On the weekend there was an open day about AMETI’s Panmure section, outlining to the community some of the most recent design tweaks and providing some confirmation about key elements of the proposal, such as the addition of a bus/cyclist bridge across the Tamaki River, adjacent to the current Panmure bridge. This is detailed further in Auckland Transport’s media release:
Auckland Transport is planning to build a new Panmure Bridge for a future busway and a shared cycle/pedestrian path.
The proposed new bridge would be built on the northern side of the current one, which would remain open to provide the same number of lanes for general traffic.
It is one of the AMETI transport projects, which are aimed at dealing with congestion problems in the eastern suburbs to unlock the economic potential of the area. A strong focus is on giving people more transport choices by improving public transport, cycling and walking facilities.
Plans for the proposed new bridge, which are subject to consents and funding approvals, were shown at an AMETI information day in Panmure on Saturday which was attended by 200 to 250 people.
The new Panmure Bridge would have two busway lanes for the planned busway between Panmure, Pakuranga and Botany. It would also have a 4.3m wide shared cycle and pedestrian path, which would be separated by barriers from the busway.
All other vehicles would continue to use the current bridge.
There are also some pictures:
It is great to see that the high-quality bus infrastructure will run across this new bridge, a step forward from the Northern Busway situation where bus priority simply disappears along some of the most critical parts of the supposed RTN route (like the Harbour Bridge and the Fanshawe Street onramp).
The bridge will form a critical part of what looks like a pretty continuous busway from Panmure all the way to Botany:
Auckland Transport Major Projects Manager Rick Walden says a new Panmure Bridge is being proposed because the existing bridge has no room for the future busway.
“The planned urban busway would run between Panmure Station, Pakuranga and Botany. To provide frequent services there needs to be dedicated lanes so buses aren’t caught in other traffic.
“Panmure Bridge is also the only place for people in the area to walk or cycle across the Tamaki River. At the moment it is unpleasant to walk and there no dedicated cycle facilities.
“A new cycle and pedestrian path would improve safety, as well as encourage more people to walk or cycle between Panmure and Pakuranga.”
Some good thought has gone into the sections of the busway between Panmure town centre and the bridge too, so that we have a nice continuous busway rather than something which stops and starts all the time (as happens with traditional bus lanes):
As I noted in my previous post, the place where I think a bit more design tweaking is necessary is around the Panmure interchange – which still struggles to easily provide for people transferring between bus and train, particularly from/to RTN buses that will come along the busway from the southeast. 
If the stops are located closer towards “J” than “H” in the final scheme then things should be pretty good. While this may seem like a small detail, if we are going to encourage more people to accept transferring between services (as we must) then we need to make that transfer as simple and painless as possible.
Another concern I have is the move to split the pedestrian crossing of Ellerslie-Panmure highway into two sections. As a pedestrian there’s nothing more annoying than only being able to get across half the road in one phase of lights – then having to wait seemingly forever in the middle to complete what should have only taken a few seconds. You just need to see all the people who sprint dangerously across St Lukes Road between the mall and the shops down Wagener Place to realise that double-legged pedestrian crossings are an incredibly stupid idea.
That said, clearly things will be far far better for pedestrians than they are now. It’s just a shame to get 95% of the way there and then stuff it up.
A lot of comments in my previous post focused on the provision of a third track through Panmure station. Auckland Transport have provided some clarification on this matter:
The AMETI plans definitely do include provision for a future third rail line. Although putting this in will be a decision for Kiwirail, the new bridges that will be built at Mountain Rd and Ellerslie Panmure Highway are designed to allow for that as well as electrification. The station plans being developed also allow for it.
And as background for you, Auckland Transport is aiming for a major upgrade of Panmure Station since it will be one of the key transport interchanges in Auckland with the busway coming into the station. It is likely to be of a similar standard to New Lynn, but we can’t finalise any plans until working through funding discussions with NZTA.
This is good news on both counts I think.
Processing...
wow, 4.3m wide shared cycleway. How did that width come about? It’s wider than anything we’ve got in Auckland. It’s also more than wide enough for lane markings as per AUSROADS, i.e. two centre lanes for cycling & two outer lanes for pedestrians.
Is this the new standard for Auckland and what we should expecting for future developments, e.g. Waterview?
This is one roading project that has definitely improved the longer it has gone on and it seems it is now becoming a much more multi modal project which is great to see. The busway over the bridge will be good but how long till we hear calls for T2 vehicles or trucks to use it and the same tired old arguments that no one catches buses or trains so why waste millions of dollars on them?
As for the station, I said it in the last post but will say it again, the RTN stops need to be over the top of the rail station to enable easy transfers and that level of patronage is greater than Newmarket has today so I sure hope they will design fare gates into it
In Tokyo they often have line transfers of a couple of hundred metres platform to platform involving existing the station and walking along the street. So while the stop placement is not ideal it is hardly a killer.
It does look like a really good project. Good to see they have focused on the design of the interchange around the train station. This shows they are really taking things seriously and professionally. I agree they need to make sure this is a easy and *pleasant* experience for people.
Had to laugh/cry at the buses shown in the images: They have to be from the early 1980s at the latest. Even most of our current bus fleet are more modern looking than the lumbering dinosaurs shown in these images. But despite my grizzles yes, it’s a great project!
Those buses are typical of the buses in the US, a lot of which are quite new (but still overbuilt and clunky feeling), I assume they bought a pack of bus models for the 3D modelling software and that came with US-style buses.
This when completed will be fantastic. How long will it take to get from Botany to Panmure station in rush hour on the bus I wonder. At the moment it feels like forever! Is the bus way going to call all the way to Botany? Or will this be bus lanes?
Those split pedestrian crossings as is seen on Fanshawe Street are a complete PITA. I think if a local road is going to be used for such high-volume vehicular traffic then at the very least you would think that it would be possible to do a couple of pedestrian bridges over the road.
If the train station is sub-grade and the busway passes over it, then why not have the bus platforms on the rail overbridge and have escalators or stairs straight down to the rail platforms? That way people can connect without crossing a single street, or even without getting themselves wet.
I cycle across that bloody bridge every day. I hope the upgrade is finished before I get killed on it…
I hope they construct the bridge with sufficient strength to carry a future heavy rail line. Much, much cheaper and easier to do it now than to try and retrofit in the future.
I wonder how likely any of this is going to get funded considering it’s main focus appears to now be PT. I wonder whether the PT aspects get put on hold due to a lack of NZTA funding and the roading aspects proceed, stage 1 is already just roading.
It’ll take most of a parliamentary term just to get it consented and finalise planning. It’s entirely possible that the capital-intensive PT-improvement aspects can be easily held off until we have a pro-PT government in the next term.
Hell, there’s nothing to stop Dunne and/or Banks from supporting legislation to fund the entire thing. That’d bugger National right up. National’s wafer-thin majority means they’re in for a rough ride on a lot of things this term.
Yes, I kind of thought the sane, funding probably won’t be forthcoming until we get a change of government, similar to the CRL, however all the consenting could be done in the meantime such that we’re ready to go in 2015 after the election (fingers crossed).
I would assume that National will fund it on the proviso that it is T2, maybe T3 at the outside. Can’t let bludging PT users steal funds from the hard working private car owners.
A Tx lane can be undone with some paint, signs, and a by-law change. If accepting such a trifling proviso is what it takes to get the funding, the council would be foolish to argue.
That’s true. But the political ramifications could be high for a council that removes “the right” to drive where people want.
A T3 MIGHT be acceptable, a T2, might as well not waste the billions for building the car-way.
> That’s true. But the political ramifications could be high for a council that removes “the right” to drive where people want.
That’s why you make unpopular changes in your first year of office.
If the transport alternatives are very good, the fallout from removing a Tx lane shouldn’t be too severe.
There’s also the argument that the bridge should be kept aside strictly for buses and emergency vehicles, since it links to a path through Panmure that runs into the transport exchange, and on that basis it’s impractical to allow private vehicles onto the lanes because the need for them to merge back with general traffic before the bridge will negate most of the effect of the lanes’ very existence.
I’m hopeful that we’re nearing the point where the whining burghers of the Eastern Suburbs and Eastern Bays will be given a nice mug of STFU when they complain about dedicated bus lanes taking up “their” streets, on the basis of bus transit becoming viable for a majority of peak-hour trips.
Surely the continued success of the Northern Busway has put lead into the pencil of those arguing against the greedy lobby. Especially in this case, like the NB, it is new tarmac, so they aren’t ‘losing’ anything, rather getting buses out of their way, and, with figures from the NB, even getting other drivers out of their way too and onto the new faster busway!
Yes there is potentially a lot to lose if they change their mind on who can use it. Grafton Bridge is a prime example where the NZTA contributed money on the condition that it was a bus lane only during certain times and when the complaints started about people being fined for going over it the old Auckland Council looked into changing it but the only reason they didn’t is the NZTA told them that if they did so they would have to pay back the contribution as it wasn’t what the money was paid for.
Matt L, the government of the day can always authorise an alteration of purpose. Parliament can do whatever it so desires, after all.
“You just need to see all the people who sprint dangerously across St Lukes Road between the mall and the shops down Wagener Place to realise that double-legged pedestrian crossings are an incredibly stupid idea.”
You have to however realise the enormous constraints faced here. Even with the north-south traffic taken off, there’s a huge amount of movements across this intersection to be catered for (more on this below) – including a busway which needs a whole separate phasing, and can’t exactly be down-prioritised if one wants quick buses. So pedestrian crossings have to be either grade-separated or split – because if you build a pedestrian crossing over 8 (!) traffic lanes in one go, you are talking of are talking of over 30 seconds of pedestrian phase, because you have to make it safe for an old woman with a cane walking at 0.8m / second. To do that would totally stuff up the whole thing in terms of capacity. Sorry – simple signal math. To make it work with such crossings, you’d probably have to force pedestrians to wait 3-4 minutes for their next phase!
The alternative, pedestrian bridges… yes, normally that would be a nice idea, and may have to be done in the long run. However, the real key here is a) the north-south crossings will be a lot better than before (2 stages, instead of 3-5 uncontrolled roundabout legs as now) and b) if you look closely at the design, the most important walking route – that between the old Panmure Town Centre and the new town centre and the public transport interchange – is actually provided via raised zebra crossings. So very high convenience for the main pedestrian flow, and improved safety and convenience for the rest. Not a bad outcome, mind?
Also, I have been at the Open Day, and had a long discussion with a local community group person. They feel that as soon as the north-south road is built in the box tunnel, the roundabout will be “fixed”, as the problem disappears. The guy showed some appreciation of the difficulties for pedestrians and cyclists, but didn’t feel that merited removing the roundabout.
The locals are enormously keen on keeping ALL possible movements, and the fact that the two right turns at Jellicoe Street are going to be banned in this design really ticks some of them off. Also, they are worried they will lose their local buses for regional buses, and have to walk further to get to them. So some really, really don’t like this scheme at all.
“I cycle across that bloody bridge every day. I hope the upgrade is finished before I get killed on it…”
Bridge has now moved to 2014-2016. Sigh. In the worst-worst scenario, the new north-south road is built, and then everything grinds to a halt. No busway, no Panmure Bridge, no removal of the roundabout. Sorry for being gloomy today, maybe the election is catching up with me.
“the roundabout will be “fixed”, as the problem disappears.”
Should have written
the roundabout will be “fixed”, as the CAPACITY problem disappears.
We know, anyhow, that ped bridges and underpasses are usually ignored in favour of the most direct route. I hate ped cages a lá Fanshaw St, but it is probably the best solution for the quantity of phasing here…. Still very auto privileged over all, and acres of car parking… so this design does reflect the current state while trying to show another way forward……perhaps if it does all get built [!] there may be a way to shift some of that priority to humans and away from machines as walking gets used more and more…?
The pedestrian/cycle lane should not be mixed. It should be hoped that this can be built with capacity to take future rail.
I don’t see the need for rail here, anyhow it’s not got the true grade separate right-of-way that rail requires. Unless of course you mean light rail, trams, in which case it’ll be fine.
The South Eastern rail line that should be being planned for is Manukau to Botany, then Botany to GI. Botany could become a real TOD, with both this busway and a rail link to Manukau and the rest of the network [including Mangere and the airport]. Botany Town Centre could actually become a Place, Somewhere. Now it is a large carpark and little else.
“and acres of car parking…”
Huh? No car parking really proposed here…? Except some for the new town centre areas between the old town centre and the interchange, but that doesn’t look like more than there is now, if anything, more like less, especially as that area is likely to be a shared space.
“The pedestrian/cycle lane should not be mixed.”
Shared works pretty well in many places, including New York, Sydney… – but agreed that markings should probably divide it into a cyclist and a pedestrian section. Some faster cyclists may still stay on the old bridge anyway, especially if the removal of the old narrow walkway allows the traffic lanes to be made wider.
Current car parking is what I mean, that then still expects to be served by any new road layout, hence your problems in fitting it all in…. our old friend autodependancy at work again.
“Especially in this case, like the NB, it is new tarmac, so they aren’t ‘losing’ anything, rather getting buses out of their way”
Sadly, one can’t quite make that argument. As I noted, some locals are peeved that a few turning restrictions will be added at the previous “free for all” roundabout. They also are concerned that Lagoon Drive will only have one lane each direction, as opposed to the current two each direction. So that argument of “not taking anything away” can be loudly countered by the car fans.
My question is: Why do we keep building our public transit systems right next to main arterials? This is one example. The railway line and northern busway are other examples right next to the motorway.
By doing so we are ending up with these horrendously large intersections as you have two lanes for the bus lanes in addition to trying to accommodate vehicles with another 5 lanes as standard (including median/ right hand turn bays). This is going to be a complete eyesore.
The other obvious point is that by putting your RTN/QTN next to arterials you are cutting people off from half their destination as they’re faced with a wall of traffic if they want to get to a destination on the other side of a busy road.
In the case of the rail lines at least, they were there for decades before the motorways were. I think the real answer to your question is that it is easier to widen the motorway/major arterial to accommodate this than to build a new route somewhere as gone are the days when they just sent the bulldozers out and knock down what ever is in the way like they did for the original motorways. The solution is probably to make it easy to cross those roads with pedestrian bridges and that is something much easier with a RTN as they tend to have less stops.