Construction of Section 2 of the Glen Innes to Tamaki Dr Path is currently well underway and once completed will join up the two sections that have already been completed creating a path from Glen Innes to Orakei. That will leave just Section 4 to connect from Orakei to the recently completed upgrade of Tamaki Dr.

Auckland Transport are now consulting on their plans for that final section. They say

Through our work with these stakeholders, we:

  • have ensured recreational water access is retained.
  • are ensuring the shared path through Whakatakataka Reserve (where the pathway connects to Ngapipi Road) complements Ōrākei Local Board and Auckland Council aspirations to restore the reserve.
  • will ensure the boatsheds remain accessible, and safety for path and shed users are provided.
  • have designed the overwater section (boardwalk and bridge) for sea-level rise.
  • have sought to minimise the size of the boardwalk and bridge, and design it in a way so that it complements the natural environment.

We have also reflected feedback received from consultations on other sections of the Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive shared path. We know it is important to the community that:

  • lighting is unobtrusive (while still illuminating the path safety).
  • we preserve views from the path to the surrounding area and natural environment.
  • people are kept safe with surfaces that minimise the risk of slipping.
  • The balustrade height is kept low, while still being safe.
  • curves are smooth for cyclists.
  • a rest area is provided.

The map below summarises the plan

There’s also video about it.

There’s also a little bit more information about the path around Orakei Rd and where it joins Ngapipi.

At Orakei ducking going under the bridge and around doesn’t seem ideal but there probably aren’t to many easy solutions given the height difference between the existing boardwalk and the bridge. It’s also good to see AT are actually proposing to remove some car parking to ensure the path is continuous. There are also new traffic lights at the entrance to the Park & Ride.

Around where the path joins Ngapipi Rd the path passes through Whakatakataka Reserve.

The sections through here will be 4m wide though they say a “600mm flush safety buffer of textured /coloured concrete will run along the edge of the shared path, acting as a visual cue to encourage people away from the roadside.“. So really just a 3.34m path.

This is the same where it passes the historic boat sheds however there AT are planning on shifting the road closer to the cliff in order to retain parking

My worry with this section, and the path overall, is that it’s a shared path and one that’s going to be really popular with a lot of people both on foot and on wheels. Ideally we’d be providing a separate space for those moving faster on wheels but because we’re not I fear it’s going to end up being too narrow. We already need to widen the NW cycleway and I widening this section in the future isn’t going to be easy.

If you’re interested in talking to the project team in person, there are a couple of events coming up

  • Saturday 21 August 10am – 1pm, Ōrākei Bay Village, 228 Orakei Road
  • Sunday 29 August, 10am – 1pm, Sunhill Garden Centre, 317 Saint Johns Road

Consultation closes 6 September but construction isn’t expected to start until the 2022/23 financial year.

Finally, with the new Panmure to Pakuranga path being build as part of the Eastern Busway, I wonder when we’ll see a project announced to join them both up

Share this


  1. Meh. Just upgrade the existing footpath on Ngapipi Road to a shared path. With the $10s of m saved, how many more km of new on-street cycle lanes could you build?

    1. That’d be the footpath that is incredibly narrow in places and drops off down the side of a cliff on the edges? I sense a few engineering/practicality issues there.

      Provided this bit across the water is wide enough, this could be a real asset like the Hobsonville Pt boardwalk. But I’m worried we’ll end up with something so narrow that people don’t feel like they can stop.

      If anything, we should use this as a pilot for the rest of Tamaki Drive, which is crying out for a wooden boardwalk over the water between Kelly Ts and Mission Bay and then around to Kohi, St Heliers etc.

    2. “just the upgrade the existing footpath… to a shared path”

      Well, almost. And while this project should just get completed so we can move on, analysing how they could have done it more cheaply is important. It will shed further light on Auckland Transport’s investment planners’ outrageous per km cyclelane costs, which are in the order of other cities’ light rail per km costs.

      The footpath, no. But the traffic lanes, yes. Years ago, they could’ve removed parking from Ngapipi Rd and put a narrow bidirectional cycleway with a buffer there. And if this was considered too narrow by advocates even in the interests of cheaply rolling out a network citywide, then Ngapipi Rd could become one way, keeping parking on one side.

      That’s what road reallocation is. That’s what AT have been instructed to do. And at times something more expensive is required, particularly at the connections, but Auckland needs to get moving fast on creating the network.

  2. Making it wider is a no brainer. On the NW cycle way, I already see some runners sticking out their hand (for extra space from bikes). This shared path is likely to have more kids/pets than the NW — a total safety risk.

    1. The other option is us cyclists who ride fast remember it’s a shared path and we slow down when we need to. Otherwise we’re just like the dicks in thier big cars that like to barge thier way around town.

      I think there needs to be more signage reminding people that these paths aren’t just cycleways and every now and again we’ll need to button off.

      (I realise in an ideal world we’d have the gold standard separation)

      On a new path like this it’d be easy to set the ‘chill out a little’ mindset from the opening if they had a few police reminding anyone blazing past young kids etc to stop being dicks. The odd reminder again in the busy hours like sunny w/e days and hopefully you’ve solved a large chunk of the problems.

      1. It’s good advice for an existing path, ma, but it’s not good advice when a new path is being built. It should be wider.

        1. We can build a 4 lane expressway too cater for future demand so we should do the same for cycle ways. We know there is going to be a problem with congestion on this section so design for that issue.

  3. Isnt the car park at the train station a driveway and not a road so the footpath gets right of way. This is something I have asked AT about a number of times for all the park and ride sites.

    1. Yes, this is a worry. Same thing in a number of places – industrial areas, and often even big box retail areas! – often have really wide driveways set up as if they are roads, which in this country means drivers think they can just bowl on through. All for the benefit of Goddess Flo.

      When it’s at a station like this, it really highlights that AT is not focused on prioritising active mode access to public transport.

    2. I got a Rail Bus via the Eastern when it was closed down for repairs and the trouble it had getting into that Carpark was frustrating for the Driver and even worst getting out of there as he had to use both lanes to make the turn , and if they put lights in what difference it would make .

    3. That driveway is going to be a massive clusterfuck as peak commute times clash with peak park and ride use. There’s also the increased busyness with Orakei Bay Village and new residential developments on there. The road generally is going to become a nightmare which is problematic as it is one of only 2 links from the eastern bays to the central isthmus. While they’re at it then, i think they should connect the cycle way west onto shore road.

  4. “It’s also good to see AT are actually proposing to remove some car parking to ensure the path is continuous.”

    hahahaha. I bet that this proposal doesn’t even last a week of the consultation process.

    Our street is part of the WK calming streets project, or whatever it is called. Just as a little background, it has a 450 space car park building. The proposal was to remove 23 street parks near the car park entrance. (I know – heresy, stupidity, even madness. Why would we want to clear car parks to plant trees in a climate emergency, or even to have a rain garden on a street that drains to the water?) The proposal it seems did not last even until the time that the project started construction. It appears two car parks may have been removed.
    A little more background. AT surveying has shown (twice) that 50% of parking in Takapuna is commuter parking. Some boast in social media that it is cheaper to drive to central Takapuna and park and bus, than drive to the city. So car parking is not even for the benefit of shop owners.

    So, good luck with the proposal to remove the car parks. When will AC/AT act to vigorously pursue projects that encourage mode shift? In the light of the IPCC 6 Report, current moves look increasingly inept, perhaps incompetent and certainly wrong.

    1. Because it’s so far from the city and land in the area is so cheap they couldn’t think of anything better to do with it.

  5. If they want people to use bikes then they need to stop building bloody shared paths!!! They don’t do anyone any favours and are simply dangerous whilst making cycling unpleasant.

    1. Why? Can’t they just slow down and be careful like motorists are legally required to do around more vulnerable users?

      1. I suppose you’re making a joke… but I’m not sure? In any case, for other readers:

        Motorists are legally required to do so but it’s not working; providing unsafe infrastructure and expecting drivers to take care is simply resulting in vulnerable road users dying and being seriously injured. The situation on shared paths is similar. Although the forces involved are lower so people haven’t died yet, the serious injuries happening are entirely preventable, and it is systematically negligent to build new infrastructure with this risk and on this premise.

        1. I’m joking but not joking. Bikes have no crash protection for other users who they might happen to run into. Expecting a separate shared paths so cyclists can go full tit if they so desire is not going to stop the 99% of cyclists who are capable of figuring out what speed is appropriate for a shared path from using one.

          The world doesn’t owe cyclists a separate cycle path so they can go flat out any more than it owes me a race track around the Tank Farm and Viaduct so I can absolutely send it and pretend I’m driving around Monaco (even though that would be immensely cool and a decent potential use for the area).

        2. We aren’t ever* going to be rid of congestion in this city if we don’t encourage a LOT more cycling (which means dedicated lanes so that people can actually travel somewhere faster than walking pace), same applies for emissions.
          *other alternative is to spend about $100B on rail (of whatever flavour).
          Pedestrians can walk almost anywhere, cyclists are for the most part very limited in where they can go. Yes we need to encourage walking, that doesn’t mean we need to build shared paths that ruins the experience for everyone.

        3. “Pedestrians can walk almost anywhere, cyclists are for the most part very limited in where they can go.”

          Except, you know, every single road, where every single motorist has to share with them. Why are cyclists not capable of reciprocating when it comes to path users more vulnerable than they are?

          If the argument is here we should double up on a bunch of perfectly serviceable shared paths with separate dedicated cycleways because cyclists don’t want to share or feel they have a god given right to go flat, then it’s a poor one. This is about providing a direct connection that sidesteps the terrain issues for the Eastern Bays, which pedestrians would still have to deal with. Otherwise why build anything at all?

          I am 100% on board with separate cycleways on roads on safety grounds but insisting on a separate bike-only facility for a project like this is insane – cycling connections in isolation are not the be-all and end-all of a livable city.

        4. Come on, this is what is going to be the busiest path of a dedicated cycle corridor for a pretty large part of Inner Auckland without many alternatives, it’s going to be busy. If they can spend money on building nice overbridges for cyclists further along, the least they can do is have enough space for them at the most important part of the route

        5. Oh I 100% think it should be SUPER wide – like 50% wider than it is at least. The Hobsonville Pt walkway shows how popular these things become once you build them. I’m just not down with the idea that it should JUST be for cyclists.

        6. If it is super wide then it’s wide enough to separate them.

          There’s no reason to design in:
          – risk,
          – inconvenience for those wishing to travel sustainably at reasonable speeds, and
          – inaccessibility for frail people

          when you’re designing a major route from scratch.

        7. “– inconvenience for those wishing to travel sustainably at reasonable speeds”

          Remind me, what’s the verdict on slowing down cars in places where people and vehicles mix?

        8. Why do you keep making this weird point?

          100% we should be building separated cycle lanes everywhere. It’s not so that cyclists can go as fast as they want, it’s to allow cyclists to ride at comfortable speeds (some users will be faster than others) without mixing with other vulnerable walking users (young, old, dog walkers, wheel chairs, etc) which will give both active mode groups the best experience and encourage more people.

          And since cycling is so poorly provided for we should be giving it the best push we can – that is not through building what is effectively a very nice walkway with some shoehorned cycling features. So you’ll get both groups getting annoyed, those trying to commute in or go for a proper cycle, even where they are taking precautions to slow speed and the walkers who want to take their time, look on both sides of the path, etc.

          And cars absolutely need to be slowed down whether shared or not, even though in most instances they have their own separated infrastructure all over the country. Get hit by a car and you’ll probably die.

        9. Well what is the actual suggestion here? Because the idea that we should be building a separate cycle-only path in this specific case next to the pedestrian one because cyclists shouldn’t have to slow down is Goon Show-esque. That’s what I’m responding to here – unless the argument that there shouldn’t be a path for pedestrians at all?

        10. The point is that walking is only useful from a congestion/emissions reduction point of view over small distances. If you want to get people out of cars then for the majority that is going to involve bikes (including ebikes, scooters etc).
          Bikes and scooters are reasonably dangerous enough as it is for many people without then having to dodge pedestrians who can change direction/stop instantly without warning.
          A cyclist falling off their bike is far more likely to be seriously injured especially when comparing to the analogy of cars vs bikes (where a driver is usually not injured in the slightest vs a bike).
          Furthermore cycling (and scooters etc) generally need very specific conditions (flattish, smoothing, straightish etc), walking on the other hand can for the most part easily negotiate steps, corners, slopes, different surfaces etc. We don’t allow pedestrians on motorways and a cycleway is effectively that for bikes.

          The solution?
          Wider is always better, but costs are obviously a constraint. Cyclists should have priority on many of these routes and have dedicated space (I’m not a cyclist or a scooter rider but of course have done both before you go accusing me of having bias).

      2. Cue sad trombone.

        Seriously though, people often wonder why Auckland is that one snowflake city where cycling or other things won’t work. Well, this is the reason. A lot of what works overseas doesn’t merely rely on rules or infrastructure, but also on people not being a dick.

        1. Hey I didn’t say we should rely on *only* user behaviour.

          A few days ago this image popped up on Twitter. This is just stupid:

          In that particular case they should actually just put up bollards, but many cycleways cross (or will cross) a lot of driveways so you won’t be able to protect them like that.

          Now think about Copenhagen lanes in Copenhagen, and how well they would work in Auckland. Or think about footpaths with a kerb. I just can’t see how this will work with any amount of infrastructure without also dealing with that ‘user behaviour’.

          I don’t think a shared path will be very future-proof but it shouldn’t be such a disaster either.

      3. The failures of shared paths are not down to behaviour – they are down to physics. A person cycling travels at a completely different speed to a person walking. Separation of cycling and walking is just good design. Prof John Parkin has a handy <4min video on this.


        1. I think in Auckland the #1 feature that matters is that the path actually exists. It will be already hard enough to get there.

  6. Still in two minds over whether this route is better than the original plan of running the path alongside the railway line *on public land* to then hook up with Tamaki Drive at Parnell Baths. The orchestrated campaign by the OBC and cock of the walk Desley Simpson to get the cyleway out of the oh so precious OBC boat parking area that they use on loan rankles.

    anyway, overall design looking good although the Orakei morning walkers are not going to be happy with the volumes of cycle commuters who aren’t there ot look at the view. Us roadies will be holding back on the boards (as we should) given the curves and likely dogs on leads going all over the show.

    I’m really pleased with the massive amount of work going into the Pourewa Valey section plus the (hopeful) John Rhymer Place tie-in. That section is going to be a great asset and vital link.

    FWIW: the NE swell and high winds we had a few weeks ago pushed a lot of flotsam right up alongside the new raised Tamaki Drive cycleway at the low point opp the OBC. Lucky we have that extra 6″ of path height eh?…..oh hang on, storms are forecast to get worse. Let’s raise the road level again in 5 years.

  7. Wonderful passive avoidance wording in that AT video; “…. will help us meet our climate change obligations….”
    As in; this is not our target, it is someone else’s target and for us it’s only an “obligation”.
    FFS – I’d love to move to the alternate reality these people live in as there is obviously no Climate Emergency there.

  8. Ahh the “historic boat sheds”..

    Several of which have been renovated into private lounges, complete with illegal bathrooms! Sadly AC don’t seem to be doing anything about this.

    Terminate the leases as they come up for renewal and restore this picturesque public land to public use!

  9. I am so pleased its going around the waters edge. It will be great. How wide is it compared to the other sections. Good to hear that the roadway into the Park and Ride will be wider and the traffic lights. It is very tight for the rail replacement buses. There is at least four years of those to go.
    The road bridge across the channel is high this looks much lower hopefully you will still be able to get a canoe under it at high tide. Could there be a swimming cage that would be good. At least access to the water mid channel to tie your boat up to. It will give us a glimpse of how the bay must have being before the causeways were built.

  10. I’m looking forward to the section next to rail line being added later when the demand increases and it’s figured out that it’d be cheaper to build that than rebuild what is being built now.

  11. Thanks – good writeup, exciting project – and even some great progress to date.
    couple of screamers
    1. ” AT are planning on shifting the road closer to the cliff in order to retain parking”
    Good to see that even Remuera soil is being dugout in the name of parking
    2. Minimal protection between path and road – did i see 600mm of “flush surface marking” Thats about 1 second of inattention from a 4yo on a bike. Oncoming cars 0.6m away in a vision zero world would need to be traveling at what speed to make this safe ? Ok – your right – we’ve plenty of kids who know not to go off path – or Die!
    Good to know we’re going the full multi-year consultation on this one.

    1. Yes. The protection is insufficient. Even with proper protection the speed limit should be reduced to the 30 km/hr speed our adoption of Vision Zero requires.

      And given they ARE changing the built environment, making narrower lanes, this is the ideal time to lower the speed. Their usual excuse to not do so doesn’t apply.

Leave a Reply

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