Having recently returned from exile in Brisbane, I’ve been enjoying spending some more time loitering around Auckland’s rapidly rejuvenating city centre. One of the areas I’ve particularly enjoyed reconnecting with is Customs Street.
I’ve always liked Customs Street. It feels like Auckland’s forgotten “centroid”. I love walking around and imagining the amalgam of wharfs, railway sidings, factories, and shops that previously populated that part of town. As a result, Customs Street is now home to a number of splendid heritage buidings, and – as is the norm for Auckland – cars. Lots of cars (source).
There’s certainly lots of sexcellent things happening around Customs Street. Britomart continues to go from strength to strength; with a delightful mix of cafes, bars, restaurants, and shopping. Despite it’s prominent location many of these still seem to offer relatively affordable treats and eats.
On the southern side, Auckland Council’s upgrade of Fort Street is nearing completion and looking ab fab. Meanwhile O’Connell Street is next in line for the shared space treatment. It doesn’t seem like it will be long before we have a lovely little web of intimate pedestrian-oriented streets funneling down to Customs Street, and ultimately onto Quay Street.
Notwithstanding these wider improvements, I just can’t shake the nagging feeling that Customs Street deserves a greater focus in the city’s future regeneration. Indeed, Auckland Council’s City Centre Master Plan seemed strangely silent on what would/should become of Customs Street in the future.
From where I’m sitting all the changes that are planned in the wider city centre, especially Quay Street, suggest Customs Street will increasingly need to function as the “backbone” of the downtown transport network. Not just for cars, but also buses and – increasingly – pedestrians looking to access Britomart and the Waterfront. Indeed, more so than other streets in the city centre, which look set to specialise for one transport mode or the other, Customs Street looks like it will always be a multi-modal transport corridor.
And that means that some uncomfortable compromises will need to be made. Personally, I’d love to see a more European style boulevard on Customs Street, as discussed in more detail in this post. The key complication factors on Customs Street, however, as 1) the narrower street width and 2) the important role it plays (and will continue to play) in the bus network. This means we have less space to play with, but more demands on the space that is available.
Something has to give – we simply don’t have enough space to create a nice street for pedestrians, cater for bus access and mobility, and maintain current traffic capacity. But I’m keen to know what others think – what would you like to see on Customs Street? How would you reconcile the tensions between various modes? How might we get there from here?
Here’s an extra pic for the post, Stu -PR:
P.s. When not wandering around Customs Street I’ve spent my time protecting her royal highness – Princess Kuku – from the cold snap. So snuggly …
Processing...
Err, isn’t the third picture somewhat out of date? The second picture is taken from the new development that exists in the carpark at the centre of number three 😀
Yeah, I noticed that also.
depends on how you define “out of date”. Older than the other photo you refer to? Yes. Useful viewpoint for understanding the location? Yes.
You’re on a Freudian slippery slope there Stu (sexcellent?)…
I hate Customs St (as it currently is). Its like a downtown motorway with pedestrians squashed in with bus shelters on a relatively small footpath (at least, on the northern side). Seems a lost opportunity at ground level for those restored heritage buildings and the new Westpac development.
That second shot is interesting. Its pretty obvious, but what a fantastic link there could be from the heart of the new Britomart area to a public space at Captain Cook wharf. Secondly, is there anything stopping Gore St (inside Britomart) from being a shared space? Much car traffic through here?
yes I have a love-hate relationship with it too. Very much a lost opportunity. Also agree that Gore street is a key link to waterfront. Not much car traffic from what I can tell …
There’s next to no traffic through Britomart, in fact the only users are really buses and taxis. The Britomart carpark was built out of the precinct to reduce traffic. So there’s really no excuse for it to remain as it is, I remember years ago reading that Cooper and Co or whatever the developers are called now were thinking about making it into a shared space but I’ve heard nothing since. It is perhaps semi-dependent on what they do with all the buses in the area. Closing it off to just buses would be a great start however.
I don’t know what can be done with it. I feel as though either Customs or Quay Street are going to be full of cars in just about any scenario; we just need to choose which one. I’d prefer Customs street to be the artery with an underpass connecting Queen Street and Britomart, and for Quay Street to be more pedestrian friendly.
Its really hard to see what purpose Customs Street serves apart from as a bypass of the CMJ, allowing people to go from Ponsonby to Parnell without getting on the motorway.
Its form largely result of the madness of the Fanshawe St viaduct that shoots cars out at arterial speeds.
In parts is up to 7 lanes wide, no need for this at all. I don’t see why we need any cross CBD arterials except for buses, pedestrians and cyclists. Cars should be encouraged to get on the nearest motorway exit, not drive across the CBD.
Could easily lose a lane each side in return for much widened footpaths, with buslanes next to path.
Also can’t see why we need full turn lanes into Gore St, Commerce St and Britomart Place. Surely one for buses only would suffice and could close the others.
This would help reduce width at intersections.
What alternative route are you suggesting? The CMJ can’t do that trip, it would have to be K R’d.
Crosstown trips across the CBD aren’t possible via the motorways.
The southbound onramps from the western side of the city centre connect directly to the Southern after the Port exit, and the northbound onramps from Parnell/Wellesley St E connect to the Northern after the Nelson St exit.
You can’t use the CMJ/motorway to get between Parnell and Ponsonby (unless you go via Newmarket). This is because the motorway network is designed to facilitate longer journeys rather than short ones. in a private vehicle Customs St or Quay St is the best option for getting between the two; I guess Symonds St and K Road or Mayoral Drive can be used as well. Unless there is some unannounced project (like a tram line or shudder – some massive road tunnel) we need to keep some priority for movement between Tamaki Drive/Parnell and Ponsonby/Three Lamps/Herne Bay.
Why can’t you? Get on on at the Port motorway exit and get off on Newton, that’s a door to door, Parnell to Ponsonby motorway connection. It will certainly be quicker than driving through the centre of town.
Sorry I’m muddling my exits, but getting on at Port and off at Nelson street and down Wellington Street or across Hopetoun Bridge takes you right into Ponsonby. And in any case, the fact of the matter is that priority has to be handed over to the most effective modes at transporting people that that will mean more bus lanes and more priority to cyclists, this is the innercity we’re talking about. And just as the people of Orakei don’t want motorways through their neighbourhoods neither do the increasingly large numbers of innercity residents want their neighbourhood purely devoted to maximising the speed at which cars can pass through.
You can’t get on at the port and off at Nelson. If you get on at the Port you can only head south, west or to the harbour bridge. Likewise the reverse is not possible.
That’s not possible. The entry point of the northern link from the port is north of Nelson St exit. Short of backing up the motorway you can’t get off the motorway until after the bridge from this link.
Google Maps agrees, first exit on the NW is GNR.
ok thats interesting, funny what you don’t realise when you only walk around the CBD not drive.
Maybe should of meant North Shore to Parnell and Tamaki Drive.
Of course Wellesely is another over engineered east-west cross town route, surely don’t need both.
Had an idea should close Wellesley off/on ramp and use this as green connection to extend Domain into CBD via Albert Park.
Surely don’t need Symonds, Wellesley, Grafton, Alten, Beach Road and Quay St as exits on the East side of CBD, only should have 2 or 3.
Wellesley St – Mayoral Drive – Vincent – Hopetoun is probably best bet for Parnell to Ponsonby. My impression formed from kids cricket is that there isn’t much exchange between Parnell and Ponsonby, just lots of sworn enemies.
More seriously, I don’t think that even if Customs is the best way to get from Ponsonby and Parnell that demand from that route is sufficient to justify that car-fest.
The Grafton Gully Traffic Engineers’ Clusterf*ck forms such an efficient severance that Parnell pretty much might as well be Pakuranga for the number of times I visit it from the city or Ponsonby….. by any mode.
However I do think that is one inner city wound that the CRL [with next year’s new Parnell Station] will help repair along the way… and looking froward to Parnell discovering its back door too, and connecting to the Domain and the Uni [so longs as ped and bike amenity across the raped Gully is addressed too].
#smallbutsignificantfixes
Guys you might be missing a trick there.
Regardless of what the best way to drive from the east side of town to the west is, we don’t need four or six lanes on Quay, Customs, Victoria, Wellesley etc to accomodate trips from Parnell to Ponsonby. One lane each way on any of those should be sufficient for that demand. Cut out all the movements that should be on the motorway, especially commuters, and there is plenty left.
Just had a look for traffic data on Customs and Quay. Both are way out of date on the AT website. Does anyone have some recent data?
I’ll add that I went down Elliot st today and I was darn impressed with its new look. Look on street view it wasn’t too bad before but rather dated and the dedicated vehicle space gave the whole street a more closed in feel.
Keep up the good work I say.
It’s bloody good eh? You’ll be please to know that High St, O’Connell St and Freyberg Pl are next up for redoing in the same style. Actually I think Federal St will be next, then those three.
O’Connel Street is confirmed, is there even any discussion about High Street at this point in time?
Yes, it was either in the Council response to submitters or the committee meeting minutes, can’t remember which one. Anyway it said that O’Connel was going to be done as a shared space and that it’s design would be integrated with that of High and Freyberg. That doesn’t mean they will build it all in one go but they are designing it for one cohesive outcome.
Will Lorne Street between High St and the library ever be transformed into a shared space? A nice pedestrian oriented strip from Fort St to the library via High St and Jean Batten Place would be great.
Sadly Lorne just got done before the recent ‘victory over the traffic engineers’ [and I’d have to say the dafter retailers], so I guess it’ll be a while, but then once High st is fixed I think the pressure will get unstoppable…
I wonder if they could basically just raise and fill in the road bit between the kerbs, keep the services and drainage in place so that it doesn’t cost much.
Oh there real nice and precisely the sort of roads that should have such treatments.
I just want them to do the same in Newmarket, kingdom st for one.
I agree. Newmarket would profit hugely from some shared space and being made more pedestrian freindly.
Not being from Auckland, I am amazed that Newmarket is not more of a destination but I think the car dominated form really prevents that. Broadway is a massive problem but not quite sure where those cars could go otherwise. The separation between the two sides of Broadway really kills its atmosphere and there is little on street culture there.
Block Morrow St, at the Broadway end, to motor vehicles for a start.
re: Blocking Morrow St from Broadway: what alternatives do you propose for all the traffic the 277 car park generates? With the current layout of one-way streets Khyber Pass, Alpers Ave and Gillies Ave would be the nearest alternatives, lengthening journeys from most directions and they’re not the quietest streets in Newmarket to begin with.
In my experience Alpers and Khyber are the two worst streets around Newmarket to cross, so this could make life far worse for pedestrians in Newmarket.
That would be the street in front of your office, no? 😉
Seriously though its a good spot for it, now that the level crossing is go there must be pretty negligible traffic.
I had a discussion with a planner about the success of the shared streets in the City Centre and he made this telling remark:
‘The traffic engineers have lost the battle for the CBD’!
Interesting, eh?
Here’s hoping, and that this insurrection can spread.
I think that battle would have been between traffic planers and urban planners.
As a highway engineer I’ve been in favour of such environments for some time, in fact the first such urban space I did was way back in 2002.
Traffic engineers are the traffic planners.
No they aren’t Nick, planners are very different from engineers. Engineers work more with specifics finding the problem and then coming up with solutions. Planners are more about compliance with plans and applying generic solutions.
Thanks for the clarification on my job title but you missed my point Richard, in Auckland it is traffic engineers that do the traffic planning (and historically everything up to the strategic transport planning, and a big dose of land use planning too).
I assure you nick, when it comes to the choice to make a dark and ugly service lane or a shared use space we are not involved. We may help out with designing what people want but we don’t dictate it and never have. Even those big grand motorway plans from the 60s were more the planners desire then ours, we just made them safe and stronge enough to last the test if time.
I thought you were more into transport planning however? Like the northwestern busway that you guys are looking at?
Since when were you a traffic engineer, I thought you were a civil engineer?
Yes I am a transport planner (but even then I really only work on public transport, cycling and walking so it’s only a subset of transport). I’m not a traffic engineer by any means.
And yes those decisions have, until quite recently, been undertaken by traffic engineers. Some planner or urban design or somebody comes up with some scheme to use roadspace or parking for something, or even a new building… and it comes down to the traffic engineers to say yes or no based upon the impacts on traffic capacity and flow.
It’s change a lot recently and we have some great stuff coming on board like the shared spaces as a result, but for a long time it was individuals who had skills on traffic modelling, signal phasing, intersection design etc that were making the calls on strategic transport planning. It was traffic engineers that developed the big master transport plans and not surprisingly it was a traffic solution they came up with.
Now I’m not bagging traffic engineers here, their work is necessary, highly accomplished and certainly something I have only a very general understanding of. But all too often they are tasked with planning and making strategic decisions that go beyond their tactical remit.
In the 13 years I’ve been working in civil engineering I all I have seen traffic engineers do is work out capacities of intersections and such things. Some traffic engineers also do things like safety audits but they certainlt don’t go round telling councils what function their local roads should take, its planners who do the planning and not engineers.
In saying that I have seen some folk call themselves engineers when they aren’t, quite often some person who used to make cakes for a living starts working in planning yet calls themselves an engineer.
As for me calling myself a traffic engineer, I don’t recall ever doing that. You will see above I called myself a highway engineer but in reality I do all sorts of stuff.
Hmm Ok, I was saying that traffic engineers (used to) end up calling the shots on traffic planning and you responded by saying “…we are not involved. We may help out with designing what people want but we don’t dictate it and never have. Even those big grand motorway plans from the 60s were more the planners desire then ours…”
That sounds like you were saying you were a traffic engineer.
We are one happy family, but im not one myself.
I think we need to remove all on street [arking along this route immediately, that would make it far easier to get the buses in while making it walkable.
Unfortunately at least while the private automobile is still a critical part of our transport we need an East West arterial in Dowtown and I think Customs is a much better option than Quay Street as I think that the waterfront is more important to have good pedestrian access.
I would like to see;
Barnes Dance at all intersections with double pedestrian phases,
Dedicated bus lanes along the entire length,
Removal of dowtown car park,
Removal of Hobson Street overpass,
Removal of all on street parking from Customs street to allow bigger footpaths and bus stops.
The key to Customs St in my view is getting the cars out of Queen St, or for the timid at least the block from Customs to Victoria.
This would then greatly simplify the busiest pedestrian intersection on Customs. allowing more frequent cycles for all modes, especially the buses and general traffic going east west on Customs, they would become uncomplicated by both turning into and out of Queen, and the turning lanes and median could then be given over to permanent buslanes. Three cycles instead of Four; Pedestrian Barnes Dance, East/West with no turning, and North/South for Transit only.
This would help break the pedestrian severance caused by this busy street and speed up all other traffic
On Customs then: 7 lanes; 3 for a busway and attendant platforms, maybe on the north side together; and 4 for general traffic sans buses.
Win/win/win.
you forgot the monorail.
Cyclist’s can have a lane or two on the newly de-carred Quay St… and jetpacks for the dreamers…. driverless of course.
random driverless jet packs … can we give one to a few of our more conservative councillors/politicians to test out?
but yes completely agree re: intersection with Queen.
Tbhat would indeed help very much.
I’d add that with the CMJ and Grafton gully right there we shouldn’t really need two big high capacity roads right there providing for people to drive past the CBD.
This would be the perfect place to give one of your road removal examples Patrick and for which I would agree.
The way to get cars of the road is obviously to tunnel the road (at least the queen street intersection. (not sure this would work with the central rail loop though).
Stuff that, it is such a hideous solution. And doesn’t really solve the problem.
Why would a tunnel look so bad? I thought the VPT looks rather nice when your standing in the middle of Victoria Park.
It would certainly cost a fortune however.
Intersection of Wellesley and Symonds Street.
You’d do better to put the buses in a tunnel, then your portal would be one two lanes wide rather than four or six.
Agreed.
Someone suggested Nuffield St, to compliment the boutique retail that’s popped up there but I don’t have much knowledge about traffic flows, access, importance, feasability etc.
The only constraint on Nuffield st is that the link buses use it to turn around and recalibrate. Other than that it’s a rather quiet street with little strategic importance.
Yes, and some of us would have that kink in the Link removed: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2011/11/20/removing-the-kink-in-the-link/
Shared space on Nuffield Street would seem to make sense to me.
There’s no right-turn from Broadway into Remuera Road, which is a constraint and the cause of the Balm and Nuffield St rat race. Mortimer Pass feeds traffic from the motorway directly into these streets. If this is not or can’t be changed as part of any shared space plans then I fear it would be hugely unsuccesful.
If you got rid of the Mortimer right turn you’d have enough room for a Remuera Rd right turn.
Not Mortimer. Morrow.
Get rid of the Morrow right turn and, well, see my previous post. Newmarket: there’s a problem for every solution.
Very true, and there is almost no other places in Newmarket to easily turn and terminate buses.
Yes, agree about the buses, they shouldn’t be there. But also there is also too much parking accessed off Nuffield, and too much traffic is encouraged to use it as a short cut because it and the piece of Mortimer Pass that feeds it is engineered for flow and not for place; telling drivers it is a road only for them not a street for all users.
Perhaps they shouldn’t be turning and terminating in Newmarket…?
Newmarket is a logical place to terminate services as it is major trip generator and destination on one edge of the central city. I would advocate more services terminating there, for example the Northern Express and buses out of Birkenhead.
Where and how then?
…but maybe those buses could dropp off on Broadway, go out of service, turn around and layover down by St Marks or something, then head back up broadway to start the next run.
NEX to Newmarket is an awful idea, no offence.
The best thing about it is that it is incredibly reliable, the last thing it needs is a hugely random leg right at the end.
NEX passengers can get on the train to go to Newmarket, that is actually quite easy and smooth.
Why would it be so unreliable by running on the Central Connector? It’s bus lanes and priority the whole way. I wouldn’t say it is incredibly reliable (trip times are quite variable along Fanshawe and the motorway, especially outbound). And who cares about reliability when your bus runs every two or three minutes, it’s not like they are running to a timetable.
NEX passengers could indeed go on the train to Newmarket, although that is a second transfer under the RPTP network which feeds a most services on the Shore into the NEX. However the point of connecting the NEX to Newmarket isn’t Newmarket itself, that just makes a suitable anchor. The real point would be the bits in between: linking the busway to the universities, K Rd, hospital, med school and Grafton. There is a crap load of demand there, plus it would work very well in the counter direction as people could get off trains at Grafton and Newmarket and know exactly what to catch to the uni. It would be like a second city link for the east side of town.
NEX to Newmarket? If there is demand there I think it actually makes sense. Fills in a few gaps and might make the journey seem more feasible to those who already transfer to the NEX on the shore.
Feels like Broadway needs a proper bus / rail interchange of some sort, just don’t ask me how you’d do it 🙂
Nick R, I realise that you have the best intentions but you are completely wrong.
The 881 currently does the exact trip that you are talking about, buses leave Newmarket every 10 minutes at the peak, yet it is not uncommon to have 20 minutes between buses because one bus is 5 minutes early and one is 5 minutes late.
The Northern Express never departs every 2 minutes, best frequency is 5 http://www.maxx.co.nz/media/5939/northern%20express_may%202011%20web.pdf
So if one is 5 minutes late, and the one before were 5 minutes early then that is a 15 minute wait at Britomart for an NEX. That is not good enough for the majority of NEX passengers as they expect to turn up to a bus waiting.
The other option is to have NEXs wait at Britomart for the timetable, in which case it would be just as easy to transfer, as the loading at Britomart can take in excess of 5 minutes. Or we could operate the 881 as a completely different service as we currently do. In the 2 hours from 730 am to 930 am it probably has 70-90% of the patronage that the NEX has, and pretty well no one gets of before Anzac Road. That is a much more logical way to run the buses along here, especially as we move to a transfer based network.
@Sailor Boy. Having the NEX use this route, especially if it is very busy, gives more power to fix any existing bottlenecks along the route.
After all, only concentrating on ‘peak’ services ignores the people who may want to travel in the off peak times. Using the NEX would also give them much improved frequency.
And if the NEX buses replace the 881 then there are resources available to ramp the NEX up more right? There could well be a NEX bus every 2 to 5 minutes for pretty much the entire day. Don’t we need to be getting away from Britomart being the final destination of all things PT? After all, any potential NS rail line is probably not going to terminate at Britomart.
Sailor Boy, the NEX does indeed run at two minute frequencies at the peak of the peak. The five minute published frequency is an indicative minimum, a peak times they run more to meet demand. It even says so on the timetable:
“Estimated frequencies are to be used as a guide only.
Additional services operate at peak during school term time.”
I agree with Bryce, if there are reliability issues on the Central Connector then that is a reason to improve the Central Connector priority, not a reason to avoid effective network extensions. Another thing to note is that in the RPTP network the only thing running along the CC between Britomart and Newmarket are the Howick and Botany buses, if I remember right those are about once every ten minutes combined on the all day pattern, so there may need to be a boost in service.
The 881 is a big success which is awesome, anyone could have told you an NEX that doesn’t stop at the foot of downtown but instead carries on to the universities, hospital, grafton and newmarket was going to be successful. I just can’t see any reason in keeping two service patterns that basically do the same thing for most of the route.
NEX should be reliable from Britomart as most passengers want that.
If you want to do a service to universities and Newmarket and the hospital then it needs to be a separate service. I would recommend an HEX that does Silverdale, Albany, Aotea, Universities, Newmarket. That way you can have better access across town, and have a reasonably full sevice along he entire route, without the large peaks in boardings that your NEX configuration would entail.
The other issue is that even in the worst traffic the NEX run takes less than half an hour so is very easy to timetable very tightly.
Customs Street and Quay Street are the worst of all worlds at the moment. Ideally buses, cars and pedestrians would all get a better deal if they weren’t fighting for the same space. If we go with the premise that it would be better if cars were removed from Quay Street, then what if we tried to move all buses from Customs Street East onto Quay Street? My Three Kings/Mount Eden bus does a tiki tour turning right out of Anzac Ave, takes the first left, and then left again to run on Quay Street down to Britomart. But the outbound trip runs down Customs Street, and this can take a substantial amount of time to get to Anzac Street, stopping at each intersection along the way. With a carless Quay Street and some careful planning, all buses might be able to circle around the train station and back onto Quay Street for a clear run. Possibly dependent on how many buses routes are deleted by the integrated transport plan?
However, a tree lined Customs Street with its historic buildings has the potential to be a really nice pedestrian precinct, and abandoning it to become a psuedo motorway seems a waste.
Its a pity they didn’t re route Quay St, bays end, on to Custom St when they had a chance. Then the rest of Quay could have been PT / active trans.
Tangihua St does that more or less. Wouldn’t take much to adjust the phasings accordingly.
Yeah. If AT are scared they could start with changing the phasing and dropping Quay, from Tangihua to Custom / Hobson, to 2 vehicle lanes using NYC style planters and paint. The traffic will find another way. It always does.
On shared spaces, IMO its hard see why O’Connell shouldnt be full pedestrianisation. High st too.
For the rest, shared use is fine provided parking and speed restrictions are enforced.
O’Connell possibly, but High St has at least two major service docks that I can think of.
Shared is good, just without the parking and drivers have no need to enter at all and circulate fitfully looking for a park; there are hundreds of parking building spaces nearby; narrow intensely used city streets are more valuable for people. Delivers before 11.
There is congestion on High St; all on the pavement.
O’Connell; I agree KLK. Access emergency vehicles too.
Aren’t they all just at the Victoria Street end? Meaning it could be pedestrianised up to where the car park disgorges its cars. Else if the council were to be inclusive they could remodel the carpark and close that entrance off and rent it as a shop. I’m sure the rent would vastly exceed the low value activity that area currently is used for.
Yes I long wrestled with the problem of that carpark, so recently extended. It is the source of the traffic that blocks Victoria St East. You certainly could move the exit up next to the entrance and take over the ground floors, but other than the part directly on High St it would struggle for a use… some seriously dingy night club…?
No probs there, the Victoria St carpark has three entrance lanes at the upper level. It would be easy to make those entry and exit, one each way and a central tidal one. The lower levels of the carpark have up and down access ramps, they could still remain floors of the carparking building. The only bit you need to repurpose is the two exit lanes themselves, very easy to turn that into another shopfront.
I might get crucified for saying this but I think moving the entry and exit to Kitchener St should be combined with turning the part of Kitchener St in front of the Art Gallery into one lane each way instead of two lanes one way. Right now it is set up as a couplet with Lorne St, and not so long ago people exiting the carpark on High were expected to drive up Lorne and on to Wellesley. If we shared space Lorne, we should make Kitchener two way so drivers can get on and off the motorway at Wellesley (and not drive across town) and zip in to the VIctoria St carpark, and leave again just as easily.
Good idea Nick.
Great idea Nick, especially as currently people drive too fast on Kitchener, as the one-way form encourages this [Ari!], and they still haven’t mentally left the motorway yet.
It would complicate the Wellesley/Kitchener lights cycles a bit, but be fantastic for de-caring Lorne which has only one car park entrance of it, and not a very big one. Kitchener does have a substantial parking building. This would mean the traffic lights between High and Lorne could probably go, and be re[laced with a raised ped table connecting these two important shopping streets. And a proper overhaul of the Kitchener/Victoria intersection would be needed, taking into account the not in considerable pedestrian demand there, and the new vehicle movements between the parking building and Kitchener..
Customs Street needs bus lanes along both sides in both directions, I stopped counting the number of times I’ve had to stand waiting because buses are stuck in the traffic e.g. the Link when coming through Customs Street.
Just added a new pic to the post… for y’all.
Thanks Patrick – great photo.
I counted approximately 40 cars and 10 buses in that photo. Just highlights how much valuable space we need to allocate to a car based movement system.
It’s photos like these that highlight just how warped Auckland’s historical transport priorities are – providing more space for buses on Customs Street should even be an issue.
I enlarged the image and there are 14, possibly 15 buses [one my be a truck], buses in the image. Seven in that last block. Taken at 9:59am on Wednesday 21st Nov 2012.
And two cars parked just outside the exit of fort lane blocking them when they’ll reach the intersection
There is a bus that does the NEX route -and then goes to Newmarket. This is the 881 route. There were 8 a day in 2010. 17 per day in 2011 and 47 per day in 2012. (none in the weekend). Its main focus was university students and secondarily hospital staff. However the top of symonds street is now also a key pick up and drop off spot. I have been invoved with efforts to get more of these buses. There has been demand for more – as shown by a face book site..881 – Why you no come?
Do I feel this should replace the NEX? No I think they complement each other. People know they can just turn up at Britomart and get an NEX. The 881 runs every 10 minutes at peak 0612 to 0942 City bound and 1600-1730 Northbound so is resaonably frequent. It runs all the way to Torbay on return so works as a feeder bus role at this time with about 3-10 people boarding the bus at Albany station.I would like to see 881 runs after 1730 (at 1830 and 1930 may be enough)
I know this goes against the simplicity policy for bus timetabling. However I feel regular users make a significant proportion of people on this route. The 881 sometimes goes past Britomart without anyone getting off or on – which I think is a good thing for bus flow downtown.
The 881 is exactly what the NEX should do, IMHO. I think they should run every NEX to Newmaket on that pattern at the full frequency all day every day. I used to catch it from Constellation to Anzac Ave to save myself a couple blocks walk (lazy I know).
The 881 itself would be snipped back to being a feeder from Torbay to Albany.
Hey Nick how about Shore buses [NEX, 881s whatever] go:
Park Rd, Khyber Pass, Broadway, Morrow, Crowhurst, Khyber, Park. In a loop!
Connects perfectly with both train stations [no road crossing], new campus, heart of the shopping district, and without using any minor ped focussed streets like Nuffield.
You could even consider running them down the centre of Broadway as there is a painted median there currently and other wasted space used as traffic stopping parking, that would mean the buses would be in the right hand lane ready for the turn into Morrow…?
Get the parked cars off Broadway (and Khyber Pass while we’re at it). There is plenty of parking available in Newmarket.
Too many right turns I fear, you’d be better to do it the other way using Mortimer…. but that still stirs them through a maelstrom of traffic mess coming off Gillies Ave.
I would like to see bus lanes on Broadway with a takapuna style street bus interchange on the block between Khyber Pass and Remuera Rd (Close the first bit of Teed St entirely). Terminating stuff would simply drop off on the east side, run down the bus lanes to Clovernook or Mahuru or something (on street or off), lay up if they need to, turn around then head back up Broadway to pick up on the west side and start the run.
Yes that means bus lanes on Broadway and a bus station of sorts on the central block, bound to scare the locals I’m sure….
Yes that is two rights as opposed to four… but Mortimer is a nightmare and a hill, and puts people on the wrong side of Broadway if train/bus interchange is a big thing for this route…?
But on balance better. Also more logical as the city-wards buses would actually be facing and heading off in the right direction. Good direct connection from both stations for Hospitals, all campuses, downtown, and Shore.
And Teed St should close immediately.
One right as opposed to three. Four rights is going around in circles!
Well I was counting the right back into Park Rd from Khyber Pass in both cases… which indeed would make both routes a circle, well an orthogonal circle, to get them heading back the way they came… that’s the idea isn’t it?.
Three rights then a left if you go clockwise, or one right then three lefts if you go anticlockwise…. I guess geometry counts as a branch of math right? 😉
Clockwise: left into Khyber, R into Broadway, R into Morrow, R into Crowhurst, L into Kyber, R into Park. 2 Lefts, 4 Rights.
Anti clockwise: L into Khyber, R into Crowhurst, L into Mortimer, L into Broadway, L into Khyber, R into Park. 4 Lefts, 2 Rights.
Righto, I wasn’t counting the first turn out of Park Rd or the last turn back in because they are the same in either case.
Just in regards to the new pic added of Customs street – that graffiti on the top of the office block is an embarrassment. It’s been there far too long and surely should be removed.
yes, I see the graffiti as a flag: “this place is running down, do something”. I can’t believe landlords can get away with keeping buildings in that state in the city.
Not Graffiti fans then. Never fear, that unlovely lump of a building which used to house the Reserve Bank [check out the extra high loading bay doors: cash is big!] is due to be re-puposed into a hotel. This will, I imagine take quite some work and will certainly involve the removal of the offending artwork.
The fact that hotels are opening down here [one of four new ones for central AK] makes improving the streetscape for pedestrians and the functionality of the Transit and vehicle systems all the more urgent.
The graffiti was painted over a few months back – I see them periodically doing things behind the big roller doors and there were security guards in the lobby after hours for a while – doesn’t seem to be the case any more. Still a disgusting mess of a building though.
A common complaint we see is that there is too much roads for cars where there are none for large parts of the day. An effective solution is to make Customs/Quay a one way couplet. BUT you have to make sure that you HALVE the number lanes on both roads and turn all that saved road space into two long pedestrian parks down both roads. Of course people seem illogically against one way systems because they have been so badly done in the past (Hobson/Nelson). To me it is a no brainer. Fewer lanes for the same amount of traffic and more places for pedestrians to just relax. Shorter,simpler and safer phasing at every intersection. Of course you have to assume all traffic growth is going to happen elsewhere and that Victoria/Wellesley/Mayoral can cope with some extra vehicles.
There are a few common argument against one way systems but I don’t have time to address them here. I really have to find the time to do a guest post.
You may now all commence the stone throwing.
Do you envisage any bus priority in this plan or do you the increasing number of buses to still be in general lanes?
Quay street would have to run East, and Customs west. This would allow for a fully seperated bus lane along either customs, or Quay or one way on each.
That is not a bad idea, do a guest post.
Gah, thanks for the third picture that clearly shows the graffiti on the old Reserve Bank building. Going to get the Council onto removing this. And give a mental whack to the landlord for even letting this building get to this state.
Just send the landlord a bill. If someone did that to a private home would the council pay for it?
Is the council even allowed to go on to private property and start painting things because it doesn’t like the look of them? Vandalism is a crime against the property owner, not against the public in general.
There must be Bus priority. It is so essential. screw the cars, they can find another route. generally speaking customs is 7 lanes wide, and quay is 6.
which side you claim for pedestrians would matter and I prefer having one large area on one side of the street as opposed to spreading out the space to both side, but for ease of buses, the lanes closest to water on Quay would become pedestrian space. the current WB lanes on quay would become eastbound only with 3 lanes width, 2 for buses along the kerb, one for general vehicles, but some additional space would be taken for right turn pockets at intersections. For a 2 way option you need 4 lanes minimum with some space for turning pockets.
Customs is 7 lanes wide and I would cut it down to 4 lanes plus some space for turning pockets. It would become westbound only from tangihuia. 2 lanes for buses and 2 for general vehicles. If you really want to fit the number of buses we need, a 2 way solution would have to maintain the existing width of 6 lanes plus the median.
4 lanes width is pretty wide for a pedestrian to cross so I would think about splitting the general traffic from buses in between intersections with a wide median, but bring them together at intersections . that does create some interesting problems though.
2 lanes on a one way is much easier for a pedestrian to cross in one go than 3 or 4 lanes.
At the end of the day, if you want more space for pedestrians, less road, but carry similar volumes, then a one way couplet has serious advantages. Having said that, I only support one way options in very special cases like this.
Ari I’ve been thinking about your proposal and I think it has merit.
East bound on Quay, combined with wider footpath on the southern (sunny) side of the boulevard and proper two way cycle lanes. Removal of the flyover to Fanshaw. Most buses continue east onto Customs past the parking building on dedicated busway
Westbound on Customs plus proper full time bus lane and stations.
A reduction in total general traffic lanes but also a reduction in intersection complication and mixture with buses. The removal of the flyover alone will ease movement from Customs to Hobson and Fanshaw enormously.
General traffic removed from Queen St also will aid all modes through this intersection as outlined above, especially pedestrians.
Movement from Quay to Customs at the eastern end needs work. But I general I accept your main point that one-way need not necessarily mean worse if other street design and modes are done at the same time. Speeds on Quay would need to be carefully reduced through intelligent detailing.
It’s a reasonable proposal, but I’m not sure on the idea of splitting bus stops so they are 200m apart in each direction. Also not sure on putting bus stops on Quay St at all. Really that just moves them 200m further away from anything people might go to, and 200m closer to the sea.
I wonder if there is an opportunity to have all the buses on Customs, and split the traffic between Customs and Quay. So that might look like two lanes westbound for traffic on Customs, plus one lane each way for buses, plus indented stopping bays for buses. That’s six lanes plus presumably a median somewhere.
So from south to north it would be: footpath (4.5m), westbound traffic lane (3.25m), westbound traffic lane (3.25m), wide median with indented bus bays and bus stops (6m), westbound bus lane (3.25m), eastbound bus lane (3.25m), footpath with indented bus bays and bus stops (6.5m).
Then Quay would have to take two traffic lanes eastbound, with plenty of room for cycle lanes and promenades etc.
Nick that’s exactly what I said, busway on Customs; a two way full busway with stations. I’m not a transport planner but i guess some buses may still use parts of Quay [within this oneway system] to loop around and re-enter Queen St for example but those are details that can be worked out….
Basically this coupling would provide space for this busway and attendant pedestrian amenity on Customs, proper cycleway on Quay + better pedestrian space, plus 2 or 3 general lanes in each direction through the system…. No?
Sorry I read that as a bus lane on Customs, implying a corresponding bus lane on Quay. Perhaps a missing s threw me off there?
If you had a bus lanes each way with indented stopping bays that would be sufficient for all buses in the area, provided there was some way to turn them at each end of the Customs St station. That might mean looping round the block on to Quay St, but there may be some better way to do it.
Bryce P at 9:13am: “Don’t we need to be getting away from Britomart being the final destination of all things PT?”
Really good point, if only to move to the situation where we can get resting buses out of QEII square and reclaim it back as a public space. Bus stops to move to Customs and Quay Sts.
Bus lanes would have to be on Quay to fit in with planned pedestrianisation/removal of cars. Run them down the center, with wide boulevards on either side. Later convert to light rail if the need arises.
My concern about combining the NEX and the 881 into one service from Newmarket to Albany is that it could make both services slower. The 881 tends to “skip” or have small pick up/drop offs between the University and Akoranga. Meaning Anzac st, Customs st, Fanshawe St, and Victoria park stops are all short. If it was servicing all thoose stops there could be delays due to the number of people on and off at each stop.
The NEX would probably be less effected but where would the Briotmart stop be ? Currently at peak at least people at Britomart generally sit on a bus whilst waiting. If combined they may wait at peak and the at the peak may never get a seat.