towns all across the country, backed up by low traffic neighbourhoods. Instead of, or at least as well as, suggesting incentives to switch to electric vehicles, the commission needs to recommend the government provide incentives to e-bikes – which could also be much cheaper for the government given e-bikes are magnitudes cheaper than buying even non-electric cars.
Great animation Matt, really makes the network effect clear.
In NZ, Christchurch is probably the best example of a city successfully delivering on its cycleway program. Auckland could learn a thing or two from them. Unfortunately they’re still getting backlash for trying to add more: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/436176/it-s-an-overkill-it-s-unreasonable-council-urged-to-rethink-cycleway (for those unfamiliar, Harewood Rd is a 4 lane road in the suburbs carrying traffic volumes less than some 2 lane roads)
Fortunately not a successful attempt at delaying this (indeed, quite a waste of Council time – https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/124204879/consultation-on-controversial-19m-cycleway-goes-ahead-despite-push-to-halt-it). Meanwhile, cycle numbers are already growing at 10 percent pa in Chch (even before half the network is built), so doubling cycling in 10 years is hardly a stretch here…
Nice. Is anyone planning an autosubmit? There are other areas where the commission could have gone further – particularly around some specific advice about dense urban form.
I hope if people only have a chance to submit one thing, it will be that the CCC have severely underestimated cycling modeshare.
I reckon we could have locked down for a year and councils still would have found an excuse not to put safe cycling infrastructure in.
If you look at that number in Kingsland, even if you assume those are all rush hour commuters that still only amounts to under 1700 per day. Let’s say that is 1000 people per day where most are counted both ways.
That is nothing. It is less efficient use of space than a motorway lane. Or it is one or two extra trains.
We should be measuring 2000 cyclists in one hour during rush hour, not during an entire day. So why don’t we? Find the barriers and eliminate all of them. Is the cycleway itself wide enough? Are there bike lanes on all major streets nearby? Can you safely ride on the small residential streets? Don’t skip any.
But no — there is no action even after someone died. That sends a very powerful message to would-be cyclists.
Then there’s the rest of Auckland. In many areas you’d only get 1 or 2 % mode share even after a 10 fold increase.
I’ve said for ages they shouldn’t bother with cycle spending other than extending segregated cycleways from the northwestern cycleway. New cyclists aren’t going to bother with sections completely missing. It needs to be complete the whole way. So they should extend out from the spine of the motorway cycleways.
It will be great once they get the Skypath done. Hopefully this century some time.
Huh? The evidence above shows how every little improvement to our one route of highly variable quality is rewarded with new riders. Why wouldn’t we conclude from this that the more routes we add the greater the increase, until, boom, there are not longer just isolated routes, but there’s something of an actual network?
This is proof that the only difference between AKL and overseas cities with high cycling mode share numbers is a functional cycling network. That’s it, that’s all; proof of concept, the only question do we want a cycling mode share of say 10%?
Of course we do, the multiple benefits are so powerful so valuable, no thinking person could conclude otherwise.
Why isn’t it being pursued by Govt, council, agencies? It seems the last hurdle is persuading people that don’t themselves ride in today’s city that is so hostile to riding, that in an improved one, 1/10 other people won’t either.
This is unthinking, unsupportable status quo bias.
“they shouldn’t bother with cycle spending other than extending segregated cycleways from the northwestern cycleway”
That would be wise if the idea was to maximise the numbers on the NW cycleway, I guess. But the goal is to provide a safe network so people can move in a sustainable, cheap and healthy way, and independence can be returned to people who don’t drive.
This requires tackling the systemically unsafe transport system all over the city.
If we’re planning 5km of cycleways per year it should probably be connected to the existing ones like the northwestern path.
Is it lame? yes. But with an amount that low you’re not going to get coverage even 100 years from now. A few isolated stretches here and there would do even worse. You get a Franklin Road effect where you have your fancy cycleway, and it is useful only to the very small set of people who ride between 2 addresses on Franklin Road.
There’s not much you can do with only 5 km per year.
And even then, we know how this ends. The city’s immune system springs into action. We had a cycling and walking team, and now we don’t.
I agree that 5km per year is not nearly enough, by at least an order of magnitude.
However 5km could be transformational if it was used to create a continuous protected cycleway along a route. 5km is enough to build a cycleway from:
– St Mary’s Bay to Newmarket (including Ponsonby Rd, Newton Rd, Khyber Pass Rd and Broadway)
– CBD to Three Kings (including most of Mt Eden Rd)
– Western Springs to Epsom (including St Lukes Rd and Balmoral Rd)
That AT brought down the target to 5 km per year is sick. I don’t know what AT need to get some health back, but the triage should start right here, on this target.
Sure, safety is paramount, but why bother with a whole bunch of unconnected pieces? No one would drive if you had a whole set of unconnected roads and neither do potential cyclists. You won’t get the benefit of the network effect. The network should extend out from the NWC, not for the sake of more riders on it, but simply because it is the largest piece of safer cycle infra we have as a starting point. The network should extend out from there and progressively expand over time. Which is happening, but could be happening quicker if we didn’t waste so much time at other random spots.
Instead we get random cycleways in Mangere that no one uses. It will be a decade or two before they get well used. Once all the poor people are pushed out. Plus all the money spent painting in cycleways on the road was a waste of time because it doesn’t really make it safer for cyclists. Could have been spent on expanding a safe & connected network.
There’s a big difference between building random bits of cycleway and focusing all of our efforts on one part of the network.
I agree we should be focusing on a network but we should be focusing on more than one part of the network at once. Pick a few more key nodes to build out from.
Very nice work, Matt. This will be very useful.
It would be interesting to know if the cost of the sections of Northwestern cycleway were justified to carry flows of around 1000 per day.
No, what would be interesting would be to tote up the money spent on building roads that aren’t safe for cycling in the last 60 years and use the same amount to make it safe for cycling over the next 10 years, and then see what cycling modeshare in the city is.
That’s a fair comment if we take a short-term view.
If we look at the long term potential I think it is also is about the spare capacity in the cycleway. The motorway lanes max out at 1200 vph which are already at capacity whereas a cycleway can carry several times that.
Also in terms of wear and tear and maintenance costs, it probably won’t need to be touched for a while. Unlike the motorway which might need resurfacing every year or three. Or until all the ice melts and the entire causeway is underwater again.
No motorway lanes have capacities of up to 2000 vehicles per hour and some have been at that for years.
Spare capacity is great if you are an individual about to make a trip. But for a funding agency, being below your forecast flows after 25 years might indicate a waste of money. We are talking about 1000 bikes per day on the cycleway not per hour.
They are probably not justified without the rest of the network being built. Kind of like building a billion dollar motorway with no onramps.
It would be interesting to know whether the 150 new car parks at Hobsonville Pt justify the flows of 150 people on the ferry. It would be more interesting to know how many of those 150 people live within cycling distance of the car park.
It would be easy to economically justify 1000 bike trips a day – the health benefits of that are huge. And I don’t imagine it’s the same people all biking from one end to the other; there will be plenty of people taking advantage of sub-sections along the way to connect their origins/destinations. That makes for much more than 1000 actual bike trips undertaken using some parts of the cycleway. Now factor in future growth as well…
Now imagine pointing to a random school, and doing the same. We know the cycling rates to schools have dropped a lot. But oh how they could change.
Make sure the school is in a Low Traffic Neighbourhood, which is part of a cluster of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. Then reallocate traffic or parking lanes on the arterial roads that border these neighbourhoods to protected cycle lanes and shrink the intersections to make the cycling through them safe.
The cycling by the school, and the school’s cycling modeshare would rise steeply. And every counter nearby or connected safely to the area would also rise.
And do it all over the city.
Our kids deserve nothing less.
Commuter cycling is great but the real transformation is getting kids back on bikes safely and sorting out the mess of school run.
So many benefits from climate related to giving kids freedom and confidence.
And relatively easy to do too!
First: is it allowed to have your child ride a bike to school at all? Last thing I heard was that parents have to sign in and out their kids in person in primary schools.
Some schools stopped doing that during the lockdown and allowed parents to drop kids off at the gate. Lo and behold, kids are actually able to walk from the gate to their class. Our local news sites seemed surprised at this observation.
Incidentally another odd thing about school drop off is that it has to happen almost exactly at school bell time. This is why you have such a sharp spike in traffic in the morning. When I went to school you could arrive half an hour early. So dropoff spreads out a bit. It has other advantages, eg. you can have one bus do more than one round for picking up kids.
LTN’s and cycleways should spread out from schools too.
But just as important, they should expand out from bus and train stations. A new book called “feitsparkeren bij stations” has recently been released, detailing the hundreds of thousands of parking spaces at PT hubs in NL. There is great synergy. Increase the number of PT users, increase those using active travel.
One of the benefits is 9x more catchment volume due to non-linear relationship with radius. There are six others: https://twitter.com/Cycling_Embassy/status/1358022769460584448
When it comes to priority, LTNs could become priority naturally due to finance. Tho cycleways and cycleway might be oranges and apples, and LTNs are so cheap and scalable anyway (so will probably do both at same time)
Brandon, you are right. I am a frequent user of Akoranga Station and this is a decent walk from even the closest residential area. But it is much more accessible for cyclists. However few people bike, and little wonder as the access streets: Anzac, Taharoto, Barry’s Point and Esmonde are very challenging. AT should be doing better.
The cost of the cycleway is not important. The most important is the health benefit of the daily exercise. Most of us work in the office all day and cycling is a welcome break from sitting down all day.
If we can get more people to cycle, the population will get more healthy and fit. This will reduce the number of people visiting doctors/hospitals.
It is the overall picture not just the cycleway itself. The more the cycleway, the more the population will benefit from it.
I think that health benefit is often over emphasised. The life expectancy in Holland is shorter than ours for example.
one data point, humans run out of life eventually, listen to this:
We have to stop reducing health to duration of life. Quality of life is so important too. There is a big difference between someone who is active throughout their life and someone who spends 15 years practically immobile.
The health benefits of cycling are immense and particularly when it is available as everyday transport.
Adults need a minimum of 30 minutes moderate physical activity per day to stay healthy. Not everyone wants to play sport, or go to a gym, or even walk/cycle for fun. But everyone does need to make trips for school, work, shopping, seeing friends and so on.
Delivering streets city-wise that support people to choose cycling (or walking) as default transport modes is the single best public health intervention that we can do in New Zealand.
The University of Otago’s ‘Turning the Tide’ report is very clear about this:
C1. Require and fund a universal, interconnected active
C2. Design and transform towns and cities for people to
ensure positive health and environmental outcome
For for more details see: https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/releases/otago710238.html
Over half of the calculated benefits of the planned Christchurch cycle network are health benefits. That’s over $600 million alone – and people are quibbling because it’s going to cost $200-300 million to build… That doesn’t even factor in the health benefits for those walking who also benefit from these new routes and crossings.
Totally agree with this. But there are some unknowns, e.g. the actual effect on motor traffic for a given amount of money spent on cycling.
A lot of the “short” <6 km trips are in noncongested areas which are convenient to do by car. And 6 km is already a fair way to bike for a minor errand. Easier to see that happening for commuting, but a lot of work commutes are longer than that. Notable that something like 38% of Aucklanders bike sometimes but only 2% (or something) bike to work. Te Atatu to the CBD is 16 km.
Even small cities have the same problem. Palmerston North is 10 km across, Hamilton 14 km. In the 70s in Christchurch when everyone biked, in practice that meant a lot of 2-3 km trips.
Not sure where I'm going with this but my feeling is that, in addition to everything mentioned in the article, it will be necessary to also focus on schools (behaviour shift + smaller distances) and motor traffic reduction.
I think to be honest I have been influenced by the situation in Palmerston North where we have two fully separated cycleways to Massey and free bus travel (4 routes to Massey so you don’t need to bother with transfers) and still most students drive to the $2 car park, even driving separately from the same flat.
What are the connections to the cycleway like at either end? What is the driver behaviour and typical peak driving speed that people on bikes are likely to encounter on the on-road bits? What are the facilities like for storing bikes? How much do car parks, car turning movements, waiting times at signals etc interrupt the cycle journey at the city or uni end of the trip? How many bike racks are there at bus stops to enable all sorts of trips to be done?
All these things may be fine. In which case it’s about relative attractiveness, and the subsidy to the car via cheap parking, cheap fossil fuels, road rules set up for drivers, biodiversity loss to ensure parking is provided, wide intersections with lanes for every turning direction at great cost to the public, etc, etc, etc. And don’t forget the sociopolitical effects of the political economy of car dependence.
The car park in Palmerston North has just been expanded, and the 2019 proposal to introduce parking charges in Albany (Albany!!!) resulted in a near riot and was canned.
You’re right about the other things, the slip lanes and roundabouts are a particular problem (for many decades the chief city traffic engineer was obsessed with these), but perhaps the main issue is just the density of car traffic on all the main streets.
So then it’s really not about what “cycling can achieve” at all. It’s about the system, and we must not put limits on what can be achieved if the system is overhauled.
It’s important because the cycling modeshare is expected to be achieved out of the cycling budget when in fact road budgets need to be used to fix the problems they’ve created.
Bikes at. Middlemore Station equals one. Car. Carrier ships at Auckland Port equals two. I think we have our work cut out.
After reading these comments – and currently visiting Palmerston North – i biked from one of the suburbs to Massey to check out the new connection. It is great. What is not great is cycling through Palmerston North itself. One would want to know where most students flat. But i suspect it is also a cultural thing. I lived in Palmerston in the 1970s and lots of people cycled to Massey. There were no cycle tracks but also far less traffic. However, with cheap parking at Massey, cheap cars and and with probably hardly any of the students cycling to their schools before attending Massey they are already addicted to cars. Carrots are all very well but probably need a few sticks to get them onto their bikes.
When I was at uni in Palmy (12 years ago) I tended to drive… it was the easy lazy option. Most of the buses were cheek by jowl at peak times in both directions.
Parking was $2 all day in the enormous Massey car park, people shared their exit tickets, so you could park for free, and you could dodge the wardens easily on the ring road parking.
Cycling was certainly fast easy and safe, bike parking was good. Most of Palmy roads are wide and flat, perfect for cycling.
Its the same in every small town in NZ, driving is just so damned easy that everyone does it for every trip. Ask a Taupo local about the “traffic jams” at the waikato bridge, absolutely hilarious.
Ebikes are a game changer here. 6km is nothing on an ebike. Less than 10 mins and almost no effort.
But I totally agree with you about cycling around schools
Could you have an electric human cargo bike to run on the NW cycleway might be quicker than the bus. Was watching face TV about the use of motorised barges to deliver freight to Central Strasbourg they were using cargo bikes from the barges to the customers and back loading as well. Also paving stones for street works. One bike can carry 180 kgm. One bike could carry two passengers just Need a bigger battery to carry more.
I guess that leads to a bigger question: should we be building cycleways, or should we be building a network for small space efficient vehicles that don’t travel at high speed? I wouldn’t mind for example a very tiny light weight electric car (maybe more like a 4 wheeled bike with a cover). It would have a whole heap of benefits over a car such as cheap to buy, cheap to run, safe, no need for license, can have a few drinks and drive, space efficient, etc. I imagine they would be extremely popular. But I wouldn’t want to drive it on the road because if I get hit by a car it would not be nice.
Not really, it will just lead to congestion on narrower roads rather than wider rides and will literally have to duplicate nearly every road and street in NZ. There aren’t enough of these vehicles being made to make it worth while and we need to make progress today, not 20 years down the track. Cycleways work because you can take bikes anywhere, on PT, on roads and in my opinion if we calibrated certain streets better, on the streets at very safe speeds.
If you question was should we use smaller cars on our actual roads, then renting larger ones on demand when we needed to go away, so for the weekend etc then yes, thats where we should be heading, we already have a network for the thing you are describing, its just all dedicated to massive cars.
A small electric four wheeled vehicle with less than 250W is a cycle if it has pedals and is a wheeled transport device even without pedals (assuming the accessible streets package is made law) . Both of these will be able to use cycle paths and cycle lanes (assuming again the accessible streets package is made law).
Sailor Boy 250w isn’t going to do too well on something that is covered and with a bit of wind is it? Do they exist?
I really think a lot of people would use a very small and efficient single occupant car equivalent if it existed and was safe to use. I can’t see how it is possible on the road though.
These types of vehicles are relatively common in Europe and here is one https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-cityq-car-ebike-the-indecisive-electric-bike-with-car-functionality-145129.html
I also made an error sorry, it’s actually a 300W limit. Something covered has a lower wind resistance than something uncovered as it can be designed to an aerodynamic shape, weight is going to be your issue, not windage. If you don’t think that 300W would be enough though, go and try to pedal at 300W for 2 minutes on a stationary bike. For most people 300W is an all out sprint. I think a big part of the issue for these devices is that people think ‘only 300’ without any idea of just how much that is.
Waka Kotahi can also declare any vehicle up to 600W to be an wheeled transport device under current law so this would be another option for cargo type vehicles.
Thanks that one looks awesome. One big advantage IMO is that it is much harder for someone to steal. I wouldn’t park my ebike outside the local dairy without having to find somewhere safe to lock it up, but that weighs 70kg so should be ok, much more convenient.
Or one for the traditionalists:
Citreon have a new single occupancy electric minicar which can be used on a motorbike license which they lease out.
Hopefully this wont be just another talking session but will lead to real action. https://www.2walkandcycle.org.nz/ But we need to know more about who is cycling, who is not and what could change it. We have some good cycletracks in Kapiti – connected with the building of expressways. Plenty of people use them but when you start to segment the cycling market one sees there are very different groups. Big users are the older e-bike recreational cyclists heading to local cafes. Then there are the family recreational cyclists, often arriving from Wellington in their SUVs loaded with bikes. There is a small use by school children but they dont connect well to the schools – and secondary schools in the area now provide free car parks for students -often closer to the schools than the bus stops. I suspect very few use them to get to work. And 2018 census data tends to confirm that. In Auckland the travel to work census data (with all its quality problems) shows huge differences by suburbs. But the census data also throws up an interesting finding. Those born in Holland cycle more to work and education than other groups in NZ.
NZ national Cycling Conferences have been going since 1997 (this will be the 12th). Looking at how the nature of the discussion has changed over the years since the first few, I’d say that there has been quite a lot of action (although sometimes it has depended a bit on the whim/interest of the Govt of the day…). What has been interesting too over the years is the realisation of the different sectors that hadn’t originally been part of the conversation (eg health, education, economic development, tourism, etc) and getting their inputs. I’m looking forward to hearing more good discussion at the one next month!
The mode shifts being assumed are high, but may be able to be achieved with a comprehensive approach:
1) Review NZ transport pricing and better align with actual costs
2) Allow congestion tolling
3) Require Councils to charge for all parking (no time limits). Levy private parking
4) NBEA to allow 3 storey walkups as of right unless environmental standards not met
5) As part of vision zero require Councils to provide protected cycleways unless speed limit < 30kmh. All on road cycleways to be otherwise removed within 20 years
6) Central government to fully fund a full coverage PT network at 30 min headways to provide transport access for those without a car (can be on-demand where fixed route not viable). Councils to fund service levels above this.
Adding to 5) above
Nope, it won’t happen, not a chance will this cycling initiative take hold strong enough to influence global warming. Firstly, we are speaking about a planet. Once you have realized how big this planet actually is & how little we really are, let us focus on a few basic social trends, geography, and limiting factors cycling possesses.
We are lazy, horrendously lazy, fast food, fast internet, fast travel to get to the next appointment on time, we have no spare time already. This will not change, sorry.
Cycling is great for the small journey within a fairly flat metro area. It just is, remember we are lazy.
Central CBD of Paris city (pictured above) has a pop of 2.16mil while Auck has only 40,000 people and those who want to cycle already do. Good luck forcing the rest to adopt this new *Hobby. Remember that we are a democracy and can choose differently. Example- The Auckland Airport and surrounding businesses, freight forwarding areas, etc employ thousands of people who commute daily to work there (24hr). It takes approx 15min to drive there off-peak generally. You will not get a single one of them on a pushbike except maybe those who are inclined or already cycle for clubs etc. These people already cycle to work as per above. Nothing will change.
Since Auckland is a hub of inbound freight from the airport, The Port, and by rail, you will find that this particular industry will not change. Freight and people will still need to move. Light commercial vehicles will not change unless strong battery-powered vehicles are designed specifically for these industries. Until they are affordable and function with the power combustion engines provide, this will not happen.
Auckland public transport is dismal. The layout, rail lines, fares, etc are completely useless and not user-friendly. Those that will use these services are already doing so.
Attempting to convert this city into this utopian power saving, rule-abiding metropolis is nothing short of a bad superhero movie.
It will not happen within the lifetimes it will take to have an effect on this global warming agenda. You will however achieve one thing. You will have given more civil liberties to be governed and enable more taxing of the poor & middle class.