Waitemata Local Board are currently consulting on an Area Plan for Karangahape Road. Overall it is a reasonable document, though of course it could do with some strengthening. It correctly highlights the importance of the Karangahape Road City Rail Link station for example. It also has some good words about cycling.
Key Actions
- 4.1 Focus on pedestrian and cycle safety as
a priority, including pedestrian crossing improvements and more space and priority given to pedestrians, both shared and dedicated cycle lanes along key routes, in particular connecting to the North-western Cycleway and Grafton Gully
The focus seems to be primarily on off road cycle routes, such as the Nelson St off-ramp to connect to the Grafton Gully and North-Western Cycleway. However what it really missing in a focus on separated cycle lanes on Karangahape Road itself. Therefore this has led Generation Zero to use the area plan consultation as a great opportunity to call for separated cycle lanes. Here are the 8 key reasons they have come up with.
To show widespread public support Generation Zero have set up a petition which can be signed here.
To the Waitemata Local Board, Auckland Council and Auckland TransportPlease work together to develop, fund and implement a plan to install separated cycle lanes along the length of Karangahape Road. Please ensure this is prioritised to happen over the next 3 years.
Processing...
Really well spelt out presentation. Great work Gen Zero – Great to see clear leadership on all things cycling in Auckland… As well as the other great work you do
Awesome, great visuals. Great choice of words.. “Driving” “Walking” and “People cycling” not your usual drivers, pedestrians, cyclists.. as if they are mutually exclusive alien species.
I am 1000% on board with this.
Rather sobering to realise I go through all three high risk intersections by bike twice a day, usually in rush hour…
With that expression on your face?! That would be impressive..
Excellent work GenZed!
Great presentation there, absolutely nails the issues and provides a compelling and straight forward answer.
Great infographic. Signed.
That is fantastic, guys. Important points, presented really clearly. I’m going to go and make a submission.
Good job. Well presented.
Now sort of thing is great. Snappy visuals and messaging too.
I do like the focus on the street itself as an asset, and the thought given to the experience of being there to interact with other people in shops etc.
I’d add that a second priority following the main street should be the remaining, rich urban fabric of the K Rd area side streets. Treating these grids appropriately will complete the local network all the way to people’s front doors and prime the pump for a CRL station catchment.
Awesome! And I do hope it goes all the way down Pitt St, which I think is more dangerous than K Rd for cyclists.
This looks excellent.
Is there any plan for people cycling parking in this proposal? After all, it’s not fair if people driving have a place to park, people busing have buses stops, and people cycling are forced to find a random-street sign (in the way of people walking).
George, cycle parking is easy to add in later. I suggest we need to concentrate on the high-level, really key things like space on the road for cycling…
Yes, it’s pretty good. This would simply be something that made it even more complete. After all, cyclists are shoppers and eaters/drinkers too, and they need somewhere to park.
Reason 9: it is a quiet, healthy, cheap, and zero-emissions form of transport.
Great info graphics – great job by Generation zero.
My only concern is that it proposes bus lanes in only one direction. I assume the second land in the other direction (what could be a bus lane) has been sacrified for the two bike lanes.
Not quite a NIMBY but my preference, as a bus user, would be shared bus/cycle lanes in each direction.
Why not full-time cycle lanes, and then four traffic lanes with the outer two for buses in peak times and parking the rest of the time? K Rd, like Ponsonby Rd is one of the rare cases where it’s wide enough to generously provide for all four modes.
My main concern is – how do bus passengers get to the buses across the cycle lane? Do they block the whole cycle lane for a minute while everyone gets on and off? Seems awkward.
With regard to bus access, I think the solution here would be to raise the buffer to footpath level at bus stops and widen it to 1.5m or so, diverting the cycle lane by a metre into the footpath allocation. The connection between the bus stop and footpath should be a different grade/colour/texture than either the cycle lane or the footpath (so cyclists slow down and pedestrians don’t wander in) and the bus stop itself should either be open or use as much glass as possible to maximise visibility.
Just further to my previous comment, the Irish National Transport Authority have a number of options illustrated for just this situation (some of which require more space than I imagined).
http://www.cyclemanual.ie/manual/detailsright/busstops/
Good link- thanks.
Great design manual with all options and rationale for when each one is best used laid out clearly. Well done Ireland for doing it right!
I don’t think the designs use up too much road space, the most efficient use (7m for bus and cycle lanes and footpath – with separated cycle lanes that are only shared with the bus lane at bus stops), to the the “Full Monty” option with bus stop “island platforms” and separated cycle lanes going behind bus stops (ala Dutch cycle lanes) is 9m of space.
These designs support the 3 “active” modes and the top 3 in Toderians priority pyramid. So all boxes are ticked right there.
If you double those space requirements (to do the same both sides) you get 14m of the road is used up with Walking, cycle, Bus lanes, the remainder (12m or so on average), can be divvied up 3 ways easily for the remaining (up to) 3 lanes of two lanes of traffic plus one lane of “parking”/”delivery” spaces – more than enough, and if you ditched the parking you could fit in the “Full Monty” option and 2 lanes of traffic and have spare space for bigger footpaths as well – which is good for the retail area with high pedestrian counts as it will have under CRL.
“shared bus/cycle lanes”
No, no, no. Sorry Harvey, but if you were a cyclist, you’d know how bad that solution is. Crap for bus users AND cyclists. One holds up the other group, and one (bus) also endangers & intimidates the other, so people won’t cycle in them except the very courageous.
Re at bus stops – a bit more difficult. In a tight town centre, the protected lane may have to be stopped temporarily, to let cyclists overtake a bus in teh general lane. At other locations, what gets done is that a cycle path is led around the back of the bus stop, but that only works with a bit of footpath space.
In that case, work would need to be done to determine if a bus or cycle lane is the best option.
It’s a shame both don’t fit. Though surely there is no need for any street parking on k road other that short term deliveries?
Think that’s only an indicative concept, obviously the treatment would have to be finely tuned to each bit of K Rd.
Point 2 “Connects the Network” is an important one. With Carlton Gore Road getting cycle lanes, and hopefully Ponsonby Rd not being watered down, we end up with the ability to get from Newmarket to Ponsonby in a safe, reasonably flat, quick way- fantastic.
We’re inching towards seeing a big increase in cycling as we start to connect places in a useful way.
This is totally different to the historical practice a bit of green paint on random bits of road that were too narrow for another vehicle lane, and will result in a very different outcome- thanks Gen Zero.
Brilliant campaign! Love the look and feel of it. Nails all the key messages in a format understandable by the crucial audiences: politicians, planners, media and the general public. Keep up the great work because as much as it makes perfect sense, you’re likely to face institutional resistance.