One particularly good programme Auckland Transport has underway right now is adding protection to 60km of existing painted cycleways to make them safer. Our new mayor should love it as it’s a cheap and effective way to expand the network of safe cycleways. This is being rolled out over three years and on the first corridors getting the treatment the installation of concrete barriers has been successful and uneventful with one major exception – Upper Harbour Dr.

We’ve already run a number of posts on the topic in recent months, including one two weeks ago which noted that Auckland Transport were running community sessions on the project following complaints about it. Some of those complaints have been fairly typical anti-cycleway stuff, trying to relitigate their existence despite the lanes existing for about seven years. But there have also been issues with the installation due to a number of drivers and even a few cyclists crashing into the barriers.

Image source/credit: Stuff Article by Todd Niall

I attended one of those sessions and if you’re interested, AT filmed them and have put them on their website.

AT noted that causes of the crashes are not consistent. Some will be speed related but they also noted that one of the issues is they’ve left too large gaps between the separators making it easier for vehicles to stray across the edge line and hit the end of a barrier, damaging their vehicle.

To address these issues and locals complaints, AT presented five different potential schemes for the future of Upper Harbour Dr – with one scheme having a few different options.


Scheme 1 – Remove the separators

This would put the road back to the way it was – which given the speeds and how frequently drivers would move into the cycle lanes, is unacceptable from a safety point of view.


Scheme 2 – Improve the existing scheme

This scheme actually consists of a number of different options, and aspects of them could be combined, including with other schemes.

Add Audio Tactile Paving

This would add Audio Tactile Paving, aka rumble strips, to the line outside of the concrete separators. This would be a cheap solution but might not be all that effective given drivers are already crashing into the barriers and would create noise issues for locals.

Remove the separators but add traffic calming

As the name suggests, this would remove the separators but add traffic calming from interventions like speed bumps at regular intervals to slow speeds down.

Change the separators – rubber separators

This would use rubber separators like those used on St Lukes Rd a few years back. But if this was anything like those, they’ll pretty quickly start looking dirty and lose any vertical elements such as hit-sticks. On St Lukes Rd AT just gave up replacing them.

Change the separators – lower profile concrete separators.

Instead of the existing separators which are about 160-180mm high, this would use lower separators that are about 120mm high. That just seems like it would make it easier for a wayward driver to mount the kerb and potentially hit a cyclist.

Change the separators – in situ concrete separators.

Instead of bold down separators, AT suggested the option of in situ separators which could have a different kerb profile with a gentler slope. Again, it’s hard to see how making it easier to drive over the separators is an improvement for those on bikes compared to the current implementation.


Scheme 3 – A Shared Path

By far the most expensive and most disruptive of the options due to the need to change drainage and kerb lines, this would replace the cycleway with a shared path on the eastern side of the road. Shared paths really aren’t a great response for anyone, but especially for walkers and cyclists who are put into conflict to save a bit of space in the corridor. The shared path would also be a magnet for locals parking illegally and even impatient drivers using it as a general traffic lane to try and skip ahead if the road is congested.


Scheme 4 – Narrow the median to widen the painted buffer

The key here is to shift the driving lanes further away from the concrete buffers to help reduce crashes. This is achieved by narrowing the painted median on the road. AT would also add in additional separators to reduce gaps between them.

One of the additional benefits that comes with this scheme is that the wider cycleway buffers, narrower median and additional signage “should have a traffic calming impact”.


Scheme 5 – A bi-directional cycleway

This would replace the cycleway with a single bi-directional cycleway on the eastern side of the road. This would create for a wider cycleway and also incorporate the narrower lanes and median from scheme 4.

However, like with a shared path, there are a couple of big issues with bi-directional cycleways, notably it wouldn’t take much for a car exiting a driveway to block the entire thing, for people to use it as a parking lane or worse, for impatient drivers to use it general traffic lane to try and skip ahead if the road is congested.

There’s also the issue that the western side of the road is the only one with a continuous footpath and it would be made less pleasant for pedestrians having cars racing by only millimetres away.


AT don’t have a preferred option yet but they did give a quick high-level multi-criteria assessment of each of the options. To me Options 4 or 5 provide the best outcome. If you’re interested, there’s more information on each reasons for the scores in the presentation and in the videos AT posted.

AT say they’re now working though the feedback from the sessions as well as from other stakeholders like emergency services and waste management and will take all of that to come up with a new design that will then be consulted on. The existing protection will stay as it is till that’s decided. I do like that they make it clear they’d only remove the protection if other, likely less palatable, changes were made to the street design.

I think AT should also be looking at how they can reduce through-traffic on the street as it seems like it’s often used by drivers racing down as part of a rat-run to jump ahead of congestion on the motorway. As such, this road can also get congested making it harder for locals to get around. Reducing through-traffic could help improve this situation.

Finally, one of the big issues with the cycle lanes is what happens when you get to either end, but especially Albany Highway where if you want to head south towards Glenfield or Takapuna, you’re thrown into the middle of the road and you have to get across what is essentially a slip lane with 70km/h+ traffic. AT mentioned they have a team working on how to improve safety of this intersection and it will tie in with the work above.

Which of the options do you prefer?

Share this

176 comments

  1. Surely the obvious outcome is AT caving to the whinging drivers and just giving them their desired outcome of no separation

    1. The most obvious outcome is that the intention of the pop-up cycleway programme – improve people’s safety fast and at low cost – is dead.

      Thanks to a few people who literally can’t seem to drive within a very wide set of coloured lines, we are back to paying massive money for slow, minimal cycleway rollouts.

    2. As a cyclist who never felt unsafe before, I find these concrete plinths terrifying. They can work on a width of closer to 2 metres. Not here. Get rid of the damn things.

      1. Me too and almost every cyclist I know says the same. These barriers have not made anyone safer. Whoever wrote this article doesn’t seem to get this although it was well explained in the public meeting.

        1. As another cyclist I agree. Go back to how the road was and focus on making the intersection with Albany highway safer.
          I wonder if the author is a cyclist.

        2. You don’t know may cyclists then. There are over 2.5 million cyclists in New Zealand, when surveyed, they repeatedly say that they prefer cycling in protected cycle lanes.

      2. I’ve used the cycleway on Ian Mckinnon Drive hundreds of times, with identical concrete blocks, and never even given the blocks a thought, let alone be terrified of them.

    3. Just get rid of these. They have caused more accidents than ever before In the short 6 months it’s something like 5 cyclists, 3 of which ended in hospital 24 car crashes, including a head on, and burst into flames. These idiots are not listening, as a cyclist I want them gone, I am safer that way. I hate the current attitude from motorists who now expect their own lane. What happened to share the road

  2. How about lower the speed limit and then fully and consistently enforce it

    None of the options seem that palatable for various reasons. If you accept the current layout is dangerous for drivers which I still struggle to comprehend. How the hell did the car in the photo end up like that? It wasn’t even on a bend. Surely they should be charged with careless driving?

    Most importantly of all fix the intersection with Albany Highway before someone dies.

      1. Just like bus companies get charged for having a bus line cycles should pay fees for cycle line if u buy a bike u pay one of Levi

        1. Your an idiot, we pay now. I drive too. This is a bad solution to a never was problem.

      2. As a cyclist I agree,revert to painted seperation and spend money on Albany intersection which is the only danger point

        1. The reason they don’t is bureaucracy and statistics. It’s looks much better on their performance review / media statement to say we built 10km of protected cycle lanes, then it does to say we improved the layout of 1 junction.

        2. As a cyclist that uses that intersection, I strongly disagree

          Reverting to painted separation will cost time and money and set a dangerous precedent that motor vehicles users who apparently can’t drive and who want a nicer looking road take priority over the life of a cyclist or simply people walking/standing on the side of the road

          I do strongly agree that they should spend money on Albany intersection which is a major danger point; I have raised this repeatedly over the years including writing to AT.

          Hence I want them to get on and fix the Albany intersection rather than dick around with consultation of what locals think looks best or worse still remove barriers.

          Only other thoughts from my ride through there last weekend was that they do those narrow sweepers to go through occasionally to clean it up.

          Also, people have been throwing some stats around, but any trends or deeper analysis to inform debate? Seems like one of those road changes that just takes time to bed in

    1. That’s what Vision Zero is about. If it’s possible to hit/crash, it will happen, so reduce the speed and improve the designs to help. Blaming drivers will get us no where (though I suspect the public profile of this road would made drivers pay a bit more attention to being careful now???).

      1. The orthodox vision zero thinking is that you can change the design of your street to make it appear less wide open, and drivers will respond by driving slower. In this case, install concrete dividers, and the roadway will appear a lot less wide.

        However exactly the opposite is happening. Change the design, and people will just crash into it like some poor helpless lemmings, one after another.

        I guess vision zero avoids blaming drivers by taking it for granted that there’s a higher standard of driving than what we have here.

    2. How about spending some money on educating motorists to stay in their lane and not cut corners using cycle lanes…millions spent on “look twice for (motor)bikes” and “Road to zero”. Considerate road usage can we go back to that being g a “thing”????

  3. AT as usual confuse everyone, and me, with their many options and delaying tactics.
    To decide what’s best should be easy for qualified engineers.
    Hope they can do it soon as it is urgent.

  4. What’s the goal? Road to Zero / Vision Zero / TERP?
    I sincerely can’t understand how drivers can complain with the current layout. They have the entire road to drive in, anyone who can’t do this shouldn’t be driving.
    I drive and cycle this road, and have no issue with the current layout (when considering the goal).
    Some day-glow paint and night reflectors on the existing protection separators could be an option.

    1. To be completely honest the road never had any problems before this all happened. To all the people that thought this idea was going to be good guess you got shat on aye?, bring back the original road layout and stop thinking your gonna get zero deaths on Newzealand roads there’s always going to be something to cause someone to crash. Rip the bollards out and spend the money from the cyclists fund on fixing the roads around the country, bunch of Amo ideas

      1. I was talking to my friend about this road a few days ago. We agreed, that *we* never had any problems with this road. But the changes were not for us (confident riders). It’s for the other people who might choose a bicycle\scooter, but don’t because it too risky.
        Some drivers are ignorant of cyclists, a few are intentionally aggressive.
        I’ve never felt in danger while driving a car in Auckland, I can’t say the same when cycling.

      2. Honestly, anyone who cant drive without hitting a concrete block probably needs their eyes tested and to resit their licence.

      3. “To be completely honest the road never had any problems before this all happened. ”

        Sadly, you are misinformed. I have had several near misses while cycling on this road due to drivers cutting the corner into the cycle lane. These near misses are a problem.

        1. indeed, either 1) the drivers were crossing into the cycle lane before. ergo the road did have problems before
          or
          2) the drivers weren’t crossing into the cycle lanes, and therefore the concrete barriers caused them to drive into the cycle lanes? Like when they upgrade a highway with a median barrier and suddenly all the cars start crashing into it?

  5. Love how they say the current existing scheme is a red for safety for car users because a couple of idiots have popped their tires because they can’t drive properly.

    Surely option 4 is the way to go.

      1. I’m talking about option 2, the current tim tams with some noise barrier thingys..they’ve put it as red for car safety. Reality is, if you are going the speed limit unless there is something that is going to kill the driver it should never be anything other than a green for car safety.

        1. Even weirder, is that the “delivery feasibility” of option 2 is red.

          How big a job can AT make of doing nothing? Surely doing nothing is green.

      1. I agree but that wasn’t one of the options listed. I would be happy with the current layout but I imagine it wasn’t included as it would bring howls of protest about AT not listening.

    1. Four is the option they want to do. You can tell from how they set up their stupid dot ranking system. They use it to signal the predetermined outcome.

  6. So we have a purported transport agency,in existence for 10 plus years,who have no idea how to build a safe cycle lane.Wayne Brown is right ,a clean out is required. An elephant is a horse built by a committee,which is what consultation delivers.

        1. This just shows how the barriers are doing their job by protecting users of the cycle lane from vehicles straying into the lane. That said they could be improved to avoid these collisions.

        2. Thats what people are missing. The car the incidents are showing why the previous design was not safe and deterred people from using it. The upgrade was required.

          The sun is setting on the approach being that drivers must always come first. If it helps with the angst, we are just catching up to the rest of the developed world.

  7. As a motorist and road cyclist ( 50km harbour loop ride) I use this road.

    Seems like a storm in a tea cup.

    A storm whipped up by entitled Greenhithe residents.

    On the cyclists side, despite riding this road often on my road cycle I am still in single figures on the other cyclists I’ve seen.

    To prevent injuries and deaths to cyclists the money should have been spent where they get killed on the regular. Tamaki drive.

    On the car side of the argument how do you crash into these concrete bollards without being impaired by drugs or alcohol? It’s a good road with the bollards and no undue risk to motorists.

    I think people are missing the picture here, which was highlighted by the article. Once cycle ways end the ACC throws cyclists under the bus. Literally. The end of these cycleways are extremely dangerous as cyclists nare suddenly put into fast moving traffic from an unseen position.

    Please ask the nameless council workers to cycle with their children on Auckland roads and get some understanding that an overall picture is needed.

    Not just a small section of road highlighted by entitled Greenhithe residents getting their nickers in a twist.

    Thanks

    Owen

    1. You realize that this project is part of a 60km package of easy retrofits right? It’s not just one random section in Greenhithe.

    2. “Entitled” Greenhithe residents? What a load of absolute nonsense. How about: “Residents with valid safety concerns” given the 2016% increase in vehicle accidents and 3 injured cyclists on what was previous a very safe road for both. Not to mention the fact they’re ugly as hell and have made a mess of the storm water because of AT’s poorly-considered rush job. This was a beautiful road that AT have entirely messed up and they need to be accountable for that.

      1. I think its a pretty funny way to find out you can’t drive properly, so yes, entitled Greenhithe residents who can’t seem to slow down.

        1. Exactly, literally concrete proof that drivers could not stay in their lanes and keep cyclists safe.

        2. Is it me who is a bad driver for hitting a stationary object, protecting a piece of road on which I haven’t been allowed to drive on in years??

          No it is the dividers fault!!

        3. I am a very confident driver. I have completed numerous Rally of NZ events. The road is more dangerous now than before and as there was no risk to cyclists before, the increased risk to motorists make the changes unacceptable.
          So, as both a cyclist and a professional rally driver, I am telling you that they should revert to how it was before.

        4. “there was no risk to cyclists before”

          That is a blatant lie. We have concrete evidence of cars unable to maintain being in their lane and drifting into the road space allocated for bikes. In fact that is what all these problems are caused by.

        5. Alan from Amsterdam says: “There were no accidents involving cyclists before these changes”
          Part of the goal of the changes is to attract new people to use cycling as a transport choice by making it less risky. With new riders who are not as confident or experienced, would it be likely that there are no accidents in the future?

        6. Love how driving rally is used as an example. Competitive driving on roads or tracks cleared of dynamic hazards is massively different to urban driving and is in no way representative of good public road driving. Its a litteral opposite and probably the worst kind of mindset you could apply.

  8. This is so ridiculous. 95% roads have zero provision biking and people get killed all the time. Kiwirail is trying to kill trains and busses are struggling to find staff.

    We need fast effective bike infrastructure roled out, but here are AT bending over backwards because a few muppets can’t drive.

  9. Its a bit of a worry that ‘retain the current layout’ isn’t one of the options on that matrix. I struggle to see how the outcome of these meeting could be anything other than ‘concerns raised in the media are unfounded’

    The layout of Glenvar Ridge Road is almost identical; 3m lanes immediately adjacent to the kerb, relatively narrow median. Why are the drivers of Greenhithe crashing so much when drivers in Torbay seem to cope fine?
    https://maps.app.goo.gl/AQcqAFGikpndqhYbA

    I know Miffy will be typing a comment about how that is different because the kerb is continuous, but Highgate Parkway in Millwater even has the same layout with stepped kerbs.
    https://maps.app.goo.gl/3iJjt2mWZgb2Crkr7

    Perhaps these crashes are a result of reckless driving of a tiny minority of drivers, which was enabled by the previous layout. The reckless driving and kerb strikes will stop once drivers learn that the new layout requires them to drive safely.

    1. Spot on.
      When I’m in a meeting where a change/project is being proposed I frequently bring up option 1 to consider “do nothing” i.e. leave everything as is. Resources (money and people are limited) so they might be best spent elsewhere.

    2. The kerb is continuous. No seriously the most dangerous part of any traffic island is the nose. If a wheel hits the nose the vehicle launches. How does having hundreds of serious hazards on one short stretch make the road safer? It even makes it less safe for cyclists.

      Continuous kerbs are designed to deflect a tyre back at low approach angles. This cheap crap really isn’t helping anyone.

      But the other hazard is it still isn’t finished. I nearly had a crash there last week because there were actually some dudes working there. I got such a shock, I thought I was seeing things.

      1. Kerbs do not launch vehicles at urban speeds. If they did, then every single driveway or pedestrian crossing ramp would be a major hazard.

        Applying rural highway design to urban collectors is what got us into the current mess. It is incumbent on all practitioners to unlearn these bad habits.

        1. WTF? How do you think having hundreds of ends of islands helps anyone? Hit one and the driver no longer has control. This design was inept. We learnt this with glued down islands in the early 90s. Everything you put in the road will get hit so you have to think through what happens next. Part of me wants it to stay as an experiment, but it would be a brutal experiment.

        2. Everything you put in the road will get hit

          gee, that makes unprotected bike lanes look even worse. Let alone no bike lanes at all.

        3. “gee, that makes unprotected bike lanes look even worse. Let alone no bike lanes at all.”

          And yet there was no pattern of crashes that these lumps of concrete were addressing and you have no reason at all to think cyclists will be safer because of them. If a driver loses control because they hit the end of one then a nearby cyclist is worse off than before.

        4. “And yet there was no pattern of crashes that these lumps of concrete were addressing and you have no reason at all to think cyclists will be safer because of them.”

          Are you not embarrassed to admit that you know so little about traffic engineering? Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising that agencies are struggling to deliver cycling infrastructure if some older engineers have such outdated knowledge.

        5. “And yet there was no pattern of crashes that these lumps of concrete were addressing”

          Geez, something like 90% of all crashes mid-block between a cyclist and a motorist are caused by the fact that there is no physical separation between the two. That IS what these are addressing.

          They also address intentional and unintentional intimidation of riders by cars and trucks coming too close. Which is a massive reason why people don’t ride. Because it feels hazardous. They improve both perceived and actual safety.

          But if you feel that a *specific* road needs like a couple dead people before we can act, and UHD didn’t have enough sacrificial lambs yet – if that is what you feel – then I really don’t know what else to say except that we are on very different ethical planets.

        6. And any “oh, but they could have done BETTER” kind of comment can, in my view, go pi** off. All the “better” designs – and I don’t question for a second there are many – cost a lot more, and take a lot longer. We don’t have decades to fix what has been horribly unsafe for the last couple decades.

          An OK design that could be implemented fast is what is needed – and I still consider this design as very much okay. It’s some entitled drivers losing a bit of space who are complaining. The remaining safety issues they have to deal with are literally trivial compared to those faced by riders. Would I want them fixed too? Ideally yes – but see above. We can’t spend two or three times (or ten times, by avoiding roads altogether) the cost of this on every cycleway just because under some circumstances hitting these concrete separators might be a tiny bit more hazardous for a driver than hitting a standard kerb. If you prioritise them like that, all you are doing is replicating the same injustices of the past decades by centring them – instead of the groups that die at several *times* their level per time travelled.

        7. Harold we collect crash statistics for a reason. We don’t just make it up as we go along.
          Mr Boy people have been putting offsets and tapers on traffic islands for 50 years, they predate me. But apparently features that were put in to address crashes are no longer relevant and we are going to have vision zero for cyclists but everyone else can go to hell.

          I am more than happy to leave this nonsense as it is and use the next five years of data to see if total crashes go up or down. Given how few there were before it is fairly easy to guess the outcome. Down isn’t really possible. But of course you know best (so long as nobody actually uses data to inform their judgement.)

        8. “I am more than happy to leave this nonsense as it is and use the next five years of data to see if total crashes go up or down.”

          Still stuck in the 90s mentality of reducing crashes not trauma.

        9. What are the numbers actually? Crash Reporting System has about 1 injury crash and 1 non-injury crash per year for the past 10 or so year. From what I heard we already had more than one injury in the past few months and it has not been nearly a year since the dividers were added. So I expect trauma to be up as well.

          It would be kind of weird to not have at least some inquiry after 25 crashes. But then again, “we can’t do vision zero because our standard of driving is really, uniquely, too poor to make it possible” is not a good outcome.

    3. Sack all these AT idiot’s,when l cycle on roadways l am always aware of my surroundings that’s my responsibility of sharing this pathway with other users ,knowing if l muck up it going to hurt .The responsibility lay totally with the users of the roadways ,all AT are succeeding in doing is confusing and distracting users into having accidents .

      1. Are you 15, or 90? Clearly demonstrating a lack of ability to follow logic or reason.

        The personal responsibility line is an argument for the dividers not against them. They raise the consequences of actions on the road user themselves, and reduce the impact of those choices on other road users. ie, drifting off the roadway now incurs a broken car for you, rather than injuring someone else. That is personal responsibility and accountability for actions, not getting to run amok on the roads without consequences.

        You’re also arguing for personal responsibility, but simultaneously that people being confused is all AT’s fault. So personal responsibility for only for people biking, but no personal responsibility for drivers to understand standard road markings and stay in their lane?

  10. You can’t park there sir.
    I’m with the others here who say to hell with the stupid drivers who are crashing into the delineators. Hand your licence back to Sanitarium your mummy and daddy clearly made a mistake and you were not actually ready to eat the weet-bix packet that your licence came in. Have you tried a bike?
    And AT if the gap between the delineators too big then either add in a shorter one into each gap or pull up the current ones and move then closer together.
    Although option 4 would probably be worthwhile too.

  11. I would suggest people should look at Lambie drive to get an idea on how a street should be setup. They have managed to incorporate a raised medium a general traffic lane a bus lane and protected cycleway and footpath. Cyclist need to get off there bikes at the intersection with Cavendish drive if they have got any sense though. But its about as good as it going to get short of a major civil war and martial law. There is one opportunity for a right hand turn otherwise drive around the block if you want to visit a specific business. There are rubber judder bars on all the driveways which slows cars before they cross the footpath when they are exiting. So no more flush medians go back to raised ones much more civilised and I love passing all the cars in the bus.

  12. Filming the videos seems like a counterproductive step; why would people attend if they run the risk of saying something that will get blown up on fb or twitter? The drivers in the first video who are effectively saying, “my car is dangerous, so what are AT going to do to mitigate that” needed to learn that they are responsible for safe driving – including by replacing their car if they find they can’t control it.

    But they didn’t need to learn this by being publicly mocked – and indeed probably didn’t learn it for that reason.

    1. I suppose. I just wish AT called them out on it rather than… “ohh fair enough we will go look into that.” Hence why I shared that clip.

      1. Don’t worry. I see the problem as an ongoing lack of good advice from Council’s Democracy Services team – to AT and to other parts of the Council team. I wouldn’t blame the public responding nor the AT cycling team – to be fair, the comments were so outrageous it must’ve been hard for them to respond immediately in a respectful way… It’s hard on them to be filmed having to reply to it, too.

        With AT having put the videos on the website, public outcry was probably necessary – or it might look like the drivers’ statements were somehow considered reasonable by the public. Which is not the case.

      2. Someone needs to also call Bike Auckland out on the fact that (a) they speak for a minority of cyclists that use this road and (b) they are hardly neutral given they’re funded by AT.

        1. Funded by AT?? What nonsense. We want to encourage more riders that would have not have used the non barrier road due to safety concerns. I guess you could never fathom such an idea?

  13. These people don’t care about safety, all they want is to be heard and have action taken, as is the norm for their vocal minority. Whilst the rest of us all suffer.

    They have graffitied the protectors with “Cyclists against barriers” as if they speak for all people on bikes. They have also replaced “temporary” signs under the speed limit with illegal “permanent” signs which have subtext saying “damage to lives and property, hold AT accountable” in small fonts. Potentially causing more incidents whilst people try and consume the sign which they are legally required to whilst passing a road sign – as they think its a legitimate sign. Hopefully those have been removed now. But it just goes to show that all they care about it there bottom line, and they’ll be willing to put people at risk to do it.

    My preferred option is “keep it as it is”, this has now eaten into the budget and timeline of other protectors elsewhere. Again, potentially causing more harm, like we saw a few weeks ago in a paint only cycle lane, there was a death. There are also constant near misses or minor injuries from people trying to bike in unprotected lanes – which probably allude being reported (nothing I have been involved with was ever reported, didn’t even know I could/should/how/etc.).

    The 25ish incidents were majority just damage to vehicles, better vehicles in the bodyshop than bodies in the morgue right? Then the 2-3 riders who hit them, seemed to be teething issues as that did not continue for long – seemed to just be from lack of awareness that the protectors were there or something? Really strange – the lanes are more generous than some others.

    If we have to go with anything I guess scheme 4 is fine.

    I had hoped AT wouldn’t cave, as it would set a precedent elsewhere. They haven’t really caved by way of removal which is great. But they have still set the precedent that they will now review or change things up if a few of the vocal minority have a hissy fit. Which still isn’t a great outcome… as this will increase costs and timeframe for these roll-outs… Risking more lives, and taking even longer to achieve TERP goals.

    1. Bike Auckland is literally the vocal minority here. Not one other person – resident, cyclist, whatever – thinks these are a good idea.

      1. Rubbish, the vast majority of people who understand what they are for, support them. Those who don’t probably need more information or are just trolling like you, and don’t really give a flying toss about bike safety and will find any desperate excuse to get their way.

        The ironic thing is, in the end it will benefit nobody if you got your way, back to paint-only cycleway, minimal increase in mode share of bikes outside of sportier riders, more resulting congestion for motorists.

        AT surveyed the public multiple times, and the biggest demand for people to increase bike ridership was consistently a protected cycle network with some degree of physical separation from the roadway. This is also in line with people I know, or often ride with in such places. It’s not a “me” thing – I have ridden 70-100km/h roads with no shoulder or bike lane – Piha Rd, Bethals Rd, Huia, Muriwai, SH16 out to Waimauku or Helensville, SH1 north of Orewa. It doesn’t bother me, but I am not self-centred enough to think everything is about me. You should give it a try some time, put yourself in other shoes, you will learn a lot.

    2. A 2016% increase in vehicle accidents is a highly valid safety concern that you consistently ignore because it doesn’t suit you. Also more cyclists have been injured by the barriers than were injured by cars on the road in 5 years before the barriers were installed. The barriers are unsafe: FACT.

      1. The vast majority of them were just damage to vehicles, not death or serious injury of people on bikes. Them travelling into the lane would have occurred freely before putting people at risk, this is proven by them hitting these instead.

        But we have had this conversation before, you just want to rinse and repeat the same tired defeated argument over and over again, because you aren’t interested in safety, just getting your selfish, wasteful demands across the line.

    1. Those however are not standard retrofits. The way they are keyed into the road, and they way they affect stormwater means that you have to rebuild the whole length of kerb – not just attach new islands. So I suspect the cost differential is substantial, and then agencies will lean back to “lets just rebuild the whole road” rather than the intent of providing reasonable protection now, at a cost-efficient budget, fast and wide.

      Sure, the fast and wide is well-scuppered by now. But the choice of the “tim tams” was very much intentional. Of course a permanent protected lane is better for everyone, but it also costs a lot more and the safety issue exists now, not in 20 years when we might have the more permenant features in more places.

    2. The thing that strikes me about the Ilam example in Chch is that it is clearly thinking more about the cyclist not just in the business of installing barriers. Every intersection or unprotected section is green-marked. Every driveway vehicle crossing has a painted cyclist in front to remind and make it clear where the priority lies. The kerbs on the approach to the intersection are terminated further back trying to make it more obvious to the left turn car that they are entering the cyclelane to turn left not just just turning hard left and is also signposted. My major problem with these cyclelanes is that I feel less safe at every vehicle crossing especially intersections. Personally I would prefer it were left as it was before with a cycle lane and wide buffer strip without barrier, but if we have to install barriers then we need to do it properly.

  14. Am I reading this right? 25 issues in 7 years? And a little bit of tyre damage? Drivers run into barriers in parking buildings, they hit curbs while parking, other cars while parking and they drive over tim tams into water gardens. Accidents happen and life goes on.
    AT, it may not be perfect, but move on. We need mountains more active mode share options and you won’t achieve that by consulting and endlessly reconsulting on each project. Decide what the universal solution is and implement it universally.

    1. There were 15 vehicle accidents on the road in 5 years prior to installation, and there have been 28 recorded accidents in the 5 months since they were installed. Over a 2000% increase in accidents. Absolute mess.

      1. Not a fan of the term accident – they are not accidents, it’s an incident or a crash. Accident implies it wasn’t intentional, speeding, using phones, careless or drunk driving – and resulting implications are intentional actions, any Court would agree with that else none of those things would be offences and people would just get away with anything – and the occurrences would increase drastically as a result.

        The fact that thousands of people drive through here a day, and there was only 25-30 still veering into the cycle lane post-barriers, shows that there was a very real issue. Which has now been mitigated, as a result 99% of drivers are now staying in their lanes without issue, and for those who have still failed to do so, there is mostly just damage to vehicles, rather than potential loss of life. Good outcome, no matter how you look at it. Any other view is just an invented fallacy to try get rid of bike infrastructure or to try and shift blame from the perpetrators.

  15. I think keep it as it is option; maybe with a bit more paint as a sop to drivers and people will get used to it.

    But one glaring issue is that AT have now tied the Glenfield turn off end into the overall improvement project. This is delaying fixing a horrible intersection while people ponder the size and shape of a protected cycleway that is already working as intended.

    If they do go for the big approach (and I suspect they might), with full cycleway, then fixing the intersection that people like myself have been complaining about for years will be pushed into 2023/2024

  16. A similar (albeit bi-directional) cycleway on Ngati Road, Tauranga hasn’t had anywhere near the same safety backlash from motorists (although there were parking issues early on that seem to have all but disappeared).

    They use a much more continuous barrier with a lower, more forgiving profile without seeming to have issues with vehicles entering the cycle lane. It does benefit from a 50kph speed limit but the lanes are fairly narrow. Having ridden it both as a cyclsit and a motorist it seems to work really well.

    I imagine with the steeper profile on Harbour Road barriers would be much more likely to result in a vehicle lossing control when straying into the barriers and hitting a gap and then riding up on the barrier is going to generate some problems for the driver.

    1. You are correct that is is the height that causes a catastrophic stop. One person produced impact modelling showing the height of these tends to drag the car into the cycle lane. What motorists need is a warning of straying too close which allows correction rather than a risky accident. Given the limited accidents in the 5 years prior scheme 1 is not the “unacceptable risk to cyclists” the author suggests on this road and a painted rumble strip (with no hard separation) may be enough on this road given prior history or possibly a low and gentle profile separator to nudge the driver back on track (made of durable material such as concrete of course)

  17. I think they need a lower speed limit. The road should be 50 kph permanently.
    There were some road works near where I live and I nearly came off cycling home at night when I hit an unexpected level change. The lesson I learned from this was to take more notice of the warning signs and to be more careful in future.

    1. This is a main arterial road that is relatively straight with good visibility. They have already reduced the speed from100 to 80 to 70 to 60kph. More important might be to remove anything that prevents proper road maintenance – including level changes you mention – as they have already stopped maintaining the cycle lane surface.

      1. It’s not a main arterial, it’s been replaced by a to lane motorway and is now a minor local road.

        It should be 50kmh as the local populace has clearly demonstrated they cannot be trusted to drive safely at a speed above that

  18. Mt Albert Rd on the corner opposite Frosts Rd,has had 50 meters of Tim Tams installed,quite closely spaced. Things to consider,
    Is there a standard gap between Tim Tams ,or somebody’s reckons ?
    What does 50 metres of protected cycleway achieve ?

    1. Gaps are to some degree flexible – where parking for example is more likely, gaps should be shorter (long gaps = easier to drive in and park anyway). But long gaps reduce cost, so the gaps tend to be longer…

      As for Frost Road – those (minimal, not perfect) cycle changes to the original designs were done only because Bike Auckland asked for them (https://www.bikeauckland.org.nz/our-future-gets-decided-in-places-like-mt-roskill)

      What do separators in one place do? They protect riders, of course, but more-so, they are a statement that if you are going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars changing intersections, on a road officially designated as a main bike route, then cyclists need to be part of the designs. You can’t keep on saying “Oh, we will change that intersection AGAIN later on, when somebody gets off their butt and finally builds a bikeway at Mt Albert Rd”.

      With bike lanes and basic separation included, at least when that – someday, sigh – finally happens, the Frist Road intersection will be easier, cheaper, instead of yet another major hurdle (“Do we really want to touch this intersection, we just ripped it up two years ago…”)

      That’s why even localised protection is key. We can’t keep kicking the cans down the roads.

      1. Thanks,l share your frustration over progress,l guess we have to take 50 meters as a win,only agreed to as it was easy,if it was Three Kings corner,I’m guessing,it wouldn’t have happened.

  19. I’m sure it’s just the length of this road combined with some speeding (rat run) & the gaps that has made the road different from others. Of course you will likely get more incidents if the length is longer than some other examples.

    Option 4 seems best to me, they are reducing the gaps between them as well (which could be an option by itself, but maybe that would be admitting they got it wrong). With this option they could also add the audio tactile paving but would add to the cost and maybe annoy locals (could just do this where there is no median, it narrows the lane leading to a calming affect anyway).

    I note that Street View is new enough to see the barriers, at the northern end anyway.
    Out of interest was there any crashes/incidents at the northern end which doesn’t have the median? What is the current width of the general traffic lanes now?

    1. Found the existing measurements in the PDF document linked at end of post. Southern end: 3m traffic lane, 2m flush median, 1.5-1.7m cycle lane. It’s hard to believe the cycle lane is that wide when you look at it on Street View. I guess it’s the drain, paint etc that makes it seem narrower…which makes you think how much is actually useable.

      1. It’s not that wide. It’s only 900mm in places. There have been multiple crashes at the northern end and frankly if you strike a bus coming the other way it’s not a nice experience.

        1. lol snowflake driver. 8 meter wide general traffic roadway and feels uncomfortable about the 2.5m wide bus coming the other way.

          Maybe you belong on the bus? if you can’t handle this

  20. I personally think shared path is the best solution. Assuming that it’s gonna end where the current separators end. Current path is very narrow in my opinion. I really can’t see how it’s safer for cyclist to be next to cars with concrete obstacles in their way to potentially make them crash into the traffic and not on the clearly painted/marked path with pedestrians. Also if you need to overtake someone you can do it without a trouble as pedestrians are usually few and you will see one maybe once every 5 min. Now you have to wait for the gap in traffic and go into the car territory and also slalom around those barriers. In what world cycleway is safer with cars than with the pedestrians. I seriously don’t know. Also you have curb on your other side while riding which you can also potentially crash into. I know 99% of us will be good but if we’re thinking safety and kids on the road we should be thinking about making it safe. At least to some minimum standard.

    Best alternative to shared path is in situ separators, which would help cyclists who woould not violently crash into separators and into the traffic and maybe even be able to overtake much easier (depending on the design). I know GA is focussing on how to make drivers life more difficult but maybe let;s think what’s best for cyclists?

    1. ” I really can’t see how it’s safer for cyclist to be next to cars with concrete obstacles in their way to potentially make them crash into the traffic and not on the clearly painted/marked path with pedestrians.”
      What do you mean by this, the cyclist crashing into cars a danger? Which way around are you talking about?
      Agree though it seems quite narrow, removing/reducing median is the key to making it wider.
      I think we dont’ want to spend a lot on this cycleway or it sets the bar to high where we don’t get many kms done going forward.

  21. One option they haven’t considered is making the dividers WAY more scary-looking to visually indicate something you should keep your distance from. At the very least they should have triangular patterns in colours that can be seen in poor conditions.

    Small, low, grey concrete blobs aren’t very good visual indicators of “this will stop you dead” and say something more along the lines of “bit of a speed bump, no worries.” You won’t calm traffic if you don’t influence driver behaviour.

      1. I wouldn’t describe it as “picturesque,” it’s just another scrubby North Shore road that’s a decade or two away from being fenced-in residential housing.

        1. You know you are clawing for relativity when you start to pull phrases out like ‘picturesque road’, now you are just showing your true colours that you are soley anti cycle lanes, you were better off when you kept repeating your 100,000,000% more crashes tripe.

      2. Emotive arguments based on aesthetics show you are reaching the bottom of the barrel here.

        No aesthetics are not an important consideration, sorry.

        1. I disagree. Aesthetics are very important and good form often equates to good function.
          This is a perfect case in point, where changes result in negative out outcomes AND look like a dog’s breakfast. More concrete and plastic is just what we need – yeah, right.

        2. I disagree. Aesthetics are not important and good form is uncorrelated with good function.

          I like concrete and plastic (not sure why anyone wouldn’t). More please.

        3. There is certainly a good case for not having a soul crushingly ugly public space.

          But a roadway for cars, yeah nah. That isn’t going to be pretty no matter what you do.

          And a design like this is inherently temporary anyway. At some point you get maintenance works and these will normally reinstate a more permanent design.

  22. Do nothing should always be an evaluated option.
    These look very similar to what is installed on Ian McKinnon Drive, no complaints about that? The gaps could be reduced so that they matched, except the gaps for driveways.
    Not much difference to drivers hitting these or the kerb, which is solely driver error. Consequences of hitting these are lower than basalt kerb stones.

      1. Do nothing was not an option at the start. It didn’t help create a bike network to enable a whole city to get around sustainably, thus trapping people in having to drive. It didn’t give the kids in the area the ability to independently get to their friends’ places by bike – placing them at risk of stunted physical, emotional, social and cognitive development.

        Discussion about which is the best way to deliver protected cycling has a place. Claiming that keeping the original state of the road was an option is a denial of society’s need to change, and of people’s needs.

  23. I drove along this road and discovered the barriers without incident. NZ ers are terrible drivers and dont like change. Some cyclists are also reckless. Bright paint should help….but so should driver education. Isnt Karangahape Rd the same.? But with slower speed limits. How about a fence like the bike lane along highway 18 to westgate?

  24. I drove along this road and discovered the barriers without incident. NZ ers are terrible drivers and dont like change. Some cyclists are also reckless. Bright paint should help….but so should driver education. Isnt Karangahape Rd the same.? But with slower speed limits. How about a fence like the bike lane along highway 18 to westgate?

  25. Disinformation from AT. It’s categorically wrong to say Option 1 is “red” for cycle safety when there was 1 accident in 5 years despite it being an extremely popular route. There have been more cyclists injured BY the barriers than were injured on the road prior to barrier installation. The silly traffic light diagram is just a fudge to make their preferred options look good.

    1. “This river with crocs swimming in it doesn’t need a bridge! There haven’t been any attacks on people swimming across in years!”

    1. Yeah exactly, probably minor injuries instead of death or serious injury from under a truck or car.

      If I hit them I would advocating to keep them, contrary these other fools. Who seem to just be to proud to wear the fact that they made a mistake and AT prevented the chance of it being significantly worse…

  26. Scheme 1
    Remove the separators. Return the road to the original layout. ASAP.

    There was no justification for the project in the first place. No community consultation. No one wanted it. It’s been a disaster.

    1. I am glad it happened if only to show how bad the drivers are on that part of the shore.

      The issue isn’t the dividers.

    2. It’s a great project.
      As someone who rides to work, this is the only route available and I’d like to get there and home safely. The paint doesn’t cut it.

  27. There were reports of deaths of cyclists and accidents involving cyclists over the 30 years I have lived on the Shore and it was formerly frightening to experience the speed and frequency of motorists so I am glad to see any improvement.

    1. I totally agree with Charlotte
      Joe, KLK and Angela obviously do not live in the area, easy to be objective, think about this happening in your street, access into my property is now restricted
      auckland transport refuse to even answer my queries

      1. Did they place a barrier over your driveway, if not then how is access restricted?
        And yes, many people who use the road don’t live in the area. That’s because for cyclists it’s the only route available to get to and from the North Shore.

        1. If it’s covering your driveway it should be moved but if it’s just to the right of it, hard to see how that’s restricting access

  28. I’m really struggling to see how option four isn’t an improvement on the status quo?

    But can someone actually answer if this bike lane or one side of it is narrower than it should be? Was it the case that before the separators were put in, cyclists drifted out of the bike lane or onto the white line when going round corners? Is there enough room to over take another cyclist?

    One of the major problems with shared paths is that if they actually succeed in achieving mode shift, they become dangerous places for pedestrians or, at least, lose fitness for purpose due to all pedestrian/cyclist conflicts.

    Just pulling this out of my arse, but I’m wondering if the cyclists that are crashing are sports/impatient cyclists trying to over take casual or commuting or just plain slower cyclists. Perhaps they’re attempting to weave in and out of the separators to do this because there isn’t enough space or they have to adjust as the slower cyclist veers away from the kerb to stay on the asphalt but don’t find enough room and hit the separator…

    I guess what I’m asking is how are cyclists hitting the separators? Auckland’s drivers are all the worst stereotypes about drivers so that’s easy to explain but the cyclists?

    1. okay I can answer some of your thoughts
      firstly two cyclist cannot ride two abreast in the lane, due in part because of the detritius in the lane which cannot be cleaned out by normal street cleaning thus it is full of leaves, fallen branches etc etc, so most paired cyclist either go line astern or the other rides in the “vehicle lane'”,
      secondly, usage of the cycle lane has plummeted since the separators were introduced, the training and triathlon groups have deemed it to be too dangerous for them, ergo cyclist are not crashing as much because they no longer use the route, in fact there are now more pedestrians and dogs than there are cyclists; shared paths do not exist, in At’S theory, peds, cyclist and cars, all have their own space. I have been informed, but cannot confirm that, by putting the separators on both sides of the roads (which is designated as a hIghway,) then vehicles of a certain width cannot use/pass .

  29. Pretty obvious to an unbiased ( unlike the above article) and logical mind these separators are a royal screw up on ATs behalf. More accidents INCLUDING cyclists since installation should ring a bell in most minds but it’s obvious by some of the comments a certain bias allows them to ignore anything that doesn’t suit their narrative. Wouldn’t commonsense tell us safety has been compromised?. Apparently not to some
    We are all for cycleways but not when the obvious impracticality exceeds the ideal.
    Working around AT for a considerable time their incompetence is on a stratospheric level so I’m glad our new mayor is aware of the their total disfunction.
    As a casual cyclist and motorcyclist, remove the separators, paint the shared cycle ways and they can go back to the safe environment it was before .

  30. Best option is to restore the road to its former state, with the addition of a rumble strip between the car and bike lane.

    This has just been one huge waste of time, energy and money to “solve” a problem that did not in fact exist.

    I am both a car and cycle user of that stretch of road and never had any problem with it.previously.

    The physical and visual pollution of what used to be a pleasant road is disgusting. Surely there are higher priorities.

    1. Man I envy people who can muster such a strong emotional response to how a street looks. At least for the purposes of this comment I do.

      It’s a residential road. People have to be able to use it. It’s not San Remo, it’s not a special stage and it doesn’t have some presumed status where it has to be a smooth road that lets you get a competitive driving level of thrill from using it.

    2. Not sure how you (and other) think returning it to how it was is acceptable?

      It’s just been proven that cars regularly drift in and out of somewhere they’re not allowed to be and could easily collect a bike. Imagine how many were doing that when there was no consequences for their actions (as would be the case with a rumble strip).

  31. Option 4 has surely got to be the choice to be made here. Literally could be done overnight… paint some lines and save a ton of money and drama.
    Literally the only downside is the narrower median for turning traffic…BUT the road isn’t that busy and the road width is still the same so vehicles can still safely pass each other so it’s a non-issue.

  32. Anybody who’s asking for removal of these barriers straight up does not care about cycling safety.

    I used to ride from the CBD to Mt Eden (via Symonds) and felt safer than a pedestrian on this stretch of road. Doesn’t even cross my mind to try cycling this route until Albany Hwy has real lanes in place. Heck, just footpaths would be a massive improvement right now.

    Heck, even tiny I wish they had footpaths on that s

  33. As a member of the Greenhithe community, the response to these barriers has been laughable. Yes you can argue a 2016% increase in accidents, but that only highlights how commonly drivers were drifting into the cycle lane. And rather than admit that it’s poor driving resulting in these accidents, the excuses get more and more ridiculous. A little sports car got blamed on the wind. Although later one of the driver’s family members blamed it on looking in the rear view mirror for 2 seconds. Another car hit the barrier on one side, then swung right across and half off the road on the opposite side. And yet somehow that wasn’t an indication of a bad driver.
    Meanwhile anyone who dares question the driving rather than the barriers on the community page is subjected to name calling and sarcastic comments. “You must be a perfect driver then”. “You have zero sympathy”. Or, best of all, “narcissist”. People excuse wandering out of your lane, referring to the cycle lane as a car’s “margin of error”. The only thing the residents won’t to is accept that a competent (not perfect. Just competent) driver should be able to keep their car in their lane, with relative ease.
    The more you read the community pages and which the consultations, you realise that the biggest issue here was the change. It’s something new and the residents don’t like it. In their minds, the road was fine how it has always been, their driving was fine how it was, no cyclist had been hit so there was no danger. These barriers have been a rude awakening to those residents, and they don’t like it and are burying their heads in the sand to the real problems.

  34. Nice reply Michelle. A voice of sanity crying out in the wilderness.

    Having driven and ridden the road many times I can’t understand the safety concerns either and assume its a smoke screen from local residents for their own personal agenda (s).

    Must say, that the ACC needs to do due diligence on consultation before making changes to roads.

    Would cut down on the arduous BS that rises up from the social media keyboard warriors.

    Lets face it, life is better without the BS that white middle class male key board warriors generate.

    cheers

    O

    1. ACC isn’t the regulator you’re after here. Worksafe is. But they refuse to get involved with anything on the roads despite it being (among other things) a workplace.

      Unfortunately for you, they get involved with status quo negligence as well so it would induce far more changes than are prevented.

  35. Maybe “bikeshedding” should be renamed “bikelaneing”!

    Bike lanes will continue being installed. Some won’t be perfect but they are needed. This is the way of the future. Get used to it Auckland.

  36. Putting all the barriers on the road is not fixing anything. If anything makes it more dangerous. The biggest problem for cyclist safety along upper harbour highway is that cyclists still, even with the barriers, which now clearly indicates the lane, continue to ride on the road and even 2 or 3 abreast. A simple solution such as a rumble strip would have been perfectly fine. For the data of injuries to cyclists along the highway, I would like to see how many of them were in fact due to the cyclist riding on the road and not in the cycle lane provided or from them hitting a car coming out of their driveway. At times (prior to the barriers) you would have a small pelaton riding 5 abreast on the road. I have heard comments along the lines of the cycle lane not being clean or debris from trees and rubbish and is a risk for falling off/popping a tyre which leads them to having to ride on the road. So maybe more action needs to be taken to keep the cycle lane clean and safer to use. Cutting down all the big mature trees isn’t an option. The barriers that have been put in place now will only collect more debris. It is an eye sore, a nuisance and does not benefit either the cyclist or the motorist and to top it all off the rate payers are the ones that end up suffering from these sub par ‘solutions’.

    Another aid to a solution would be to introduce an infringement for cyclists not using a cycle lane when it is available and this would help keep them in their lane, keeping motorists and cycles both safer together.

  37. Nothing gets old male drivers riled up like this cycleway. Imagine if they poured this passion into things like saving the planet!

    1. +1, well its already green, so yeah probably.

      But in all seriousness there’s plenty of people in Greenhithe who love the lanes, many I spoke to felt more protected and even joggers were happy they didn’t have to run in the open road anymore whenever the inconsistent footpath had power polls or crash barriers in them etc.

      Reality is, there’s a crowd claiming to represent the community drowning out everyone else, whom don’t really have the energy or will to raise opposing viewpoints.

  38. The image with the white ford is on one of the stretches with a painted meridian. These stretches seem to be about 8m wide. 2-lane roads that are this wide basically do not exist in a lot of countries. Where I grew up, 6.5 metres is the norm. Motorways are only slightly more generous at about 3.6m per lane.

    So it is quite surprising that, despite this width, people are crashing into the barriers left and right.

    This said, there seems to be a more narrow stretch near where Greenhite Road is: https://goo.gl/maps/6q9jYJ96Hptg6j9K7

  39. I drive this road regularly and there is no doubt that these barriers have caused some issues. I can’t help thinking that the height of these separators are visually intimidating . I followed a bus last week West along UH and it was at least half a meter across into the median without any reason to be.
    As it is at the moment with temporary speed limits and cones everywhere it’s a complete dangerous mess

    I am also curious how easily debris can be cleaned from the cycleway as it’s a road that often see debris following storms and I am nor aware of a road sweeper that will access the cycle lane

    Agree with the comments re Albany Highway junction. I have walked this a few times and you have to walk on the side of the highway or on the grass if you are heading North from Sunset Rd. In this day and age that’s bonkers. Interestingly there are bus stops on both side of the road in this area

    1. Seriously? High curbs intimidating? There’s heaps of bridges near me where the footpath is raised several times higher than these barriers, and the lanes are much more narrow and there is even a middle island…

      Yet those have been in place for many decades, if people scrape the sides of their cars they are blamed, not the bridge….

  40. As a regular commuter cyclist on this road I really don’t see what the problem is. I feel alot safer with the barrier . I also regularly drive this road and I also don’t see what the problem is. If a motorist hits the barrier they need to improve their driving. If a cyclist hits the barrier they need to improve their riding. Here’s an idea, remove the cones, install the rest of the barriers and find something worthwhile to complain about

  41. I’m sorry but the tone of this article comes across as AT centric! The AT solution has been applied to a problem that didn’t exist as identified by the number of comments (especially from cyclists) who feel more vulnerable now than with just the previous painted cycle lane. The PRIORITY and funds should have been applied to the Albany Highway problem which is a hazard where any cyclist takes their life in their hands riding the 800m either side of the intersection or turning right & merging out of Upper Harbour Drive.

    1. Wrong. I would be the first to crisitise AT generally, I am one of the most vocal about AT fails. But in this instance the only cristism I would apply is them responding to all this self indulgent bullshit in the first place.

      You talk of the intersection sure, but AT were rolling out protection to multiple unprotected bike lanes I.e. NOT real bike infrastructure, even broken yellow lines do more than bike lanes, as at least cars generally afford you more clearance.

      The intersection may be covered under another project but adding protection to lanes across the region was the scope of this project as it was cheap and time friendly.

      But… Not anymore as UHD seperation foes have now expenentialy increased the cost of this segment putting a damper on everywhere else. Litteraly costing peoples lives.

  42. It appears that there are three main problems; cycle lane width, driver speed and the Albany Highway intersection.

    To address the first the central median should be replaced by a centre line except for at intersections, where there should be a central turning lane. This would free up space for widening the cycle lanes.

    To address the second textured pavement should be added in car lanes in and around intersections. This would create road noise, making drivers more aware at these conflict points as well as reducing vehicle speeds. The removal of the median would also reduce vehicle speeds along the corridor because there would be less space between directions of traffic, making drivers more aware.

    As for the Albany Highway intersection, the slip lanes should be removed to make way for fully protected bike and pedestrian infrastructure that would feed onto a protected, bi-directional multiuse path on the western side of the highway, improving connectivity at that end of Upper Harbour Drive.

  43. How about one side of road s footpath for bikes n scooters and the other for pedestrians.
    I’m running for council next time toooo

  44. Why are we wasting money to appease a very small minority? Option 1 is the only choice here. Either accept the risks or stay off the roads. It’s not hard.

    1. Small minority? Such as the 25ish morons driving off the road into curbs?

      No. The protectors are for a majority of risers who ride for A to B transport such as commures, shopping, events, visiting family etc.

      Sporty riders are the only ones who seem to have an issue, and even with them it’s only a select few.

  45. As a cyclist and motorist the installation of these barriers has introduced serious risks for both vehicles and cyclists. Who ever thought this a good idea clearly didn’t seek a second opinion. Remove the bloody things and allow cyclists and vehicles to interact and enjoy what “was” a great cycle training roadway. Furthermore, seek opinions of cyclists before installing the bloody thing anywhere else.

    1. Allow motorists and cyclists to interact? Lmao are you serious? That’s called a death or serious injury.

      Have you never ridden on busy roads during peak time for a commute? Around 7km of my 22km commute is unprotected and I get nearly daily run ins despite riding like saint.

      I will continue riding in those conditions regardless but I know the vast majority of people won’t. So we need solutions like this to get people using bikes more over cars.

      This benefits continued car users, the climate, health, travel times, congestion and so many other things. It’s just a no brainer.

      As Ricardo says, maybe try some casual wear to get the curculation going.

      1. And yet on my cycle commute my most dangerous areas are on cycle lanes…those stupid barriers wouldn’t have helped. It was my caution that saved me. Drivers who give no consideration to crossing cycle lanes at intersections – bright kit, lights flashing. It’s driver education and consideration for other road users that is required

        1. Yeah well drivers dont seem to be changing any time soon. Adding the protectors by in large reduces issues stemming from close passes and the “didnt see you” garbage. Caution unfortunately only does so much.

        2. Driver education doesn’t do shit. They don’t care, telling them they should care doesn’t change anything.

          Enforcement or physical barriers are the only thing that works to change behaviors, and the cops have signaled how little interest they have in enforcement.

          Remember George wood used to be the north shore police commander, they all think like him.

        3. Yeah totally agree John D. The Police seem to have just completely forgotten about the roads, there is very little enforcement and people just seem to feel like they can do what they like. Police were even encouraging people break double yellow line rules/driving wrong side of the road, to skip queues at Triangle Rd. They constantly park on the footpath or cycleway, yet even in emergencies its totally unnecessary when there is plenty of road space available. E-bike police, instead of being a great tactic for enforcing road rules, they just used them to hassle what dwindling cycle community there is by going after other bikes for nit-picky garbage.

          They don’t enforce safe passing, because its only a recommendation in NZ, and they don’t enforce other basics which could have drastic consequences like not indicating properly or at all. Red light running they seem to leave to cameras for the most part, which runners generally will know which ones they can or cant run…

          Speeding is only enforced beyond 10km/h unless its a public holiday, so everyone drives like the “limit” is the minimum, and +10km/h is ideal… if you do otherwise as motorist, and its not congested, be prepared to be tooted at, tailgated and unsafely passed. Police have set this standard by not enforcing properly. The only time people seem to have a slight degree of worry is during public holidays where Police have a “zero or lower tolerance” for speeding.

          Its all just a shitshow mess that Police and their lack of enforcement have created. Also doesn’t help that NZTA/MoT still haven’t made 1m or 1.5m a requirement, amongst other things.

          But that aside, even if you fixed all this – which yes, would help drastically. It won’t completely elliminate all risk, perhaps someone having a heart attack, or a young child driving off in a vehicle, or someone breaking the rules despite them being enforced properly – which can still happen. So having the protection will still benefit and give assurances to riders who need it. Hell I am happy to take the risk and ride without it, and I do regularly, but it does feel fantastic having protection anyway, so I don’t have to be constantly on edge. It’s also not just about me, but the vast majority of other people whom don’t like risk taking.

  46. I cycled that small section of road in a 55km road cycle ( around the harbour).

    I drove on the same section of road recently too

    I can’t see what all the fuss is about

    Some of the comments from the Greenhithe residents are so strange that perhaps they are on illegal drugs?

    Can’t fathom it really

Leave a Reply

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