With much excitement NZTA and AT announced the extension of the strangely terminating NW Cycleway into the city. The evening was carried along by the limitless enthusiasm of Barbara Cuthbert of Cycle Action who certainly has decided that smiles and and encouragement opens more doors than complaint. She’s probably right. However I am genuinely torn between being so Cuthbertly grateful that they are doing something, anything for the active modes, and highlighting how sadly compromissed and halfbaked this plan is. Can I do both? Or at least play a bit of bad cop to Barbara’s good?
I really am delighted that this is happening, it will, or at least should, open the floodgates. It should help show that investing in cycling infrastructure is the low hanging fruit of Auckland’s long overdue transport Renaissance. I look forward to using it, well parts of it. I can see that getting NZTA to accept that they are the New Zealand Transport Agency and ought to invest in all transport modes, and not just New Zealand Highway Builders Association is like trying to get the Titanic to turn when approaching a frozen obstacle, but really can we not point out that this is a suboptimal plan by that agency’s own measures, and that it can be fixed?
Having said that the problems with it look like they are the result of demarcation issues with the agency’s much poorer city cousin; Auckland Transport. The programme is called the Grafton Gully Cycleway because of the need for the thing to take place within NZTA’s designation as they will be funding it. It will after all, cost a figure that would be invisible in the rounding of the average motorway project but we still should be pleased that they are even tossing in those dimes. Let’s have a look; a link to the full PDF is on Cycle Action’s site here.
It consists of two stages initially, both shown in red below on NZTA land. The first terminating at Wellesley St and due to be open at the end of next year, the second carrying on to Beach Rd, due a year after that. Where AT will take over, shown in yellow, and link it up Tamaki Drive, green, to connect the two most used cycle routes in the city. Cycling Super-Highway!
The Grafton Gully Cycleway
I guess the Cycleway is a curious hybrid because it is on the one hand a sort of motorway for cyclists [something NZTA can understand] but then of course it isn’t; as humans on foot are also welcome on it. Although I suspect that if it attracts enough cyclists this will become a defacto grade separate cycleway because when cyclists and pedestrians mix it is the cyclists that are the bullies- by the same process that they are the victims on our roads: Might becomes right. The mixed use is fine with me and both Scott Wickman from NZTA and Gyles Bendall from AC showed that they clearly understand the difficulty of suiting all the different grades of cyclist, but this fact did get some complaint at the launch from cyclists that want their own dedicated route.
The really good parts of the plan start at the northern end of the Upper Queen St overbridge. Both because this is where it actually becomes a cycleway and because this is where AC is getting involved and using it as a catalyst to open up the Cemetery with new paths and other work:
Hobson Cemetery
From here it follows the motorway [suck in those Diesel fumes] under some flyovers past my old Art School to where stage one terminates at the Symonds St underpass to Wellesley St, purple below:
Cycleway to Wellesley St
All good, especially for Elam Students. The big problems are between the beginning of this section and where the cycleway currently ends at Newton Road. Check out the crazy purple squiggle below:
Cycleway study area
From the west you are meant to ride up to the Newton Rd Bridge, steep, fumey, unpleasant, along the footpath to a controlled crossing, dismount, wait and reflect on vehicle privilege, walk across, ride down then up the footpath on the eastern side of the dysfunctional Ian McKinnon Dr, dismount at Upper Queen St, cross a typically murderous free left turn, wait watching endless car cycles, walk across good old Ian McK, ride a little way down Upper Queen [where some underused car parks will be removed- yay!], negotiate another scary free left turn, dismount and wait to walk across Upper Queen St and huzzah! Launch into the Cycleway proper.
Two things that matter hugely when riding a bike, especially when riding a bike as transport and not just as recreation: grade and momentum. Hills are to be avoided where possible and stopping and starting costs huge amounts of energy. To have to go up to the Newton Rd bridge when there is a clear and unobstructed route underneath it is just perverse but to then to have to dismount to cross one of the more unpleasant four lane traffic sewers that the glory of the CMJ brought us is just nuts. And then to find yourself, as a result, on the wrong side of another one and to have to dismount and cross back and you start to get the idea that someone is taking the piss. Grade and momentum remember, up needless slopes and all stopping and starting. How much extra time will all that add to the journey? Remember NZTA’s entire existence is predicated on the enormous value of time saved in transit through its labours. And this must be a transport project because they are doing it. So how can they be so careless of the cyclists’ minutes by sending them on this merry-go-round?
Pointless and dangerous crossing
Instead couldn’t we just continue at a gradual grade under the Newton Road Bridge, on a path through the planting that also helps connect the local houses, and then onto Ian McKinnon Drive itself? With a cycleway formed out of the lefthand lane heading north?
Cycleway: Obvious route
Am I mad, cycling taking over actual road space from vehicles? Well no, because we know that this road is a disaster because its wide ‘motorway like’ expanse encourages excessive speeding with fatal consequences, here:
There were 58 crashes in the five years before then, rising to 90 in the five years afterwards, including one fatal smash. They included more than treble the number of loss of control crashes occurring on bends.
And
Waitemata Local Board spokesman Christopher Dempsey, who chaired the previous board, said he was disappointed the limit was not made the same as the 50km/h in force in Dominion Rd but accepts it would have been a challenge to get it down that far. That was because Ian McKinnon Drive had physical characteristics of a motorway, and any greater reduction would require engineering changes.
What chance. Removing the lefthand lane heading north for a cycleway would neatly reduce the roadspace telling us drivers that it is really a city space and to drive more reasonably. Two birds: One Cycleway.
But this also goes to show that my criticism of NZTA above may be misplaced as this is Auckland Transports turf; so maybe it is their traffic engineers that need the rark up? Please advise noble pubic servants, or better still; sort it out will ya?
Processing...
This initiative is both exciting and disappointing at the same time.
Exciting because it’s obviously the key link in Auckland’s atrociously under-funded cycling infrastructure, but disappointing because once again the usefulness of the whole exercise is undermined by terrible design decisions at key points. The kink is a killer – I’m a keen cyclist but would avoid using it for that reason alone.
It’s very sad that in these situations New Zealand always forces the compromise onto the non-car mode, which is arguably the most affected by the extra time/distance that they have to travel. Honestly, what problems would be caused by taking a vehicle lane off Ian Mackinnon? Bugger all I’d expect.
Unfortunately it’s transport decisions like the purple kink that ram home why I will ultimately flee Auckland.
Actually you aren’t required to dismount at Newton Rd, there is a dedicated cycle phase in those lights, one of only two in Auckland, and the only proper one at that.
I could have sworn that your red line above was actually part of the plan Patrick. That’s both obvious and easy to build in the corridor.
Your absolutely right. It does seem like a missing link. You want continuity. I do like how I can use it to ride to the Domain or Waterfront.
The comments made here are both right AND wrong.
As some background I have heard from CAA circles – it is my understanding that the red line Patrick shows in the last image IS part of the CMJ cycleway. This section is called Stage 3 (the CAA public meeting was about Stage 1 – to Wellesley Street, and Stage 2 – to Beach Road). The walking and pedestrian works on Ian McKinnon further south last year where actually extended a short bit further north (past the pedestrian signals south of Newton Bridge) because CAA asked for it so Ian McKinnon facilities can in the future tie directly into the Stage 3 part of the cycleway.
I understand that the Ian McKinnon section of the CMJ cycleway was included in the planning from the first, and when the project officially kicks off with the new financial year, design (but not yet construction or funding) for this section will also happen.
So why is the red route not part of the project right now? The old reason: funding. As long as AT is not choosing to reduce Ian McKinnon Drive in width, the red route is actually a quite highly expensive piece of infrastructure, due to the steep bank over the motorway. So the project team said: Okay, we can use up all our budget, and/or add the additional complexity of working with a major change to an non-NZTA-road, and fix this part first. But then the cycleway would still stop at Upper Queen Street, with no money in the pot left for several years!
So instead the decision was made to accept a sub-par but existent section of cycleway in this section (remember that for all the issues with this section, it is a CYCLEWAY – we don’t have too many of them yet!) – and concentrate on getting link-up through Grafton Gully first – where there are no facilities at all right now. I think until we have more funding money for cycling, we need to put it where it will do the most, and accept that other pieces will have to be left for later. Every functional improvement will gain us more momentum for cycling.
Instead of being negative about it all, we should see it in similar terms as the Kingsland section: As soon as we had good cycleway sections either end, and a less efficient piece in the middle, it became much easier to find the funds to lift the middle section to a higher standard. The same will happen here.
I think the issue is convincing the people making the decisions in AT that spending millions on cantilevering a cycle lane off the side of Ian McKinnon makes no sense when there’s more than enough space in the road itself to make the cycle lane. Spend $100,000 on concrete planter boxes, box off the left hand land and bingo you have a separated cycle lane with perfect grades. Until this mind change happens I completely agree with spending money on things that make sense, wasting it on ovebuilding Ian McK drive when the road itself needs to go on a diet is silly and is throwing money away.
Yes, this is the point of the post. But the world is still full of those who grew up believing in the great virtue of the never ending expansion of road space, so even the thought that a place and a road might be improved by restricting it is probably is still pretty unthinkable.
I’m so confused by this part of the design, which is one of the reasons I haven’t written a blog post about it myself due to my unfortunate inability to translate lines on maps into physical space. I think I might actually need to go up there with an engineer and have them explain with big hand gestures where the cycle way will go. Sadly, my resident engineer is overseas right now 😉
What I don’t get is why if you are coming down the North Western from say Kingsland you need to actually cross over Ian McKinnon Drive at all at Newton Road? I mean right now can’t you just stay on the cycle way the whole time? Are they planning to change that?
Also, if they do try and make people do that weird loop, what are the odds that many cyclists will not just do what I do when the traffic is light and I’m in a robust frame of mind and simply cycle up Ian McKinnon Drive itself and down Upper Queen Street on the road? Because that will be (is) scary but many people might feel it is better than having to wait at endless road crossings. Or is that basically what you’re objecting to Patrick?
so confused.
Well if I’m coming this way I’ll be riding on the road… Lucy at the moment the NW cycleway, such as it is, doesn’t connect at all with the hateful Ian McKinnon but heads uselessly up the NW onramp footpath to the Newton Rd bridge, and that’s what it will still be doing after this work is done. Daft.
And all that work that AT did before the RWC seems to have largely been about getting cyclists onto the pavement, so really it’s about clearing the way for cars…. plu ça change….
Correct me if I’m wrong but the cycleway only goes up the side of the Newton Rd on ramp and along Newton Rd to the cycle crossing, where you also have the loop option if you don’t want to cross. The cycleway is along the east side of Ian McKinnon so if you want to stay on the cycleway you have to go up and over.
Also that weird loop is what is there now, I doubt many people use it because it means dropping back and down only to have to turn around and climb back up again. That looks to me like a traffic engineers solution to a cycle problem, building a cloverleaf onramp for cyclists to get them out of the way of cars.
but can’t you just stay on the footpath on Ian McKinnon and go all the way up to Upper Queen? Sure you have to cross over some lights and suchlike, but overall it’s fine.
On a bike, frankly, it’s my view that you should do what you like, with the two provisos 1. that you take care to never endanger another, especially pedestrians, and 2. that you take care not to die at the hands of a larger vehicle.
So if you can get yourself from the NW cycleway to Ian McK, god’s speed and up the hill you go. It’s been a while but I’m not sure there’s a route between the two?
Yes but the shared footpath is on the eastern side of Ian McKinnon, and the NW cycleway is on the other side. So until the build the red route outlined above, you either need to cross using Newton Rd or ride on Ian McKinnon itself.
Still cant see who will use this cycle lane, except people on a recreational sunday ride.
Someone earlier mentioned the domain, this will link you to the bottom of the domain only, for people from west to domain or hospital (where a lot of people cycle to) this new cycle lane will not serve them.
And it doesnt serve the city, from Newton road, to virtually any part of town, I dont imagine many would follow this link to Beach Road to get to town.
And there isnt huge demand for tamaki drive to west for cyclist either.
So who the heck is it supposed to serve?
I left the meeting in High street early, because if I stayed, I would have slapped the NZTA speaker for being more concerned about using current NZTA land entitlements, than actually building something that fills a demand, or induces more demand.
I was stoked when they said the cycleway was getting extended to town, as I ride from West Auckland to High street every day of the week, however this is of no benefit to me, and if it doesnt serve someone from west riding to the eastern part of town, I think they officially dropped the ball.
I see it as a waste of money, which is pretty difficult to do on a cycle lane,
Anyone got examples of real day-in day-out demand this might fill?
Stage 1 ends at the university, that’s a pretty huge day in day out demand right there.
Two universities; it suits AUT perfectly, especially if it continues under Symonds St, and it should; there is plenty of width to accommodate it.
And Adam Stage One will deliver you to Wellesley St, so then it’s just along Kitchener St and you’re right at High St, pretty handy for you in fact.
A minor but quite exciting point: does the fact that this new cycle way stage ends on Wellesley St mean cyclists and pedestrians will be allowed to use this bit of road? At the moment neither are supposed to go under Symonds St – some really stupid cost cutting by the motorway builders of the day.
I am surprised that so many people are complaining abut the ‘loop’ / ‘kink’ at Newton Road / Ian McKinnon using words like “nobody will use it” when hundreds of regular NW Cycleway users are using it already, every day!
Yes, it has clear downsides, yes one has to go up first and then down again, and that is a discouragement compared to the ideal state, but it’s a bit weird seeing people talk of the off-road cycleway link from Kingsland to Upper Queen Street as if it was something that provided no use or function. I use it often enough, and it’s not even on any of my regular routes. It is preferable to maybe 60-70% of other Auckland routes.
Again, I argue that unless AT changes their mind on Ian McKinnon to allow something on the cheap, doing a big spend-up at NZTA (from very limited money available for cycling) fixing something that is second-grade to make it best practice is a waste of money! Spend the money on extending facilities! If the original creators of the NW Cycleway had insisted on best practice or nothing, we’d have no cycleway at all. Improvements build upon improvements.
> Although I suspect that if it attracts enough cyclists this will become a defacto
> grade separate cycleway because when cyclists and pedestrians mix it is the
> cyclists that are the bullies
Give the designers and consultant team some credit for knowing that. The areas of greatest potential conflict between peds and cyclists are well known to the team (between Upper Queen Street and Symonds Street, and between Wellesley Street and Beach Road – because on these sections, pedestrian interest will be highest), and hopefully, wider than usual paths, or even separated paths for peds and cyclists each, can be provided. Of course that isn’t going to be able to be confirmed until the detailed design is complete, so right now, they don’t promise it, but I am aware that CAA for example are pushing for it.
> A minor but quite exciting point: does the fact that this new cycle way stage
> ends on Wellesley St mean cyclists and pedestrians will be allowed to use this
> bit of road?
This is, as far as I am aware, not (yet) officially part of the project, though there is some talk of creating an interim legalisation of cycling (not walking) in the area to Grafton Road. However, like fixing the Newton Road / Ian McKinnon section, as soon as lots of cyclists come and go to this area, the pressure to fix this (and provide a higher quality link to the Domain over the motorway) will be a lot stronger. The chance that for example the strange grass strip on Wellesley East tunnel under Symonds Street gets turned into a cycleway becomes much more likely than it is now, when some would prefer to turn to into a further traffic lane.
> Anyone got examples of real day-in day-out demand this might fill?
Thousands of university area staff, and tens of thousands of universty students. Lots of office buildings in the lower CBD. A whole office and mixed-use growth area in former Commercial Bay / Lower Parnell (that was just signed off for major intensification in the coming decades in the Auckland Plan, as far as I am aware).
I think it’s useful enough, although straight down Symonds St would be better still.
(I’ve often thought recently that a cut and cover of Symonds st to put a park/walking/cycling where the road is now would make Auckland Uni into a “real” place.) I digress. I think people will use it, but it’s most likely a steeper grade back up Grafton gully than most cyclists would like (not that you can do anything about it), and there will be some planning needed to make sure cyclists heading downhill who will be coming around the sweeping left-hand corner into the gully aren’t too much of a danger to other users.
I wouldn’t use it myself to get to uni. Would just go up onto K Road and then bomb down Symonds street. Because I couldn’t be bothered cycling down the hill and then back up. But I accept that I am probably a more confident cyclist than this route is aimed at.