Wide streets are wide.
Wide streets are wide.

TL:DR: Carlton-Gore Road getting buffered cycle lanes all the way, instead of a half-sided, half-hearted design. But AT needs your support!

Carlton Gore Road is a very Auckland-typical road. Meaning it has HEAPS of space for cars, but not much for all the other modes of traffic. In fact, about the only thing not typical for such a road in Auckland is that it has escaped being four-laned!

Now the good news is that in a few months, (once the current road surface / stormwater works are done), Carlton Gore Road will be the newest addition to Auckland’s Cycle Network!

But the story could have been different, because in early February, CAA received a plan set for comment that had us shaking our heads in despair. Despite cycle lanes on Carlton-Gore having been talked about at least since 2011, the initial design we got from Auckland Transport’s consultants had a number of serious issues:

  • There was no downhill cycle lane. Yes, you heard that right – this road reserve is over 20m wide (!), but the design seriously proposed that all downhill cyclists would get was a wide kerbside lane. Because a new flush median was considered more important.
  • The uphill cycle lane stopped 30m before the intersection with Park Road. Where car lanes multiply, the going gets tough… and cyclists would be left to fend for themselves again.
  • The uphill cycle lane had nothing to prevent cars queuing in it. If you know this road, you will be aware that often in the afternoon, cars queue back all the way from Park Road to George Street in two lanes. Would Auckland drivers have obeyed the cycle lane and stayed out of it? Sadly, we know the answer – and had noted this in our 2011 comments.

So our response to AT was rather critical. It felt like a 2000s design, not one proposed in 2014.

But here’s where the story changed from what we feared would happen.

Example of proposed layout.
Example of proposed layout.

After meetings between AT and CAA and some discussion within AT (who have become a lot more positive about cycling in recent months), a new design was proposed, and has now been found to be workable. Now, instead of what was initially proposed, AT is planning to:

  • Provide cycle lanes all the way, and both ways, 1.5m-1.8m wide (depending on whether there remains parking beside the lane)
  • The cycle lanes will have an additional painted buffer (at least 0.5m wide) separating them from the traffic lane. Without a flush median, there’s suddenly lots of space.
  • Some sections of the painted buffer may also receive some added physical protection (feel free to mention to AT where you think this is most important!)
  • The cycle lanes now go all the way uphill to Park Road, rather than stopping short some distance before the intersection
  • We managed to convince AT to include a kerbed island near where the uphill parking currently stops – that should prevent two-lane queuing (because drivers would have to merge like a zip back into one lane before the island if they queued in the cycle lane)
  • Pedestrians will also profit, because crossing the road now can be done in multiple steps, using the painted buffer zones each side, and with the car traffic lanes reduced to the minimum widths

So all in all, this has turned around from a frustrating half-measure to what is likely to be one of our better cycle lanes around town, one step below fully protected lanes. And AT was even willing to remove a good bit of car parking to enable this new design. Winds of change are blowing – many thanks to AT for upping the game.

Full disclosure! The writer of this blog post works in, and cycles on, Carlton-Gore Road – he has a personal stake in it getting better!

Also, formally speaking, the design is not approved yet – and is currently out for consultation (consultation letter here, simplified map/design here). We are keen to encourage feedback to ensure AT hears from you cyclists too. Deadline is 9th of May – Please send your support or other comments to Aaron at Auckland Transport at this email, or via the postal address noted in the letter.

Auckland Council Auckland Transport Central Auckland Cycle lanes Cycling safety Funding General News Getting Started Government Infrastructure Quick Wins Traffic Calming
Share this

281 responses to “Upping the game – Carlton Gore Road

  1. Why not cycle lanes up the inside of the parking? As designed, we have to deal with cars crossing the cycle lane in order to park. So not only the potential still for dooring but also other interactions.

    1. There’s a whole dozen driveways along the uphill route, plus a large section of 90-degree car parks on private land (vile things, but we are stuck with them until the land gets redeveloped, and in the meantime you can’t protect that section, because it is essentially a 60m wide driveway!).

      So if we did a cycle lane behind car parking, for safety reasons we would have to remove almost all on-street car parks too which were anywhere near driveways – there wouldn’t have been much car parking OR protection via parked cars left afterwards.

      With AT already removing approximately ~40 car parks from the whole street to make the cycle lanes work, they were balking at removing even more, and to be honest, I was balking at asking for our first car-park protected cycle lane to be done as a rush job that would end up with someone being hit by driveway traffic.

      1. Fair enough. I hate 90 deg parking as well. Hopefully it’s all part of the on-going process. Great stuff to yourselves and AT for getting to this point.

    2. What about those driveways that widen at the last minute, to double their width? Council craziness. I’m not much of a cyclist these days, but the widening endangers cyclists AND removes one park length on the street. It looks like a park or two, but it’s one narrow driveway widened at the last minute to take up two parking spaces! I think they should be narrowed back down. More parking for all, and slightly safer for us hobby-cyclists, although if you guys stuck to the park like my friends and I do, you would be a hell of a lot safer, 90 degree parking or not.

  2. Great work! I cycle along Carlton Gore road every day too and I’m looking forward to it.

    1. I would like to acknowledge Max’s work on this project. The fact he works on Carlton Gore Rd is relevant, but a small part on of the story.
      I have worked in Cycle Action with Max for 4 years. He is my dream work partner; as a planner I tend to be big picture and light on detail. Max pulls me up and focuses my mind. His technical ability is outstanding, his dedication to improving cycling facilities, unquestionable.
      He keeps me on track and fuels my political instincts with sound reasoning and superb data.
      There are many cycling projects occurring in Auckland today where Cycle Action has been instrumental in making the difference to deliver good infrastructure. Max’s backroom skills have been hidden from public view – I’m delighted he has stepped up on this one to show how perseverance and strong &strengthening relationships with AT/ AC and NZTA are bedrock to changing Auckland for cycling.
      Thank you, Max.
      Barb C – Chair, Cycle Action Auckland

      1. Thanks Barb – I don’t need much limelight. Travelling through Auckland and being able to say “I had a hand in this. I had a hand in that.” is normally enough for my vanity 😉

        1. Max, thanks for your work on this. I’ve just started biking into the university from Western Springs and funnily enough have often found myself taking Carlton Gore on my way home. The recent road works have slowed the traffic down so it’s not too bad. I go to Newmarket to pick up a few shopping things, groceries, clothes etc. Then I catch the train with my bike back to Kingsland thereby avoiding the insanity of Khyber Pass. I am surprised at how accessible the city has become with a bike for these sort of errands. Usually I would have to plan it out in advance, getting to Newmarket either by bus or car, maybe lumping all my errands in together. Now it’s more casual and somehow easier. Looking forward to the new cycle paths. It just shows how minor improvements such as this can lift the basic convenience of one’s life. Really useful if you can’t afford to rent near the city let alone buy!

  3. Response sent(including reiteration highlighting the problem with the right turning light from Park.

    Congratulations and appreciations to CAA/Max.

    Lots to take from this. If this road layout model can be successful (and I sure it will be) there are plenty of roads in the surrounding area to which similar schemes could be applied – all the way along Mountain Rd for instance.

    Also glad for the intervention here, so many times in the past schemes have made the mistakes narrowly avoided here (stopping lanes short of lights etc) – then at project completion council give themselves a big tick just for doing ‘something’ for cycling (which eventually results in a disingenuous ‘map’ showing cycle infrastructure apparently linked but in reality not).

  4. Trusting (expecting) motorists to follow the road rules is the biggest problem. Every morning on CGR, motorists attempt to go up CGR from George street, despite the roadworks signs saying it is one way only.

    1. Yes – road users in NZ not good at following rules. Which is why we opposed a “lets see if it works first” attitude with the cycle lanes uphill NOT being queued in by drivers. Bad for cyclists, and bad for AT to have this be a high-profile issue for months until it finally got sorted out (Triangle Road took over a year). Much better for everyone to do it right from the start.

      1. I really hope this ‘let’s see if it works’ approach is stopped dead. There is considerable knowledge from around the globe of things that are proven to work. We’d be silly to do anything but what has been proven in places like NYC, the Netherlands, Copenhagen etc.

  5. I’m happy that cyclists are finally being recognized in Auckland. But as a resident of Carlton Gore Road with no off-street parking I have suddenly lost anywhere to park my car. I have a child, I have paid for residents parking, and I bought my property based on the fact that the Council offered parking. Therefore I would be a lot happier if residents could also be accomodated. I’m sure this won’t go down with cyclists – but we are road users too.

    1. They’re not removing all parking. You have no off street parking? Not one spot?

      1. Get those extra-wide entries to driveways narrowed and that will create more parking spaces! And allow cycling on the footpaths. I always cycled on footpaths when I was at the height of my cycling powers. I never hit anyone. Even down a Queen st.

  6. Unless I’ve got it wrong – there will be around 5 places left in the near vicinity for up to 20 residents. Will wait to see what the Council can come up with for us. Probably nothing 🙂

  7. As I say – there are two apartment buildings at this end of Carlton Gore Road and tenants in other houses who have NO (Zero) off-street parking. I estimate up to 20 residents at this end of Carlton Gore Road require street parking.

    1. I’m not doubting you as such, more that building in Auckland (outside the CBD) without meeting minimum parking rules is almost impossible at this time so I’m eager to find out more.

  8. At least two of these buildings are very old – over 80 years old. No parking was created at that time in many older buildings around Auckland – and if it was, the garages are too small to accommodate modern cars. You will see several cars around Grafton with their rears ends sticking out of the garage – otherwise they are too narrow to get into. We are talking about multi-unit apartments in the area of Carlton Gore Road down from Park Rd. Residents are dependent on the street for parking. We are allowed to make submissions over the space of about a week concerning the new cycle ways – but we were never consulted before this went through. I don’t understand why not – other than that the cycle lobby group must be very strong and very scary to the Council 🙂 But as ratepayers residents should have just as many rights it seems to me.

    1. Liz, you have till the 9th of May, i.e. roughly two weeks to respond.

      If you think we are very scary to Council, then I don’t understand how come we lose 9 out of 10 battles for better cycleways over car parking, and last year, Auckland only built 7km of cycleways when their own plan called for over 50 km?

      PS: We are also ratepayers, and also, “we” are not an insular group. Cycleways can be used by everyone.

      I can certainly appreciate your issue, and I would support more provision for residents if possible – but with Carlton Gore and Khyber Pass being the only west-east routes for a very large part of Auckland (a real bottleneck – and Khyber Pass being horrid, dangerous and scary for anyone not in a car), the matter is not easy to resolve, and Auckland can’t simply continue to build the useless (because half-complete, gappy, unsafe) cycle infrastructure it has built in the past.

  9. Yes – I totally understand and I used to be a cyclist too – but stopped because of Auckland’s dangerous roads. I am hoping the Council will come up with some solution. What I can’t imagine. And there will be an argument why residents don’t figure – despite buying a residence on the road in good faith etc. (Will I ever be able to sell the place now! I mean – this is serious!!!) I do see a green verge on the Domain Park side that may not be totally useful…. not to de-green Auckland though but….

    1. Liz, I did live in that area myself (Grafton) for quite a few years, and while my apartment DID have car parks, I would have wanted NO car parks. I hated having to pay for two car parks I never used.

      And more and more people are like me. This is a part of town very easy to get to by public transport, walking and cycling. Lots of people will want to buy your apartment, you’d be surprised.

      Sure, SOME won’t consider it due to no car park, but that’s their choice – the market for apartments in this town is very good. And when you bought it, you also got it cheaper than you would if it had included car parks, so really, I can’t say that I agree with all your comments.

  10. Sorry to go on – but if you do have any influence with Council I am sure we would all appreciate our cause being mentioned in discussion. Things are not looking good at this end of Carlton Gore Rd – some of our buildings have also been declared earthquake prone by the Council 🙁 (By the way – Khyber Pass and Carlton Gore Rd are not the only cycle routes to the East – there is the lovely Domain Park with it’s delightful scenery and car controlled roads…

    1. Yes, Liz. One CAN ride that route though the Domain. Which has cycle lanes in one direction only, for part of the distance (that disconnect of Auckland cycle routes again), and isn’t as slow-speed as you may think. But cyclists like convenient direct routes. Probably similarly like drivers like the convenience of not having to park further away and walk home.

      Which, by the way, I did lots when I was still living in an apartment in the city in Germany. I often had to search for 10 minutes plus for a car park, and then walk another 5-10 back to the place. Hated it, but it’s part of city living, and makes you use your car less (doesn’t mean you need to stop having a car, of course, but you are much less likely to use it for short trips). All the good cities are hard to park in – cities are not suited for cars (or should not be designed for cars!).

      1. I undestand your points Max. But my own life means it is very difficult to do without a car in a city such as Auckland. This isn’t Germany or London or even Melbourne in terms of an abundance of public transport. I would imagine that many bike owners also have a car for this reason. Being elderly, having children, having health issues means the need for a car is all the greater. Let alone the opportunities that it allows to explore this country in way a bike can’t. But this isn’t really a debate over the merits of a car over a bicycle. Many of the residents in this part of Carlton Gore Rd bought into this area with the promise of parking. Clearly they need a car and a place to park it. As the plan stands, the limited number of parking spaces that will be left means that most residents can’t park their cars, can’t have easy visits from friends, family, service, goods and emergency vehicles etc and most importantly can’t even use the road to drop off the young or elderly. Parking in surrounding streets means pressure and competition with the residents of those streets and a long and unsafe walk back home. This is NZ not a buzzing central city area in Germany. The streets round this particular area are dark and quiet at night – commercial buildings and an unsafe Domain park. As a woman with a child I do not think it is ok to have to walk miles at night alone or with my child. The Council needs to meet the needs of all people with safety and ‘liveability’ paramount – both residents and cyclists. I feel some compromise could be made in this residential section of Carlton Gore Road. Either take out the green verge alongside the Domain Park and use it as a cyle way – or a parking area or ask cyclists to please add one minute to their journey by using a purpose built cyle way through the Domain from the Park Rd intersection with Carlton Gore Rd along to George St. Everyone could be happy… It just needs a little give and take and everyones lives would be at peace again…

        1. There is only a ‘promise’ of parking if you buy a property that includes parking. On street parking is public domain. I also see residents on these circumstances fill their off-street parking spot up with stuff other than cars and then expect to park on the street. Also, on the development I live in, residents are starting to downsize cars as not all new cars a huge. My neighbour is looking at buying a Fiat 500.

          1. I agree with idiots filling the parking up with uncar stuff. The property that includes parking has an area that is for parking. A vehicle. Don’t fill it with beehives or boxes of recyclable bits and pieces then complain that you have nowhere to park! Park where you are told you can park, and don’t take advantage and stick your granny in a granny flat you’ve tacked up in your garage!

          2. Grant – I don’t want to spill on my neighbours that do have garages, but I should let you know that they are all used as P-labs. In fact Carlton Gore Road is the methamphetamine production centre of Auckland. If they have to use their garages for cars, this cycle way proposal is going to cause more loss to our economy then anyone can imagine!!

  11. Sorry – if on-street parking (or do you mean ‘the street’) is public domain then residents have as much right to safely park on it as cyclists to ride on it – using that logic. Besides which the Council offers resident parking permits around Auckland so they obviously see the need for residents to park. I don’t think pointing to people who actually have off street parking and ‘fill it up with stuff’ is generalisable in this situation. It would be great to have off street parking in the first place. As for having smaller cars – great! Just give us the space to park them. Hope your neighbour gets the car they want 🙂

    1. Ignoring whether the street is used for cycling or cars, why is it a good idea to clog up a reasonably busy thoroughfare with parked vehicles? Surely the point of roads is to get traffic from A-B, not as a car park. As to paying for permitted council parking, if I am correct, the annual fee of $155 is far less than the going rate of inner city off street carparks of $50,000 plus. One could argue that the ratepayers of Auckland are subsidising the purchase of your home, by providing you with a car park.

      1. Hi Kelvin – yes the point of roads is to get traffic from A to B. B happens to be my home. This is a highly residential end of Carlton Gore Road – you may not be aware that there are many town houses behind the road frontage at number 73 as well as houses and apartment buildings fronting the road. This was a residential area long before commerce took over. It is a ‘city fringe’ suburb. It is not ‘inner city’ as such. Your argument that we should pay for inner city car park leasing certainly wouldn’t go down well in other city fringe residential areas such as Ponsonby, Mt Eden, Freemans Bay etc. Can I reiterate – these are residential areas! The whole of the Grafton area is particularly historic and residential. Streets were originally created in this area not only as a thoroughfare but because it is residential – people need access to their houses. Because they are largely historic houses in these fringe areas, off steet car parking was not created. Instead people parked their horse and buggies and their bicycles on the street. Later they parked their cars on the street. Cyclists today make use of both worlds, the steets and the pedestrian areas to park their bikes.

        As the plan stands there will be little or no access to residential houses – not for the residents and not for goods,services and emergency vehicles. There is also the issue of danger to those forced to walk long distances at night to get back to their homes after parking – if they can as they will be competing with other residential parking streets. Parking long distances away from home at night is not safe in this area. Espcially affected are the elderly and the unwell, women and children. There is also the issue of emergencies at home that require quick access to transport – the kind of transport needed that a bike just can’t fulfill. If you would like to suggest taking a taxi in such instances then you are merely supporting the use of cars. There is also no provision in the plan for taxis to pull in and park. As it stands there will be approximately 5-6 car spaces left for 20+ residents – not enough to cope in emergencies.

        I was a committed cyclist – I am still a ‘pleasure’ cyclist. There is no direct public transport to my place of work. I have a child with transport needs that neither a bicyle nor public transport can meet. I am a ratespayer just as I assume you are. I am happy for my rates to create cycle ways. I am also happy for my rates to support cyclists who must also make use of their own cars. However, I am also adamant that this area is first and foremost residential. By not taking this fact into account the plan as it stands is badly thought out. The negative repurcussions are huge – and I feel neither Cycle Action Auckland nor the Council have fully understood this. I am merely suggesting compromise. Something that works for residents and cyclists.

        1. Actually, Liz, the earliest photos suggest that it was agricultural market gardens. The Lion Nathan brewery (Captain Cook Inn)being there since the mid 1800’s. The only populated residential area was Newmarket proper, which was a village. From the photos, your area had only one house on it. I am looking at them now. Only in the late 1930’s were homes starting to crop up, but for the main part, CGR was industrial usage, being Captain Cook brewery on one side of the railway line and further industrial on the other, with only one or two homes still showing on CGR. The only true residential area was down further in the triangle between CGR and George Street.

          1. Interesting and good on you for looking it up. Our building dates from the early 1920s – as do other buildings in this street. Many of the cottages in the Grafton area are in general much older – predating general use of the car by decades. The same goes for many other fringe areas of course – including Mt Eden, Ponsonby, Freemans Bay etc. The point is that this is now a historical residential area – just as all the other fringe areas of the city are. As a residential area we should have the same rights as other residential areas and that includes resident parking as the Council has seen fit to provide once it took out general parking in these areas. However, wouldn’t it be nice if we all went back to horses instead – but I guess dealing with horse droppings wouldn’t be much fun for cyclists and of course there would be collisions between cyclists and horses no doubt. The whole argument would start again 🙂 Far better if we all just walked I guess. Actually, as an aside, I regard both cars AND bicycles as total menaces in fact. Cyclists for the reason that (we) assume (we) are both road and sidewalk users at our convenience. Not because there isn’t road access but because it’s often faster and easier to double up. Well – that’s what I do on my bike anyway 🙂 Plus ‘Weekend Lycra Cyclists’ have caused more potential accidents than a car of drunk teenagers. Essentially we are all road users and I don’t see either the car or the bicycle disappearing in the near future. We all have to get along. This is all way off the topic of course……

          2. Come on Liz! When last were you hit by a bicycle. Pedestrians never get hit by cyclists, even before the ultra-PC banning of bicycles on footpaths they never got hit.

  12. Hi Max, this is good news, and I will put a submission in supporting the new bike lanes.

    I cycled to work on CGR for more than five years and saw plenty of car v bike incidents and near misses during that time. Also car v pedestrian near misses for that matter, for which narrowing the road is doubtless an improvement. I wouldn’t like to guess the average traffic speed downhill..

    While the proposed design is a step forward from what we have today (i.e. completely unacceptable as evidenced by Liz’s reluctance to cycle for instance).. nevertheless it is still very basic and looks to be below internationally accepted good practice. Honestly, CGR is soooooo wide it surely has to be possible to get excellent cycle infrastructure here.. why not like Beach Road?

    So, wouldn’t it be better if the proposed lanes were physically segregated by more than just paint? There are many ways of doing this, while still allowing access / egress for cars “inside” the cycle lanes.

    In particular, cars entering / leaving access lanes, off road car parks and side streets need to know to give way (and STOP! if necessary) before crossing the new cycle lanes. As you know from your native Germany, this is completely normal. But it is not (yet…..) normal here. Maybe some additional painted warning signs could help, like white triangular “saw teeth” or even rumble strips.

    I have to say I completely agree with your comments and Kelvin’s about the on-street parking. The issue here in Auckland (and CGR exemplifies this) is that our streets are over-filled with cars – parked and moving (or stuck in traffic). We have to change.

  13. Tim – do you have a car? Or does anyone else involved with Cycle Action Auckland have a car? Or does anybody periodically depend on someone who does?

    1. I sure do. And I use PT (just tonight in fact to get into the city from Albany, to a meeting). And cycle. And walk. In fact, some would refer to me as a car nut.

      1. And I live in a 2 brm terraced apartment with my wife and son. And the development provides minimal on street parking that residents are not allowed to use long term (we do have a tandem garage).

        1. If you have a double garage you should stay off the street, even short term. I don’t even have a double garage and I’ve moved way out from the city. I think city means “city”, which means pay up for a garage, and keep your car off the street.

          1. The minimal on street parking that is provided is under utilised and sometimes I need to park on the street for short periods of time. Under the resident assoc rules I am allowed to do this. It was my choice to live here, I know what the riles are, and I abide by them.

    2. Hi Liz

      Yes, I own a car, which I find essential living with a family in Auckland, even in a central suburb like mine.

      I’m lucky enough to be able to park my car in a garage. If I didn’t have a garage or a driveway, I would obviously have to park on the road. My neighbour is in that position. Our street is narrow with lots of parking, near two schools and sometimes there isn’t a space available on the road in front of the house.

      I don’t own the road, nor does my neighbour. Neither of us has put a garden shed or a cupboard on the road in front of our houses. Anyone can park there. Often one of my other neighbours parks his trailer there. Which is just fine. He can’t put it in his living room.

      It’s completely normal in many cities not to be able to park your car in front of your house. In Holland, whose population has a higher car ownership than most countries, car parking in cities, if it’s available, is often a short walk from your house. That doesn’t seem to affect their house prices.

      On the contrary they have developed a well segregated cycling infrastructure that minimises the need for people to actually use their cars, especially for short, urban trips. So not having a car park immediately in front of your house is hardly an inconvenience. Compared to the enormous and diverse health, social and environmental benefits of having 1/3 of trips made by bike it’s not even worth debating.

      I want those things for Auckland. And I would happily give up my garage to get them.

      1. Hi Tim. Just to be a little bit tongue in cheek – If you give up your garage – what will you do with your car? Oh yes – you have parking on the street outside or close enough. Maybe they should turn all the streets around all our houses into cycle ways and we could all give up our cars too. The couriers, the furniture removal trucks, the plumbers and electricians, could equally give up their cars and cycle to our house to do the things they need to do. We are talking about close to ZERO parking in our area of the road for ANYONE to satisfy the agenda of those who don’t even live here – and probably don’t even ride here. (Except Max who works here of course)

        Essentially, all this for a very little used cycling street in the area. And please don’t start trying to refute that. I live on the street and I have done my count. Nobody else seems to have bothered – certainly not AT. If you guys aren’t aware, the Gravitas cycling count for the Khyber Pass/Broadway intersection has been nearly doubled over the actality – all very dubious and this is an issue that will be taken futher and higher, if not to the media unless it can be defended. You can do the count yourself and compare (It’s a cold three hours per rush hour though). Just make sure you use the same methodology. Well – lets say they got one observer – a university student who stood on a street corner and was not only able to count a whopping 315 cyclists during evening rush hour amidst all the cars but was also able to tell if they were make or female, wearing helmets or viz vests, adults or children and even if they counted them twice. How remarkable! And they seemed to have the time to note all this down. Using the same methodology – with one varible difference (daylight saving has recently finished but it is still light until after 6pm) the count equals 170. See for yourself. I mean the whole methodology is ridiculous. One count on one day of the year for something as weather/season dependent as cycling!! The lobbyists (you guys?) and AT are basing this Carlton Gore proposal on these numbers – and as well as being manipulated data – IT”S NOT EVEN CARLTON GORE ROAD AND CLEARLY BEARS NO REFERENCE TO CARLTON GORE ROAD. After repeating the Gravitas survey it is clear that over 75% of (the much lower number) of cyclists in this intersection use Khyber Pass Road. I can fully predict that they will continue to do so even if cycling paths are placed in Carlton Gore Road. As we all know – cyclists like direct routes – no compromises here! The cyclist numbers in Khyber Pass Road will only increase when the new university campus is up and running. Yet AT and the lobby groups want to band aid a problem and show they are ‘changing Auckland’ by picking on the least used road in this area. I can’t believe it. Ah – but once the cycle ways are in more people will come. But as Max commented when he told me why he couldn’t divert down the Domain path for 10-15 seconds and save everyone this nightmare – cyclists like to get there quick and they therefore want the quickest route. Except for those who work on the road or perhaps use the gym – it’s not the quickest route to anywhere.
        Overall the lobbying that has been behind this – the complete lack of valid research – the complete lack of impact statements from buisinesses and residents – the complete lack of foresight for the area leaves me flabbergasted. This has gone on behind everyone’s backs with no prior notification until a call for submissions for a fait accompli. Well done Cycle Action. You really do things well. And the most amusing thing is that when asked why cycle ways can’t be put down Khyber Pass Road instead AT’s answer is that it would be too hard on the businesses in the street who rely on parking!!! Oh yes – and the costs. They’ve only got enough money for a bit of green paint that they can splash round Carlton Gore Road. Well as long as they enjoy the colouring in.
        This will go further. I am not calling anyone outight deceitful hypocrites – but it’s getting that way.

      2. Why doesn’t your neighbour have a garage or driveway? What is wrong with Auckland? Park a trailer on the road? It’s not as if there is not a lot of room in New Zealand. If you don’t like like inner-city living, just move! No one is asking you to own a trailer and live inner-city in one of the most bloated, over-roaded cities in the world!

  14. Well you’re lucky then. Got the best of all worlds and a tandem garage as well! You’re rolling in it 🙂

        1. Bryce compromised his lifestyle and his housing choice. He didnt ask other people to compromise.

        2. We would not have bought a place with no off street parking. My contracting job requires I have a vehicle. I do not consider an on-street parking spot to be mine. If I did want to live right in the city, I would make arrangements for a long term park via the private sector.

          1. Bryce still compromises the streets and the air quality by using his car – as you all seem to with a chosen dual lifestyle of car and bike

          2. Not chosen. I would live without a car if I had a choice as I did in Europe in PT and cycle friendly cities. Auckland forces me to own a car by its auto dependent design which only happened from the late 1950s. Despite that, I do 90% of my kms by bike.

            You have must then have “chosen” a mono-modal lifestyle and now lament that anything changes to make that even slightly less convenient for you. There appears to be no compromise there.

  15. Liz – “Plus ‘Weekend Lycra Cyclists’ have caused more potential accidents than a car of drunk teenagers” – such a ridiculous statement doesnt do your seeming desire to appear cycle friendly much good.

    The compromsie you are asking for is exactly what has led to a street environment where you dont feel safe to cycle. Cyclists have compromise or just been pushed aside for 60 years in Auckland along with public transport users. This is why you find it so necessary to have a car. It is also why that area is so deserted and appears unsafe for you to walk a further distance to your home.

    I am afraid you are a victim of a changing Auckland, and changes that will be welcomed by the majority of Aucklanders. Noone has ever guaranteed you or any other Aucklander (and my family parks its single car off street) a parking space outside your home on public road space.

    Far more Aucklanders suffer from the current auto-dependent design of this city. From lost time, to lost health and money wasted on a very expensive transport option. That has to change and this is how it happens.

    I am sure you will find some way to redesign your life without needing to have your car parked right outside your home.

    1. Thanks Bent. This is actually a big issue. You write that you also have a car and you are lucky to have a place to park it off-street. The Council offers resident exempt parking for most fringe suburbs such as ours that do not have off-street parking because of the heritage nature of the buildings. This end of Carlton Gore Rd is highly residential with heritage buildings that date from as early as 1916. They are much older in Grafton proper – and the Council provides resident parking on these streets. However, all of the lower half of Carlton Gore Rd is commercial. That is why the “area is so deserted and appears unsafe for (me) to walk a further distance to (my) home”. Commerce is everywhere sadly. The area is also fringed by a large park that is not safe at night – although it provides multiple uses during the day for the public.
      When you next drive your car and come up behind a large group of weekend cyclists on the road – cyclists who choose to ride way outside any cycle lanes provided – tell me what you do? Do you park and wait for them to ride away. Do you slowly try and overtake at extreme risk to everyone? Do you slow down and follow for the next few kilometres? Just what do you do?

      1. 1. In European cities a commercial area is not necessarily deserted beacsue it is mixed with residential. That sort of separation shouldnt happen and has only happened because of the auto focussed design of the city. Exactly my point.

        Why is the park dangerous? I have never seen any reports of attacks there. Why did you choose to live in the inner city if you have such suburban fears?

        2. Resident exempt parking does not guarantee you a park outside your house.

        3. I would do what the road code says I should do. Slow down until it is safe for me to pass as with any vehicle on the road – as I do with cars parked or driving in the cycle lane when I am cycling. It is likely to delay my journey by a few minutes at most. Comparing the risk from that to the risk of a car full of drunk teenagers is not even worth discussing.

        Cars kill people in this country. Cars driven too fast by entitled motorists who think they have a right to drive as fast as possible at all times and that the speed limit is a target. Often while driving and texting. People on bicycles dont kill people – they are overwhelming the victim.

        1. Great points BenL. I shall consider them and respond in due course. Right now it is a lovely day and you will be pleased to know that I am taking my son out cycling 🙂

          “My dark suburban fears on these dark suburban streets” What a great line for a song – I copyrith it now!

          1. Ok BenL and all. I concede. Ben your points are all perfectly valid and my self-interest is abhorrent. So is my neurosis.
            Not only should I get rid of my car before expecting other residential streets to accomodate it – but also my bicycle. Let’s be clear here – while the bicycle is an environmentally-friendly form of transport, the industrial manufacture of bicycles world wide is totally detrimental to the evironment. I hope the environment is part of your concern in all this.
            This computer is really detrimental too – so with that I bid you adios amigos! Let’s wait and see the outcome of all this.

          2. In one of your earlier responses Liz you talked about the need of a taxi for medical emergencies. Consider how much you do use your car, and the costs to have it sitting outside every day (insurance, depreciation, servicing costs), at a couple of grand each year of hard cash, this could be offset against the cost of taxis and still save you money. And as you are only 400 metres, from the hospital, taxi charges would be pretty cheap. At that distance they might even do house calls.
            Another option, is how many of your neighbours have the same situation, a car for emergencies? Maybe combine and buy one car which is usable by all, who contribute.

          3. Taxi for medical emergencies’! Liz, you are crazy! In Auckland you would be waiting by your unconscious/convulsing/bleeding/screaming child for 60 to 90 minutes before a taxi turns up, unless you schedule the emergency for the rare non-high-taxi-use segment of the Auckland day.

            Ambulance at the same time would be only about 20 to 40 minutes.

            Neighbours are out.

            Your own private car would get your kid to Starship in 10 to 20 minutes.

            Your choice, Liz.

            Bicycle!! Have you ever tried… Never mind. I have and it does not work. Does not.

            Bicycle-only parenting does not work.

          4. Hi Grant – and welcome! You wouldn’t run a taxi service by any chance would you? Under a $100 from here to Auckland Hospital? You wouldn’t be able to park to pick me up but I give you full right to pull in on the pavement – all the cyclists do. As for Howick – you want to buy an apartment first? Can only go up in price once the cycle ways are in. You could swap your taxi for an bicycle rickshaw. Think about it!!!!

  16. For goodness sake Kelvin 🙂 When oh when are ANY of the respondents so far going to practice what they preach. Lovely ideas…. but!

    1. You’d be surprised Liz. A couple of weeks ago I had a contracted job in Pakuranga. I took public transport from Albany. Just on Thursday I used bus-train-train-walk-bus-bus to get from Albany into the city, to a doctors appointment and then on to a meeting and then back to Albany. If I could take my bike on a bus then there wold have been a couple of bike trips in there as well.

      1. And today we took the bus from Albany into the city with our 6 year old who now has his own HOP card. He also rides or walks to school every day (well almost, he has been picked up from school twice in the past year and half).

    2. Liz, I talking about saving you money!!! How often does your car sit there, just in case you need it? I used to use the buses, but their current timetable doesn’t work. I am working on cycling to work, but that is a 40km one way trip. So some planning is needed, and reduction in overtime hours.

      1. Thanks Kelvin. I have a family.Although my son walks to school he has Saturday sports all over Auckland (first thing in the morning) and of course the multiple other events he needs to be taken to – scouts, friends, etc etc. I also need my car to get to work. There is no direct public transport and I need my car during the day for work related things. It’s hard isn’t it – and no money saved there. Shame to lose your overtime – but I guess if you save on petrol and fares…

  17. Just to be a bit nit picky – but back to the subject of who has the right to use the roads. Some say that I have no right to use the road outside my residence as a personal park space. Actually I don’t. I compete with everyone else who uses the road to park on – businesses, offices, residents, park users, shoppers, families etc etc. Cyclists use the road too – and use the road and pavement to park their bikes WHEREVER they wish. That is the luck of cyclists – road and pavement – but still all public space. Should the Council require cyclists to use designated parking spaces if there is no off-street parking, then perhaps they will create special parking spaces that are of use to cyclists. Perhaps outside apartment buildings that have no off-street parking opportunity for example? Bike stands across all the pavements of Auckland? As it is, cyclists park their bike wherever they choose and no-one complains. Lucky double standards!!! There – just adding to the discussion….

      1. I don’t mean to. I love cycling. I used to be known as the bike lady of Auckland. I am really only anti-agendas and the behind the scenes negotiations that have left out residents entirely in this situation. I am also reacting to some of the comments on this site that I feel to be a little hypocritical.

        1. Hi Liz,
          I see your problem.
          I don’t have an answer for you but I will say that I have not seen the detailed design for the cycle lanes so I don’t know how many or even if the parks on the Domain side of Carlton Gore road are being removed.
          These are currently P240, residents exempt – is it these ones you object to being removed? OR the ones on your side of the road?

          Even if thats the case that both are going, there are parking options in George Street both sides of the road. And if this is not Resident exempt parking now, then they can be made this to offset the car parks lost on CGR.

          And as such I am sure that George street will provide more than “5” spare car parks for you and your neighbours. They may not be right outside your door at 73 CGR, but they will be close.

          If you find that these parks are always full of residents cars, then that is probably as the council is over-issuing car park permits.
          As such I suggest you should ask the council to issue only 1 resident exempt permit per residence. The balance either being auctioned off or randomly allocated if their is more demand than permits.
          Ideally council should not issue more permits than parks available but I am sure you will find some of your neighbours are being greedy and are requesting and using 2 3 or more permits per residence. (Council will issue such permits if you ask them).

          And in that case, your gripe is not with cyclists or the council, but with your greedy neighbours.
          And the only way to fix that is to ask for a reformation of how the permits are issued and how long for.

          Realistically $155 per annum for the right to park all day and every day on street is a bargain and I am few that many of your neighbours are abusing this capability and sub-letting the permits to non-residents.

  18. Hi Greg
    Thank you – they are useful comments. Yes – the plan is that we lose parking on both sides of the street. And because of this there are multiple problems – particularly the fact that there will be no access – not even by the meter reader! The 5 spaces that will remain will not fill the needs of up to 30 people who reqire this access. The amount we pay for permits equals out to around the same as paid by people who use the meters. It is $1 per hour between 8am and 6pm. Most residents in this area are working so even if they use ‘pay as they go’ their costs wouldn’t be much more. We don’t have ‘residents only’ spaces (well there is one) and we are always in competition with the workers in the area who will also lose their parking. This will put huge pressure on surrounding streets and will affect residents who for some reason need to be at home all day – or even for an hour or two in the day. I feel the plan has not been thought out well at all!!

    1. Hmm, you mean you pay about $1767 a year for your residents parking permit currently? (I’ve assumed $8 a day times 220 working days a year).

      My wife used to work in Carlton Core Road and rented a car park from one of the car park buildings down by the pedestrian railway crossing.
      She paid about $160 per month for that on a month by month basis, so if you are paying that much for on street parking now, you will have options (albeit much less convenient) and could even get a cheaper deal for an annual car park there I’m sure.

      As for reduction in spaces, yes office workers will have to find alternative options. But a P240 parking area anywhere in the city these days is extremely rare and Carlton Core Road and George Street are both P240 – that means you can park there for half the day legally.
      Thats pretty generous metered parking and for only $1 an hour?

      I suggest you lobby AT to make George Street parking (both sides) Resident Permit exempt instead of Carlton Gore Road.

      That seems to be to the best compromise all round.
      You get resident parking, the road gets fixed up and made safer for all users. And office workers can rent a car park down the road.

      Don’t you agree?

    2. I have received and reviewed the detailed design from AT.
      It seems to me that you should be asking for the Car parks on the same side as you on CGR from George Street up be removed. This would leave room for the cycle lane and uphil design as proposed.

      This would then mean that the parking on the downhill side of the CGR can remain with the cycle lane next to it (on the inside or outside I am not sure which is best perhaps CAA can advise).

      The parking on your side of CGR is definitely more inferior as there are so many driveways and garages along that strip that the amount of usable parking is at best 10 cars worth.

      Whereas on the Park side, it is double that easily. And if some of it will be lost with the cycle lanes on the uphill side then that makes the inferior side, even worse.

      So by getting the downhill lane made wider (move the centreline to the right as you go downhill) you can get more parking, have a cycle lane each side and be better off all round.

      To make up the shortfall of parking – you can also ask that AT make one side of George St Resident exempt parking (it is not now). that will fill in any gaps.

      As far as I can tell you have a best 30 carparks on CGR from George Street, and this plan would preserve 2/3rds of them.
      Which is 4 times what you say you will have under the current plan.
      I think thats a good compromise – don’t you think so too?

  19. Hi Greg – Thank you for your supportive attitude. In terms of resident exempt parking – we don’t pay that much at all. If I remember rightly it is around $150. Yes that’s very cheap – but we are only treated the same way as all other resident streets around Auckland. What I meant was that it is cheaper for some residents who park after 6pm – and if they are home for the day they can pay. Your compromise idea is great – I have suggested to AT that they keep the parking on the Domain side by giving cyclists a safe off-road section of the road by widening the path on this side. Something like that. If they take parking out on our side of the road (except for about 5 places) it is not good – but I guess those 5 spaces could be used for goods, services and emergency and drop off. I don’t think that the meter readers, electricians etc will be allowed to cross the road from the Domain side if the parking is kept there for OSH reasons and they have no time to go up and wait at crossings – let alone carry all their gear. If they park on the house side and residents park on the Domain side then it is better than nothing. The road is busy and difficult with young children and it is likely that people will take risks trying to cross. But that’s all I can think of.

      1. Approximately 14 residences (apartments) comprising about 25 people have zero off-street parking. Others have extremely limited off-street parking and high tenancy. A couple of apartments have non servicable single garages – built in the 1920s. Some in the area have enough off-street parking.

    1. Presumably you have the issue of “delivery” or “worker” vehicles having to park on the other side of the road right now, even without cycle lanes – there are not infinite parks on your side of the road and the one there are always used up whenever I’ve been past so its not a *new* problem is it.

      As for OSH rules saying they can’t cross the roads, never heard of that. Might be a rule for AT parking enforcers, but not for anyone else I’d expect. You can’t as a “delivery person” or service worker e.g. sparky, to expect a park outside or near your next job every time. Especially in the City.

      The same goes for you having to cross the road now. And yes, surely its a problem now -you can’t always park outside your door can you? And so won’t be much different whether you park in CGR on the Domain side or George St.

      And as Bryce says below, if AT wanted to make the whole street a 2 lane each way drag strip how much of a say/sway do you think you’d get in that?

      Parking Below George St on the downhill side is inset parking, so will not really impact the plan. Its only parking at the top end of CGR at issue.

      I agree that you and your neighbours are all the same boat, but you have all bought, rented or moved into your houses/apartments kowing it was without sufficient off street parking. And therefore you all knew you would have to depend on the “kindness” of ACC (and now AT) to continue your resident parking arrangement “as-is” forever or eventually have to face the fact that your right to park on street is impacted by future roading changes.

      Is that a valid expectation for you or your neighbours that you would not ever be affected by future changes? Even 10 or 20 years ago was it valid expectation to have the right to essentially “free” on street parking forever?

      I think my compromise suggestion is reasonable and workable and I don’t see the need to have parking on both sides of the CGR road at the top. One side is enough.

      The only decision therefore is which side above George St loses its parking. And as I explained above, your side is the lesser of two evils in terms of losing parking as its offers so much less parking now, and the Domain side offers so much more.

      Note: I don’t agree with your idea to widen the Path on the Domain side to accommodate the Cycle lane as conflict will arise when this reaches George St. as Parked cars will block drivers in George St from seeing cyclists coming down the hill.

      I therefore recommend that the uphill lane centreline be moved to the left to allow for the parking to stay as it is, with the cycle way going past it on the road side of the parked cars, much as is proposed for the uphill side of CGR.

      1. Actually Greg – there are 12 adjacent car parks on our side of the street at the moment. Delivery people, electricians etc have always seemed to score. If the cycle lanes go in however, there is going to be a lot of illegal parking if they can’t even park on the other side of the street. Just wait and see. Accidents in store aplenty. As for my so-called expectations of car parking – whose vision of the city is this? I don’t know what you’re talking about. If the bureaucrats are going to take out all street parking around the residential areas (which this is) then it is time the bureaucrats were voted out. Not until they can create a city that has amazing public transport that’s cheap enough to be worthwhile, communal parking areas for cars and bikes, etc etc etc should there ever be a question of taking out street parking in residential areas.

        1. For a start, you are exaggerating – not all resident parking is being removed from your end of CGR.

          And the majority of what is removed can be remedied by making some nearby parking resident exempt (George St). And by being selective about the car parks that are removed you can preserve the majority of the car parks – they won’t be “outside your door”, but then the majority of car parks on your side of the street are not outside your door. Instead they may be over the road or around the corner.

          As for taking away something from you (that you don’t own), you can’t get to the city with amazing PT options you talk about by keeping the status quo, there has to be change, and not all change is all good for everyone, all the time. Sometimes for once the needs of many (Aucklanders) outweigh the needs of the few (residents in CGR).

          PT in this city would be amazing if a lot more of the on-street parking was removed to allow bus priority where its so badly needed e.g. on KPR, Broadway, top end of Symonds St, MT Eden Road to name a few roads that need it near you.

          You say your area is mostly residential, yet the majority of the all day parking users are not you or your fellow residents are they? – They are in fact mostly workers in the many business on CGR and surrounds, many of whom do not need to use their cars during the day so could use PT, but instead drive because the parking is there (may be cheaper than PT) and the PT is therefore not working for them – how could it the bus lanes are blocked by car parks everywhere.
          So if we have less car parks on streets and more bus lanes instead then PT will be able to work for them and they will find that PT is a better option for them in the longer term to get to their offices near you. Leaving those car parks for folks like you and your delivery people to use.

          If we simply decide to preserve all car parks like they are sacred cows or ordained to be there forever, then this modern city will never come to pass. It will be stuck in a rut.
          I don’t know about you, but I feel we have had too much (60 years) of that already, and I think we have to change or we will simply stagnate into a massive traffic jam.

          1. Greg – I don’t quite get what you are saying. They are taking out ALL the car parking on the Domain side of the street and leaving 5 on the house side.
            Having looked at past instances of taking out parking for cycle ways – eg – the 2007 proposal to take out parking in Mays Road – Onehunga – I am increasingly shocked. In this case people were losing their businesses as well. Two designated parking spots for one man’s dairy were to be taken out as was all parking in the street. According to The Aucklander the poor man was having ‘a breakdown’. And all for a daily cycle count of 13! I don’t know the outcome of this case but I am increasingly shocked at the sheer bulldozing by agendas. There has been no information in this forum why Carlton Gore Road is an ideal road for bikeways. There are much more used options by cyclists such as Khyber Pass Road and AT should be making these safe instead. Carlton Gore Road has a VERY LOW cycle count by comparison. I feel there are very strong agendas going on here and they are being pushed by the few without any research – NOT EVEN A CYCLE COUNT ON CARLTON GORE ROAD.

          2. Liz – saying that nothing should happen because cycling is low is a classic anti-cycling stance. It is like saying dont build a bridge because noone currently swims the river. People don’t drive their cars where there are no roads, so should we never build any new roads?

            For someone who claims to have been the Auckland cycling lady, you roll out some incredibly stereotyped, anti-cycling, auto dependent arguments. Imagine what the city could be, don’t presume what we have now is the only and certainly not the best solution.

            You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking there is some vast pro-cycling conspiracy manipulating the city council. Come along to a CAA meeting and see how limited our resources are. Despite that, our message is so logical and common sense, in terms of financial, health and social gains for the city that, yes, we are (slowly) getting some small wins like CGR. The main reason being there is no credible, fact based counter argument. Cycling is fantastic for cities and cities with high cycling rates work better with less resources.

            Your anti-cycling message would go down better on KiwiBlog than here or Transport Blog. Those guys hate cycling.

  20. Max, are the plans for this project available to view? The image at the top shows parking on one side of the street. So where is the parking being removed from? Just the up hill side?

    1. The plan is actually difficult to determine from the image – even the full image. AT is planning to remove all parking on the Domain side of the road from Park avenue down to the George St intersection. It appears all street parking on the other side of the road will also be removed from the George St intersection up to Park Road except for around 5 spaces outside the apartment buildings and houses.

      1. It’s difficult to work it out. Also, from what I can see, 73C is the only block that does not have off street parking.

        1. It is as I have describe above. 73C has zero off-street parking and about 20+ residents. The other places have multi-tenanted houses (flats) and extremely limited off-street parking. Defunct garages are also a problem. There are hidden town houses which have adequate off street parking. There are also tenants who live above Mind Lab who utilise the street for parking.

          1. An evening count shows up to 20 residents in the area who need to use the road for parking. Then there are all the other people who need to interact with them – goods, services, general necessary visitors etc

          2. I don’t mean to sound so down on this Liz but events have left me a bit bitter. Recently I’ve been nearly run down by a guy who was desperate to get to Subway, told that if ‘kids can’t safely cycle on the road then they should be driven to school, that ‘my dog hates cyclists’, that we ‘don’t belong on the road’, that we should stay off footpaths etc etc. All in the past couple of months. I just ride my bike to get around, get groceries, run errands, ride for fun etc. Just like many others do. Many ride to work in the sun or rain thus removing cars from the road. Parking is often removed to allow for added traffic lanes and no one kicks up a stink. Houses are removed by the dozen for motorways and, silence from everyone. I just want a better city that caters for people walking, riding bikes, as well as moving around in cars. Somewhere along the way someone is not going to be happy but we’ve spent the past 60+ years catering to a single mode and that needs to change. Protected cycleways and other cycle related infrastructure has been shown to work and they need to pass by shops, houses etc just like roads so that they are accessible.

  21. Easy. We’ll make it a one way road. That leaves room for parking on both sides and room for cycle lanes.

    1. I understand what you’re saying. And I like the idea of a one-way road! With the road works down the bottom it’s basically been that anyway and it seems to have worked without too much pressure – but I can’t judge.

      1. I only say that as it is something that has been done overseas quite well. The return route is obviously Khyber Pass Rd. Seems quite easy.

        1. Which way is the one way? The uphill direction of the downhill direction?

          My thought is the uphill direction as you can do left turns into KPR and then loop around using Short st to get to the bottom of CGR again if you need to loop the block.

          The other way needs too many right hand turns.

  22. Greg – if you are happy to propose your cycling/parking solution to AT then that would be great.

  23. Here is a suggestion.

    Can it be made possible for residents at the top of Carlton Gore Rd (below Park Rd), who need parking, to park instead on Carlton Gore Rd just above Park Rd. There are a lot of residential streets there around Outhwaite Park. Is it possible to accommodate the parking needs that way, I wonder. Or are there vacant car parks near commercial buildings that could be used by residents.

    Also, with the redevelopment of the brewery site, I wonder whether provision can be made for nearby residents to park there when the redevelopment is done, if they have lost parking to the cycle paths. And can they park according to my suggestion in the first para above, in the meantime.

    1. The problem with the brewery site is, who i going to pay for the car parks that will be for the exclusive use of private residences? Will the public purchase the land from the Uni and gift it to the residents?

    1. Liz, As far as disgruntled people go, you’ve been very polite. Good on ya.
      Just a thought: although there is no doubt a slight drop in value of your house due to the reduced car parking, you’re also going to benefit from living on an even more awesome street (Seriously).
      As you’re worried about loss of value: I think I can find someone to buy it off you for what you paid for it 😉
      As for the council and their earthquake letters: a common experience is that when an assessment of a specific building is done, they turn out to be much stronger than the council’s template letter suggests.
      And here’s a bit of good luck you had: the University decided to buy the brewery- I’m picking that put up the value of your place more than a wee bit.
      (Oh: and would you like a wager on whether 13 or less people on bikes use your street tomorrow?)

      1. In North America and Australia, the implementation of cycle infrastructure has resulted in 95% of cases with a big growth in housing values. Real estate agents in the US and Australia now actively advertise promixity to cycle infrastructure and public transport.

        Parking a car maybe a problem for the >35 generations raised in auto dependent cultures, but for the students and young professionals, the opportunity to buy an apartment without having to pay for not required parking will be a boon.

        They are much more willing to rely on cycling and/or public transport than us oldies in Generation X or baby boomers. And good on them because they will create a better city.

        There will be no drop in the value of Liz’s apartment because of a lack of parking, that is a 20th century paradigm.

          1. BenL – I find your accusations that I am anti-cyling rather rude and illogical. My point was that cycling numbers are very high in Khyber Pass Road – therefore something should be provided for cyclists who choose to use this direct route. By your logic putting a large bridge across a little stream instead of across the mighty river next to it is all for the greater good. Sorry???

          2. Do you have any basis for your claim that more people cycle on Khyber than CGR? All I know shows the opposite.

      2. Ha Ha – I like your style NCD. You willing to buy this joint? Market rates of course. As for 13 cyclists – well you can turn that number right around and then some. An evening rush hour cycle count on Carlton Gore Road was 37! And it seems througout all this, I was the first to actually do a count! Compare that to the raw count figure evening rush hour figure of 315 at the Khyber Pass/Broadway intersection – most coming from Khyber Pass. Why oh why doesn’t AT create cycle ways where they are actually needed! With university going in with living accomodation for at least 400 students, that cycle number on Khyber Pass is only likely to increase. Here are two cost efficient suggestions…. 1. Negotiate with the univeristy to create a dual cycle way down the lower length of Khyber Pass Road (Park Rd intersection to Crowhurst St). Or 2. Utilise the area around the railway line area to create off road cycle paths all the way down to Newmarket. This is the sort of thing Melbourne does and what makes it stand out as an innovative and visionary city.
        By the way – the proposed cycle lanes on Carlton Gore Road are flood zones. Ankle deep in heavy rain – not much fun for cyclists. If they have to go in on Carlton Gore Rd to suit some misguided agenda and make token use of ratepayers money, then the path on the Domain side should be widened to accomodate a downhill cycle way. It can join the road before George St so that cyclists remain visible. Seems like a good idea to me. But – hey – lets make cycleways relevant and look at the huge opportunity of Khyber Pass Rd. To me Carlton Gore Road is just another white elephant.

        1. “By the way – the proposed cycle lanes on Carlton Gore Road are flood zones. Ankle deep in heavy rain”

          Sorry, but these “arguments” you bring against cycle lanes are seeming to me to get increasingly weird. Does it not rain on Khyber Pass Road?

          And why would the proposed cycle lanes several metres out from the kerb on CGR collect rain? That mostly runs along the car parks, not the cycle lanes.

          It is pretty clear you do not want them. But you won’t convince us with such comments that it is “misguided”.

          And the argument “lets just build these valuable facilities – somewhere else” is what we have heard a hundred times. Thanks, but no thanks. We know that one.

          1. Max – if you had been following my comments throughout this discussion you would have had your answers. Point by point:
            As far as the plan shows the cycle ways are taking out parking on both sides of the road so that cycle ways can go in. In my upper area of Carlton Gore Road the flooding on the sides of the road is strong – we are talking about ankle deep rivers in heavy rain. AT will need to remedy this if the cycle ways are to go in.
            Yes – I have done my research. Please see earlier entries. The 2013 Gravitas raw cycle count for the Khyber Pass/Broadway intersection for the approx 3 hours of morning rush hour is 322. The 3 hours of evening rush hour is 322. The ADDT algorithm combines and increases the daily count to 927. I did my own count following the Gravitas methodology with a couple of variables difference and only counting in the evening period – 4pm to 7pm. My count was 170 cyclists. Using the Gravitas statistics the morning count will have been approx the same. That equal 340 cyclists – nothing near the Gravitas figures (who warn that “it is not valid to simply multiply manual count data collected over a certain (relatively brief) period out to represent a full day, week or year”. This no doubt explains the discrepancies in our counts. Whatever the actual number – the vast majority of cyclists in my count (I need to check the 2013 Gravitas report for th same) utilised Khyber Pass Road.
            I have proceeded to do a cycle count on Carlton Gore Road using more or less the same methodology as Gravitas. Aaron Hutching was there for part of it so can verify that I did this. It appears that I am the only person to have undertaken this count. The Carton Gore Road cycleway is instead based on the Khyber Pass/Broadway figures which bear no real relevance to Carlton Gore Road. Between 4.30 and 5.00pm in Carlton Gore Road there were 7 cyclists either way. Between 5.00pm and 5.30pm there were 15 cyclists. Between 5.30 and 6.00pm there were 10 cyclists. And between 6.00pm and 6.30pm there were 3 cyclists. As Gravitas points out these figures are entirely dependent on the day, the week, the year and on what’s going on around. However, they give an indication. The road works on Carlton Gore Road may be a strong variable in cycle numbers but logic shows that the road works have reduced the number of cars and therefore make it a safer cycling jourmey. I live on Carlon Gore Road and I am able to describe mamy of these cyclist through sheer familiarity. They cycle my route daily.
            As I have pointed out Khyber Pass Road is a direct route for many cyclists. It is unlikely that that they will change their direct route as you yourself have pointed out in earlier in this – “cylists like direct routes”. Yes, based on all of this, I am saying let’s “build these expensive facilities somewhere else” – where they are needed. It is no longer an issue of ‘residents parking’ for me. It is an issue of common sense and foresight – as well as a meaningful use of money. I have made several suggestions as to how cyclists could be accomodated for a Khyber Pass route – not least working with the new university campus to supply dual bike paths. The university itself will be housing 400 students and the need for bike paths in this road will be become even greater.
            Max – this is not anti-cycling. This is supporting current cyclists and future cyclists. It is suggesting taking note of other cities who use existing infrastructure to give cyclists safe, off-road routes. We have a railway line that could also be used for this – a direct route to Newmarket with cycle lanes either side. They do this in Melbourne so I have been told. Yes, I feel the CGR plan is misguided – I think you are losing out on planning something much more relevant that suits the needs of the majority. I don’t care about the parking anymore – but I do care about ill-thought out plans.

          2. As per the Dutch examples, safe, on road cycling facilities are also required. If our link was long the rail line, how would someone who works on CGR get to work?

    1. Further to that – I reiterate, this is no longer about’residents parking’. It is a much bigger issue than that. I think cycle lobby groups are being palmed off if not deceived. AT has never done a relevant cycle count in any of the streets in this area. They base their results on a one-day survey done by a research company who admit their results are not dependable. Their figures are then inflated to an AADT daily cycle count of 927. Based on these “statistics” AT’s own evidence shows that the Khyber Pass/Broadway is a heavily used cyclist route. There are no figures for Carlton Gore Road other than my own it seems. Even though it so far shows a very low cycle count in comparision to the Khyber Pass/Broadway intersection, Carlton Gore Road is the easiest way out for AT because it is a relatively cheap street to deal with. It sounds good – they are doing something for cyclists. But as far as research shows they are merely shielding the fact that they are not taking cyclists needs into serious account at all. I understand that Khyber Pass Road is difficult to deal with – but there are options that could turn this heavily used cyclist route into a leader in innovative thinking at fairly low cost.

      1. Max, if you are interested, we could join to do cycle counts on Khyber Pass Road and Carlton Gore Road together. It would need to be done on a weekday between Tuesday and Thursday. I’m ok for an evening count – how about you? It would also be of use to do counts in other surrounding streets but this could take time.

        1. Thanks, but not really interested in a count that would change neither of our opinions, no matter which way it ends. Also, counting existing situations never the same as future, nor does it include looking at the context. The simple fact is that Khyber Pass Road does not have a project to improve it for cycling for people who dislike riding in bus lanes and through motorway interchanges, and such a project is extremely unlikely to happen even in the further future (main bus corridor, a motorway interchange, a corridor that already has much more vehicle traffic). So even in the unlikely event that you were right and I wrong, and current cycle numbers are similar or even higher, that would not reduce the case for cycle lanes on Carlton Gore. It would be a waste of both of our time.

          1. You also seem to compare your own cycle counts for CGR with the numbers for Khyber / Broadway INTERSECTION, which has lots of cycle traffic that never goes onto Khyber (or not onto Khyber anywhere near Park Road). Khyber / Broadway is a bottleneck for pretty much all routes through Newmarket. In fact, a good chunk of the Khyber / Broadway cyclists are CGR cyclists!

            Lastly, and that is the point where we seem to be desitined to remain in disagreement is: There is no project for cycling on Khyber.

            As a traffic engineer and veteran cycle advocate, I tell you that the chances for one are almost zero, particularly for one that doesn’t mix cyclists with either buses or pedestrians. If there ever is one, it would not happen for many years, which in terms of achieving the goal of more cycling in Auckland is the same as not having one. I do not want my small nieces to grow to adulthood, go to Auckland to study, and STILL not feel safe to cycle. We have had it with these constant “somewhere else would be a lot better” delays.

            So it comes back down to the retention of some car parks being proposed as a reason not do do something for cycling. I don’t agree with that, you do, even if you are seeking for other arguments to bolster your case – and that’s where this discussion will end.

        2. The key thing to remember Liz is that the people you are counting are in the ‘strong and fearless’ group with a few ‘enthused and confident’ riders thrown in. This is a very small percentage of the potential numbers who would use this route if they felt safe enough. Your own views on cycling in Auckland sum up why we do not get the cycling numbers the places like Vancouver, Portland, the Netherlands or Copenhagen get. Existing numbers is no reason to do nothing. How many people used to ride from West Auckland in the CBD before the NW cycleway was built? Not many.

  24. As I understand it, the old brewery site is being redeveloped as a university campus. There may be a lot of cyclists around there in future – I would like this to happen, and capacity will be needed for this. That means cycle lanes. Beyond that too, Auckland has a vision for sustainability. Let’s make it happen.

  25. And then maybe Liz you can start cycling again, because streets will be (and feel) safe for cycling. There will be univsrsity students cycling all around the neighbourhood, and it will be very nice. Join us and promote cyle lanes – everywhere!

    1. Liz, I think you are wrong. Very few university students cycle. Books too heavy? Lazy? Don’t know the reason, but hardly any ride a bicycle to lectures.

  26. I posted this on another site. To me there is a simple solution that keeps everyone happy.

    Remove one footpath and have a 4 metre wide shared cycle path/footpath on one side only. That way the street configuration would be: shared path/parking/traffic/traffic/parking/berm.

    This provides the safe cycle lane for cyclists and retains the residents parking which like it or not, is part of the property value. All this requires is some common sense from the cycling community not to race along the shared path.

    1. Sorry Antonio, but removing footpaths is a so much worse outcome for a city than removing parking. Also, to be safe to use your two-way cycleway would have to be on the northern side (two-way cycleways don’t work safely with lots of driveways and car parks – especially the vile 90-degree car parks off CGR), meaning that the south side with all the buildings would have no footpaths at all. No, sorry, that’s not a workable solution. People live in a city, not cars.

      Plus, a two-way cycleway that’s only 250m long? Very inconvenient. One of the main issues in our city is that cycle facilities (where they exist at all) are disconnected and in-consistent. If you constantly have to change the road side just to stay on the cycleway, that’s neither safe nor convenient, so it would risk being a bad outcome. Especially as you’d have to change at the worst possible point (George Street intersection, with lots of fast crossing car traffic). Shared paths are also not convenient for cyclists – as cycle numbers increase, all it means is that cyclists and pedestrians have to fight over the scraps left over by cars.

      Furthermore, this would massively blow out the cost of the project – changing kerbs is difficult and costly. The likely outcome would be for the project to be stopped for a few years. We have that all over the city. Extra costs get added, then nothing gets done. That is why last year we built only 7km of cycleways all over the city, when the city promised over 50 km. It will be the same this year. Quick fixes get stopped, because someone has an issue, and then Council backs down. So much for the claim that cyclists get what they want on the backs of others – the reality is that 9 out of 10 times, we get nothing, and the 10th time, we tend to get it only after many years (CGR is a good example – this project has been discussed over 4 years now, since we and the Local Board raised it in 2011). This needs to change, and will change. Never enough to suit those who cycle, and never slow enough to suit those who think cars are the only thing needed, but that’s the facts of life.

      1. The point is to create a dual cycle/pedestrian cycle way on the Domain side of the road – utilizing the existing path. Are you suggesting widening this path slightly and lowering the curb before George St would blow out the budget? There is plenty of room before George St to streamline cyclists into traffic in order to avoid a dismount at George Street and avoid collisions. It only needs a bit of ‘buffering’. If this project has been in the making for four years – why weren’t residents and other affected parties included. Less than two weeks to respond? Sounds a bit supect to me 🙂

          1. Hi Max,

            Thanks for your reply. You sound well informed on costs and cycling trends. Are you an engineer because it would be interesting to hear an experts opinion on shared paths.
            I have been to other countries and seen many shared cycle and pedestrian paths work well and with all the recent bad publicity in Auckland and motorists anger towards cyclists I would have thought it would be a good idea to get bikes off the roads and away from the traffic.
            I have just been outside now to measure the footpath in front of my house and I would have thought 4 metres would be plenty wide enough to make it safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Even if it were a lot of foot/cycle traffic (which Gore Street isn’t) it should be plenty of room. Is there any rule on how wide a shared path should be?
            You say a 250m cycle path is very inconvenient to the cyclists but lets play fair here. We are trying to get a solution that works for everyone. A shared cycle path is safer than no cycle path and the Carlton Gore route is safer than Khyber Pass. A shared cycle path on the park side could be built for the entire length of the street creating an important East-West transit route for cycling making it much longer than the 250m you are suggesting. Yes there may be some inconvenience of cars coming out of driveways, stopping at intersections and possibly having to cross the road twice but it is not much of an inconvenience is it.
            Some posters on here and on other sites have suggested that apartment owners could walk 250m to park their cars elsewhere, is that not a bigger inconvenience than having to cross the road to access a safe shared cycle path?
            Auckland needs more safe transit routes for cyclists but these can not be built without the support of everyone in the community. Finding solutions that can work for everyone like a shared 4m wide footpath/cyclepath could be something that works all over the city and is cheap, safe, and does not effect the value or lifestyles of residents. Surely a good idea? I would be interested on your thoughts on the above.

  27. I’m sorry Max – but this is not where this discussion ends. It is not all about the “retention of some car parks instead of doing something for cyclists” – it is about the lives of up to 100 people in this community who will be affected to either a small or large degree and about the shonky statistics and lack of research that are driving this particular project. Your response is not adequate and there is starting to be a serious lack of credibility in any of the responses I have received. You see this as a case of ‘not in my back yard’ at the expense of the well-being of cyclists – but there is far more to this. You have not provided me with any statistics or research as to why Carlton Gore Road is the best place for cycle ways and the best use of ratepayer’s money. I can only presume that you have little knowledge of cycling needs in this immediate area. You have turned down my invitation to conduct cycle counts in this area that could help clarify this situation.

    According to the AADT figures there are 927 daily cycle movements at the Khyber Pass/Broadway intersection. No other figures have been provided for the streets surrounding this intersection. While I have no faith in the AADT figure at all, or the methodology used to arrive at their figure (see my analysis below), I have used their own methodology to research this particular intersection as well as Carlton Gore Road. Auckland Transport has NO figures for Carlton Gore Road or any of the streets around it – therefore I was forced to do research Carlton Gore Road myself.

    Let’s say that based on my evening count of 37 evening cycle movements on Carlton Gore Road, there are up to 100 cycle movement on Carlton Gore Road per day using the AADT algorithm. There are supposedly 927 cycle movements at the Khyber Pass/Broadway intersection per day. If cyclists are not utilizing Carlton Gore Road then where are they going? Observation by the Gravitas research company and my own observation show that Khyber Pass Road is a main thoroughfare for cyclists. Gravitas observation shows, for example, that the key evening movements were south along Broadway followed by those turning right from Khyber Pass Road onto Broadway. It could be raised that some of these ‘Khyber Pass cylists’ may have diverted around back streets from Carlton Gore Road. There is no evidence for this – not in the Carlton Gore Road cycle count, nor by any research by yourself or AT. I have suggested a cycle count on Khyber Pass Road. It would be best from several key points.

    Why am I stressing this? Because according to you Max, cyclists want the most direct route. From all observations so far it appears that Khyber Pass Road is a direct route. Carlton Gore Road is not a direct route. It is unlikely cyclists will divert from their direct route just because cycle lanes have been painted on Carlton Gore Road. Cycle lanes on Carlton Gore Road are a good thing for the minority of cyclists who use this route. It is impossible to anticipate whether cycle lanes on Carlton Gore Road will encourage those who are presently non-cyclists to become cyclists and use this street. The street will always remain a ‘non-direct’ route. As it stands the Carlton Gore Road project is meeting the needs of a few – far less than the number of residents who will be affected plus those who interact with them.

    You say cycle ways in Khyber Pass Road will never happen. Why do you say that? I have offered at least one feasible suggestion: Make use of the new University campus. There will be at least 400 new residents in this street related to this campus – many may have bicycles. Why has the University not been lobbied already? Why this stubborn determination to create cycle ways on a street that bears no relevance to the bulk of cyclists in this area? Why are relevant opportunities not being grabbed? Why not look into the railway line possibility?

    I feel you are chasing a redundant paradigm – there are many opportunities around Auckland that could provide cyclists with safe, off-road journeys. Once safe cycle ways are installed (and cycle ways on roads are not safe according to international research) I am sure there will be the huge increase in cycling around Auckland that one might hope for!

    1. The lives of 100 people are going to be affected by cycle lanes and cyclists? Apart from the parking, what other issues do you think will be created?

      1. Parking is a fairly central factor don’t you think Bryce?
        In summary:

        • Auckland Transport is planning to retain 5-6 car parking spaces for an estimated 20+ residents who have no off-street parking alternatives. There are other residents in the area from multi-tenanted houses who may have one off-street parking space and also depend on the road.
        • The community in this part of the street equals up to 100 residents.
        • Many have no off-street parking alternatives because they live in historic buildings that do not provide them. They therefore rely on the street. So far, they have been issued ‘resident exempt’ parking stickers in recognition of this.
        • Other residential streets in the area are offered street parking – as are all residential areas of Auckland where residents have no off-street parking and need access to their properties.
        • Taking away residents’ parking opportunities in Carlton Gore Road and requiring them to park in other surrounding streets puts competitive parking pressure on residents of those streets.
        • Being forced to park in other streets also creates issues of safety, particularly for women and children, when walking home at night around a commercial area fringed by a park. It only needs one assault!
        • Being forced to park in other streets means first illegally pulling in outside one’s place of residence to drop off the sick, the elderly and young children to fend for themselves.
        • Being forced to park in other streets seriously disadvantages the elderly and sick who drive cars themselves but are unable to walk for distances.
        • No available parking means no goods, services, or emergency vehicle access to residences.
        • No available parking means reduced interaction with the multitude of others who need to visit them.
        • No available parking means a large drop in house values in the whole neighbourhood.

        1. Your quote: “Further to that – I reiterate, this is no longer about’residents parking’”

          What other issues do you have? You’re saying 100 residents will have no parking? Did I get that right?

          1. I said up to 100 residents would be affected. My other issues concern the lack of research, the lack of cycle counts, and the failure to address real needs instead of the needs of a minority

          2. The needs of a ‘minority’? You’ve given us figures that show that more cyclists use the road than the 100 residents (which is vastly overstated as the vast majority of places on CGR have off street parking).

        2. I would think that any place that has off street parking will go up in price. That’s pretty much every property bar 1.

          1. 100 community members and the countless number of people who interact with them. This includes the large number of people outside this community who make use of the road for parking – workers, sports people who utilise the park (no parking in the Domain come Saturday!) and whoever else needs to use it – think about it!

          2. If workers and sports people need parking that badly, the market will respond accordingly with parking buildings or people might decide to cycle or use PT.

          3. Countless! You have more friends than I do! Time for you to move to some nice, car- friendly suburb like Howick.

    2. “Once safe cycle ways are installed (and cycle ways on roads are not safe according to international research)” Please link to the international research.

      1. Well here’s a little snippet for you from Copenhagen. You can read the rest yourself – good bit about taking parking out of streets:

        “Prohibited parking is one of the most serious reasons why the construction of cycle tracks brings about more accidents and injuries. Prohibited parking on a road with cycle tracks results in cars being parked on side streets, with a consequent increase in turning traffic especially at right of way regulated junctions and more accident resulting from turning cars. The construction of cycle tracks and prohibition of parking resulted in an increase in accidents and injuries at junctions of 42% and 52% respectively. The construction of cycle tracks combined with permission to park also resulted in an increase in accidents and injuries but of only 13% and 15% respectively.”

        There’s plenty more….


        1. Good old vehicular cyclist. I don’t prescribe to their ideas. For every piece of research they find that might show cycle lanes to be dangerous, I can supply several to the contrary. The other issue with reports like that is they don’t list severity of injuries.

          1. Use your imagination Bryce. ‘Good old vehicular cyclist’ eh? You make it sound like you’ve even heard of them! Well I’m glad someone is doing some real research (and it’s not about ‘ideas’ Bryce – it’s research) as the general response on this site has shown ignorance beyond belief! Not one good reason yet why cycle ways are a good idea for CGR. No research – no clear observations – no vision beyond the hope that it might increase cycle numbers. Let’s hope eh? It’s going to look pretty silly if the small numbers don’t increase – I mean according to cyclists, by their sheer presence, Khyber Pass Road, the Domain, and soon the new link down to Stanley Street (I’m sure) are just so much better 🙂

          2. The website the report came from Liz, not the report. They scour the globe looking for reasons not to install any cycle paths and want everyone to ride like a car. I’ll find the ‘pro’ research for you.

          3. And you’d be surprised at just how much reading I do on this subject and also road safety in general.

          4. And just for comparison, the Netherlands and Copenhagen both have extensive cycle lanes and tracks and have the safest cycling figures in the world.

          5. There’s nothing wrong with the report Bryce. Here are the same issues raised in Wikipedia:

            While installation of a new cycle track in the city decreases the number of accidents along the cycle track itself, a study of newly installed bicycle tracks in Copenhagen actually showed that the number of accidents increased by 9% as there were a significant increase of accidents in intersections following the installation of cycle tracks.[51] However since the number of bicyclists increased by 18-20% following installation of the cycle tracks, individual accident rates actually dropped when bicycle infrastructure was added.[52][53] Since its publication, the city has used the conclusions of the report to improve safety in intersections.

          6. I will be interested to read the ‘pro’ research Bryce. But later. Just because we’re both obviously stuck at home on a Saturday night bound to this infernal machine doesn’t mean that I haven’t got stuff to do. Actually, if I hadn’t run out of petrol and if my bike hadn’t been nicked, and if I could fork out for a cab, even I would be enjoying the night 🙂

          7. You must have misread me. My issue is vehicularcyclist not the report.

            As for intersections, the Dutch are the leaders for this. As it stands in NZ, something like 30+ % of cycle accidents already happen at intersections. Simultaneous Green is the bed traffic light solution for cyclists.

    3. Sorry, stopped reading at paragraph six or seven. I thought that Carlton Gore borders on the Domain. Can’t you just cycle though the Domain, Liz, and save us all a lot of money putting in a bicycle lane right next to public park!!

      1. Oops. My bad. I see that Liz wants the bicycles kept away from her front garden, which includes Carlton G. Does it include the Domain, Liz? Do we have to keep our bikes out of you sight by sneaking down Khyber Pass!!

        1. Not if you’re good looking Grant. And I don’t mind you using my Domain as long as you keep off the grass.

          1. Can’t promise either, Liz! Knees too broken to cycle any more. Don’t see mare cyclists my age. Used to only cycle on footpaths and the grass, so will never keep off either. Can’t see what I really look like anymore. Eyes not so good for close up mirror work. Still, blurred close up vision means everyone looks good!


    The 2013 Auckland manual cycle count was undertaken by the Gravitas research company. The AADT cycle count for the Khyber Pass/Broadway intersection was 927 daily cyclists. Raw data figures are much less than this – 322 cyclists in the morning rush hour and 315 cyclists in the evening rush hour. Cycle numbers are generally regarded as minimal during the day between ‘rush hour’ periods.

    One ‘observer’ was employed to conduct the survey at the Khyber Pass/Broadway intersection between 6.30am and 9.00am and again between 4.00pm and 7.00pm on one day of the year in March. This observer was not only able to count to the minute a total of 637 (morning and evening) cyclists coming from four directions (this includes the green area at the site) but amidst dense car traffic was able to identify direction, gender, age, helmet/no helmet, pavement/road and whether cyclists rode through the intersection more than once. This is remarkable!

    The same survey was conducted independently on Thursday 1st May using the same methodology and stipulation – a fine day during the working week (excluding Monday and Friday). As morning and evening counts are regarded as similar, the evening count was undertaken only. The only different variables in this independent research were that 1) daylight saving had finished – however, it was still daylight during the most important part of ‘rush hour’ (4.45 – 5.45pm), and 2) it was school holidays – however Gravitas research concludes that school children make up only 1% of cyclists on any weekday.

    Over this three-hour period only 170 cyclists were counted. The daily total can be calculated as approximately 340. This is nearly half of the Gravitas figure.

    In its report, Gravitas warns that “the number of cyclists varies by time of day, day of the week and week of the year, and therefore it is not valid to simply multiply manual count data collected over a certain (relatively brief) period out to represent a full day, week or year.”

    This warning can be interpreted as meaning that Gravitas is dubious of the methodology and distrusts its own result. If, through observer error or, for any other reason, the figures presented by Gravitas are inflated – this warning also acts to conceal this fact. While this warning therefore means that it is impossible to prove that the Gravitas results are false and potentially manipulated, the warning is valid in that it does emphasize the fact that ‘cycle numbers are dependent’.

    Although Land Transport New Zealand believes ‘internationally accepted’ AADT analysis can be used to estimate cycle counts conducted at one point in time by using scaling factors, these scaling factors (which themselves are questionable) do not take into account the possible ‘error’ in raw count details as discussed above. Based on these results, the AADT manual cycle count for the Khyber Pass/Broadway intersection is an astounding 927 per day.

    RECOMMENDATION: Auckland Transport undertake at least fortnightly cycle counts (rain or shine) for a year to understand the seasonal changes in cycle numbers around Auckland and to gain a valid count result. It is also imperative that in the Khyber Pass/Broadway case, cycle counts are taken in all surrounding streets to determine the most used access routes to this intersection.

  29. Having read all of the above. It follows a similar pattern to when I was involved with supporting a couple of new cycle ways. A concerned resident objected about loss of parking and property values. When these were shown to be ground less then they did their own count and found numbers were low – numbers are low because there was no cycle way. Numbers shot up after the path was open.
    Then they proposed a different route – khyber pass Rd will never get a cycle way.
    Then they come up with minor problems and make out they are a show stopper – flooding. Despite the up grade of storm water as stated above.
    In reality it is still about the parking.
    So nothing new here, same old pattern.

    1. By the way Wayne – who are the ‘concerned residents’ you talk about? I would be careful about the way you describe such situations – to some you might sound like an aggressive little bully. That won’t help anyone’s cause 🙂

      1. By the way – if this 🙂 cycleways 🙂 proposal goes through, I hope the ‘flooding’ issue you’re hung up about doesn’t come back to bite you 🙂 You should seriously check that it’s being looked into at this end of the road.

  30. Yep Wayne – it’s all about the parking AND the deceit, lack of research, wonky statistics and people’s rather strange hypocrisy

      1. Why don’t you read through the comments from those who have tried to ‘enlighten’ me …. you’ll see for yourself

      2. I think I may be one of those guilty of hypocrisy in Liz’s opinion, because I drive a car. Which I park on my property in a garage.

        I guess I could try to defend myself by noting that I work in Penrose in an area which can best be described as an (almost) bike free zone.

        As I said earlier, I would trade my garage for a decent Auckland cycle network. We would all be way better off 🙂

  31. Nothing personal at all Tim 🙂 And I don’t know what the guilt is about. If you got rid of your car and garage, how would you take your kids to a remote and beautiful beach? How would you take your family to an out of the way bush walk? How would you even get your kids to their sports game on the outskirts of Manurewa by 8am on a Saturday morning? Let alone explore this beautiful country in all of its out the way entirety.

    1. That’s why my Holden is my kids’ best friend! It’s the key to the beauty of natural NZ. Bikes only take us as far as the green of Western Springs . Been there. Done that.

  32. You know what? It’s suddenly dawned on me. Just about every respondent on this site is male! What is this? Some men’s cycle club? The only picture I’ve got is of a whole lot of pretty aggressive men who want to ride bikes and by hook or by male crook they want to have Carlton Gore Road! I mean – the project has been four years in the planning – you know – the secret men’s stuff planning. Of course there will be the token women – strong women who ride bikes too and have political vision. They are very silent though. It might all be for the ‘vision and the greater good’ but where are all the other women? Are they all being forced into the background to run the kids around in the cars you all seem to have while you guys declare war on Auckland with your bums in the air? Or are you all single – with no responsibiliites other than for yourselves? The only female voices on this site have asked for compromise. Why has everyone knocked back what they say? Why can’t you acknowledge the female voice? Are they stupid? To me this is just another male wan*** If you think I’m just pulling another punch out of the bag then you’d be right. Before we get rid of cars we need to get rid of the male ego. I mean, wasn’t it ‘men’ who created cars in the first place? It’s interesting that every person I have personally come across involved in this project – from Auckland Transport to the City Councillors to Cycle Action Auckland – have all been males so far. Males with male power trips. Males with agendas…. You say it’s for the good of all despite being shown why it’s not. The CGR plan does not suit everyone at all. Certainly not the children, the mothers, the females in general. You know, the ones that drive your kids around in cars – even if they do use their ‘Hop’ cards sometimes. Wait til your kids get sick at night and you need to get to a faraway late night chemist or the emergency room. Now where did I put the car? Oh that’s right it’s two blocks and a 20 minute walk away. Oh, but wait! I’m a single mother with a sick child. I don’t have money for a taxi. The car is too far away to leave my child…
    Men(and any female supporters that I just can’t see), you provide no credible reasons for grabbing what you want and become abusive when questioned. You are intolerant of compromise – but you certainly don’t seek the good of all – only what your male fantasy perceives as the good of all. Basically – as I say above – this whole thing is just another male wan**

    1. Hi Liz – I have stayed out of this discussion as I don’t tend to comment on blogs. In fact, if you look at popular blogs, you’ll see that virtually all have male only correspondents, (or only a tiny fraction of women).

      I assure you women are very active in Cycle Action. We just don’t tend to write comments on the blog.

      Would you believe I made a similar observation to yours re male profile in transport to the AA yesterday – I’m sure lots of women belong to the AA, including me, but the National Council is made of the Chairs of the District Councils who are all men – 17 of them, and not a woman in sight! What sort of governance is that?

      Can I ask you to hold off writing more comments,as its all been said. I personally would love to see a protected cyclelane on Carlton Gore Rd because it will encourage more women to use the road as cyclists.They are more aware of unsafe cycling conditions. As a mother, a feminist and a keen cyclist, I like to see women out riding. My great great aunt was Kate Sheppard, who led the campaign to win votes for women. She was also a cyclist, as she saw how it created independence for women.

      I understand you don’t agree with the removal of parking for the proposed cyclelane. Continuing to argue the point in this blog won’t change the outcome on the decision by AT, and is simply creating ill will, which is not helpful.

      It’s Mothers’ day today.Let’s agree to differ on what should happen on Carlton Gore Rd, and spend the day smelling the flowers and enjoying our families.

      Barbara Cuthbert, Chair, Cycle Action Auckland

  33. Thank you Barbara. It is nice to hear your voice. I am sorry, though, that you along with others, seek to stop mine. However, I agree that the topic has been ‘done’ and we all have much more to get on with in our lives. But while the topic may finish on his forum (and it has certainly been a great forum for debate) I have had no answers to very important questions – not least the essential reason why Carlton Gore Road is the best choice (or perhaps the last resort based on funding)for new cycle ways.

    My concerns have always been the (shocking) lack of research, the dubious statistics, the lack of resident voice, and the gung ho attitude of those who I feel are putting ‘the cart before the horse’ to accomplish a vision. It’s not good enough that Auckland Transport, Councillors, Auckland City in general ‘refuse’ to acknowledge correspondence and the request for discussion. It is not good enough that the views of those affected “won’t change the outcome on the decision by AT”. If this was a ‘done deal’ from the start then why the pretence of a submission process? A submission process that involves a 5-minute presentation by a cycleways supporter?

    For me – there has been no transparency, no democracy, and no room for meaningful discussion. And yes, I feel overpowered by the ‘maleness’ of this whole process. I feel sad that a part of the road that has provided access to and for a community, and space for a multitude of other users who interact with them and the surrounding amenities, will now become a closed highway for the needs of ‘commuter transport’. I am happy if it encourages more people to cycle – more women, more elderly, more chldren. However, I personally do not feel the right choices have been made to open up cycling to any of these groups. There has been no acknowledgment of my comments on the low cycling numbers on this street, no acknowledgement of the opportunities that could be sought to create cycleways in meaningful, safe places in the area. And of course, an absolute refusal to compromise should all finally agree that Carlton Gore Road is at least ‘a start’.

    Again, thank you Barbara. I am happy to find out that there are in fact female leaders involved. I am sorry that that the ‘outcome’ of this issue will leave many people with a very bitter taste. Not the best way to celebrate the joys of cycling. But as you say – let’s put it all aside for at least a day. Happy Mother’s Day to you to 🙂

    1. How is anyone stopping you or abusing you? At least half the comments on this thread are yours. Your comments have not been edited or deleted at any stage. How much more free speech do you want? I havent seen any personal abuse of you.

      Your “arguments” are so tired and formulaic that all of us have seen them so many times. They are very unconvincing and starting to quote vehicular cyclists is really destroying any credibility.

      You started off trying to say that you are pro-cycling and cycled yourself. However, your last comments are the sort of anti-cycling diatribe I would expect to see on KiwiBlog or Whale Oil.

      Thankfully your outdated 1950s opinions are not going to be decisive. The cycle lanes will be built.

  34. Hi Max,

    Thanks for your reply. You sound well informed on costs and cycling trends. Are you an engineer because it would be interesting to hear an experts opinion on shared paths.
    I have been to other countries and seen many shared cycle and pedestrian paths work well and with all the recent bad publicity in Auckland and motorists anger towards cyclists I would have thought it would be a good idea to get bikes off the roads and away from the traffic.
    I have just been outside now to measure the footpath in front of my house and I would have thought 4 metres would be plenty wide enough to make it safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Even if it were a lot of foot/cycle traffic (which Gore Street isn’t) it should be plenty of room. Is there any rule on how wide a shared path should be?
    You say a 250m cycle path is very inconvenient to the cyclists but lets play fair here. We are trying to get a solution that works for everyone. A shared cycle path is safer than no cycle path and the Carlton Gore route is safer than Khyber Pass. A shared cycle path on the park side could be built for the entire length of the street creating an important East-West transit route for cycling making it much longer than the 250m you are suggesting. Yes there may be some inconvenience of cars coming out of driveways, stopping at intersections and possibly having to cross the road twice but it is not much of an inconvenience is it.
    Some posters on here and on other sites have suggested that apartment owners could walk 250m to park their cars elsewhere, is that not a bigger inconvenience than having to cross the road to access a safe shared cycle path?
    Auckland needs more safe transit routes for cyclists but these can not be built without the support of everyone in the community. Finding solutions that can work for everyone like a shared 4m wide footpath/cyclepath could be something that works all over the city and is cheap, safe, and does not effect the value or lifestyles of residents. Surely a good idea? I would be interested on your thoughts on the above.

  35. I am keen to see the cycle lanes built. I want to see Auckland change in ways that encourage healthy people to get into healthy, environmentally friendly transport like cycling in a safe environment for everyone. I think that the Carlton Gore Rd cycle lanes will help do that.

    Antonio and Liz, I encourage you to join us and help promote cycle lanes everywhere.

  36. And to be clear, I prefer the separated cycle lanes for cyclists, with a separate footpath for pedestrians. I agree with Max’s thinking on this.

  37. Hi Monica,

    I am promoting cycle lanes. I think the shared path idea means we could have cycle lanes all over Auckland at a very small cost and with little or no inconvenience to existing road users or residents. Max didn’t really give any good reasons why this couldn’t work and as a casual observer it is starting to look like the cycle lobby are not prepared to have any compromise. I really hope that is not the case as there is already too much division between all the interest groups.

    1. Shared paths are already causing problems all over Auckland such as on the Bayswater shared path bridge and the Mangere pedestrian bridge. They are not scaleable and if the number of cyclists was to increase slightly you would get all kinds of conflicts with pedestrians.

      That is why in countries with a good cycle culture and high numbers of cyclists, cyclists and pedestrians are not mixed.

      Cyclists have been compromising for decades. That is why the infrastructure is so rubbish. Why cant motorists compromise for once by giving up a tiny proportion of the road space that they currently have a monopoly on?

      1. As Ben said. The fact is that there is a large, large discrepancy between “cycle facility” and “good cycle facility”.

        Many “cycle facilities” expect that a cyclist is willing to inconvenience him/herself to use them, cross roads to use them on the wrong side, then cross back shortly after when they stop again. It expects them to compromise one of the greatest advantage of cycling – the ability to go much faster than pedestrians without carrying around a fuel-guzzling metal cage – by using an environment where they have to go much slower.

        Most of all, as Ben has pointed out, the shared path idea expects that instead of cyclists having to negotiate/conflict with drivers in insufficient space, we are now supposed to negotiate conflict with pedestrians.

        This may be marginally safer (but not SAFE – my only serious cycle accident ever (two broken hands!) was because of a pedestrian’s fault). Shared paths have a lot more potential for such pedestrian-cyclist issues than any other facilities, and with driveways added to the mix, shared paths are known to have crash rates several TIMES higher than on-road lanes. Sorry, I don’t want to be crushed by a car driver just because I didn’t slow down to a cral at every driveway and side road (legally, I have to stop at every side road tho, which is another reason why shared paths aren’t GOOD cycle facilities).

        But at the end of the day, pushing for shared paths as the standard solution (they do have their place, just not as a standard solution) – well, pushing for shared paths as a standard solution is a dismissive response.

        It is essentially drivers saying “go somewhere else – bother the pedestrians”.

  38. Thanks for your reply Max, and Ben as well.

    I can see how a shared cycle and pedestrian path could be dangerous if cyclists were not to show some common courtesy like riding to a speed that is safe for the traffic (people and other cyclists) or if pedestrians were stupid and got in cyclists way by making sudden direction changes but wouldn’t a path that is 4 metres wide be enough space for everyone?
    I take on board your point that a dedicated path would be optimal but where the local residents are going to be penalised then surely a compromise is the right solution. I would not buy an apartment that did not have either off street or parking outside the building and with a reduction of parking mins this will become a wider issue in Auckland. I am sure I am not alone in this thinking so peoples property investments are at risk. It surely is not fair to jeopardise property values when a shared path is possible and a better solution to what is there now.

    1. “local residents are going to be penalised” – well I dont see how – more inconvenienced. These apartments were purchased without parking and the price reflected that. The residents were never guaranteed access to on street parking in a public space – if they bought the apartment thinking they were guaranteed that then they were wrong.

      BTW – I also dont have off street parking where I am. I know it is a risk but the price I paid definitely reflected that. We park our one car outside on the street.

      “I would not buy an apartment that did not have either off street or parking outside the building” – well buying an apartment with off street parking is your choice and you will pay a premium for that choice. Many people and businesses want the opposite choice and have been denied that because of minimum parking requirements. That is now changing.

      You dont have an option to choose an apartment with parking outside. That is public space just like a park or a Aotea Square – it is not a private reserved space for the residents. It can be taken away for the public good as quickly as it is granted.

      Auckland is changing just as it did in the past. This may be the biggest period of change since Auckland chnaged from a public transport city to an auto dependent city in the 1950s. And just like then, not everyone will be happy or benefit from the changes. C’est le vie. In 20 years people will wonder how we ever survived without the changes.

    2. “It surely is not fair to jeopardise property values” – have you noticed property values in Auckland dropping?

      Overwhelmingly the evidence is that cycle infrastructure increases property values. Do a 5 min search on Google and you will see that is true. Unlike auto infrastructure which reduces property values.

      You should be asked to contribute to the cycle lanes to recognise the added value to your apartment. Instead us taxpayers are covering it. You’re welcome.

  39. Ben,

    I appreciate your comments and they would all be reasonable if there had to be a choice between parking or a cycle lane, however it is possible to maintain the parking and provide a safe cycle lane on a shared cycle/pedestrian path.
    I do not want to be seen as flaming but it is starting to sound like the cycle lobby in Auckland are not good neighbours as this blog shows an incredible resistance to compromise.

    1. I would have thought only removing parking on one side of the street is compromise?

      1. And speaking of compromise, have you seen the cycle lanes planned for Dominion Rd?

    2. Again, I ask you once more: Why should those who have had to live with four or five decades of outright neglect be happy or “reasonable” (i.e. meek) when people like you propose to compromise (as in “make worse”) one of the rare good cycle designs that gets proposed?

      And all just to save some convenience for cars, and by infringing on another only slightly less marginalised group, pedestrians.

      It is starting to sound like the car lobby in Auckland are not good neighbours, because they show an incredible resistance to give up any of the overwhelming majority of Auckland they have conquered.

      1. I agree with your comments Max. This compromise situation is not about finding the middle ground. Cars already have 95% of the infrastructure, and they are telling cyclists/pedestrians to compromise on the 5%.

      2. Max – I can’t help myself commenting again. While a great design for cyclists and I am sure it will work for those who cycle the road – I am wondering what your response is to the Herald article this morning asking for safe cycle ways on main arterial routes.

        I am still gobsmacked that no-one has bothered to cycle count in streets around this Newmarket area – but most evidently Carlton Gore is far less used than Khyber Pass Road. (There is no use arguing Max until you agree to a cycle count with me). Khyber Pass Road is a main arterial route. AT says it does not have the money to ‘do up’ Khyber Pass and nor it seems the imagination to find a solution. With cycle numbers on Khyber Pass set to increase even further with the university campus I would have thought all cyle lobbyists would be pushing for something for this road.

        I understand your plan is four years old – which means it does not take into account the developing needs of this area. Carlton Gore Rd has a comparatively low cycle count. Cyclists are making use of other more arterial routes. This current proposal is not the best use of ratepayers money nor sufficient to meet the needs of cyclists in the area. I again suggest AT lobby the university to provide safe cycle lanes on Khyber Pass Road. I again suggest following the lead of cities such as Melbourne who make excellent use of train lines for safe cycle ways.

        Four years is a long time Max and to remain innovative and responsive to needs – plans need to change. Yes I am a NIMBY – for very good reason. The dangers to cyclists on Khyber Pass Road need to be addressed first and foremost before a less necessary cycle way is funded for Carlton Gore Road (if it is even needed). As the Herald said this morning – cyclists need safety on main arterial routes. If you continue to push your plan for Carlton Gore Road then I suggest you first recognise the lower importance of this street and thereby allow compromises to be made to the plan that can accomodate residents and buisinesses’ needs.

        Overall, money should be saved instead for something of real SIGNIFICANCE for cyclists – not just the few who might use Carlton Gore Rd because they work on it or regard it as minimally faster than the Domain route. With the new cycle way down to Stanley St being installed it is quite likely that cycle numbers on Carlton Gore Road will decrease even more. Things change Max – and old plans need to change too.

        1. It is quite insulting to pretend you are interested in the safety of cyclists. You have made it quite clear from your past comments that you are anti-cyclist and have no interest in cyclist’s welfare.

          This is about you wanting to be able to continue using a piece of public land to park your private car for a nominal fee. This despite you making a free choice to buy an apartment without parking, a fact that would have been reflected in the price. It has nothing to do with you wanting to see safer facilities on Khyber Pass.

          Frankly, I dont see why my tax dollars should be spent maintaining parking spaces to enable you to save money on housing. I am sure you could rent a space in one of the many parking buildings in Newmarket.

          Perhaps once the CGR lanes are installed (and they will be) we will start trying to agitate for better facilities on Khyber Pass. We look forward to your support for that.

          1. Ben – my concerns are for everyone. The obvious need for cycle ways are Khyber Pass Road not Carlton Gore Road. Let’s get that straight. Yes – it is important that cyclists in Khyber Pass Road are safe. It is also important that the people who live and do business on Carlton Gore Road are safe too.

            If you had been reading any of the comments in this forum you would have registered that the safety of not only adult men (such as you) but the safety of women, children, the elderly and all those who interact with them is put at risk by the design of this cycle way.

            THERE WILL BE NO ACCESS TO HOMES. Children, the elderly, and whoever else will have to be illegally dropped off and left to their own devices while parking is sought – perhaps blocks away. Women will be forced to walk through dark commercial areas and past or through a dark park. IT ONLY TAKES ONE ASSAULT. IT ONLY TAKES ONE ACCIDENT FOR A CHILD OR AN ELDERLY PERSON LEFT ALONE Just as it only takes one CYCLE ACCIDENT. All lives important Ben. Not just yours. Sorry – but your argument is entirely short-sighted. And by the way – isn’t it motorists’ vehicle and ACC levies that support cyclists on the road? I don’t know what you mean about your tax dollars. I’m happy that my rates have built cycle ways all around Auckland. I’m not happy with the white elephant that is being created on Carlton Gore Road.

          2. Liz. Out of auckland council’s hundreds of millions spent on roads, only 20% is funded by NZTA, which is from motorists. The rest is funded by ratepayers. The motorist argument that they pay for the roads is an old one, and a very false one. I have worked in the council accounting section before, and I know the bun fights that occurred over each and every road.


            There will be access to homes Liz – you just wont be able to park your car right outside. That isnt a lack of access, that will be a lack of parking. Not the same thing.

            All very emotive but I am afraid this isnt the NZ Herald. But write something for them I am sure they will lap it up. At least you are being honest that you dont care anything about cyclist safety.

            This is all about what is convenient for you and the fact you think that the public area outside the apartment you chose to buy without parking “belongs” to you. So please dont try and pretend to be altruistic.

            And BTW, chances are I will never use these cycle lanes – so I am not advocating for them for my benefit at all.

            Motor vehicles kill dozens of people each year in this country – especially children and the elderly. The sooner we cut down on the access for cars into the city and reduce the number of vehicles on the road, the safer we will all be.

            We are winning and motorists like you are fighting a rearguard action. In 20 years your arguments will be considered archaic and impractical. Welcome to the 21st century.

    3. No, we aren’t compromising any more. Motorists can learn to compromise. This city is one of the most auto dependent in the world. Even LA is starting to make us look old fashioned.

      Sorry if you dont like that attitude but I have spent my whole life seeing cars encroaching more and more on public space in NZ. Providing space for cars is expensive, inefficient and unhealthy for the residents. Buy a bike or get a HOP card – that is the future.

      Cities need less cars and more cyclists and PT users. That is the way all big cities are going worldwide – it is inevitable because the evidence backs us up financially and health wise.

      1. Yes… Yes… All, very sensible. I agree, but put me behind the wheel of a Holden V8 and I want us cyclists out of the way so I can let loose. I used to cycle all the time. Bet you’re all under 40. Let me put you behind the wheel of this animal and you’ll give your bicycle to the doctor treating your knee and hip problems, and join the Shell/Zed Heavy Users Bonus Club.

        1. You lose. Over 40. By the way, holden’s days as king of the mountain are coming to an end. There is a new heir apparent.

          1. Wooooh. There is no way you are right. Don’t knock it til you’ve flexed that Holden throttle. It’ll be like mr toad from toad of toad hall… Loooove. Take a ride and feel the live! It didn’t hit me until I tried, quite late in life. Nice to know pure over 40. It’s the ideal time to get your first Holden (they’re wasted on the young).

        2. I’m 43 and had a very long association with the Lion as a mechanic, in new vehicle sales and at head office.

  40. You guys are sounding very mean spirited. I hope you do not represent the majority of cyclists in Auckland because without a willingness to compromise there will never be any harmony on our streets.
    I walked down Carlton Gore Road today and a 4 metre wide shared cycle/pedestrian path would be an easy and cost effective way to satisfy everyones needs. Liz has valid concerns and as a resident she has a reasonable expectation to be able to park near where she lives.
    All this talk of ‘buy a bike or get a hop card’ and ‘cities need less cars’ sounds like you want to force your own transport choices on other people. That is hardly fair.
    I could understand your position if it was a clear case of cycle land OR parking but as I pointed out, a 4m wide shared path allows for both. The comments that shared paths are dangerous is without any proof and just suggests that the few people that would cycle this route can not be trusted to ride at a safe speed or with any common courtesy to fellow Aucklanders who are pedestrians. If you want to cycle at 50kph you can always use the road.

    1. Thanks for your support Antonio. My brother, who has designed cycle ways, tried to comment – but when his son tried to comment on the same computer both comments got knocked off and they were called fake. I think it is because he had something valuable to say – and here it is:(And if anyone wants to comment you had better ask the administrator to let JeremyA back on so he can respond!!!)

      Hi Antonio!

      You’ve put it in a nutshell. That’s exactly what I proposed to the AT process – though I was meaner and only suggested 3m.

      My professional experience in multi-modal transport design says that a shared dual-lane cyclepath in the Domain road-reserve aligned on the existing footpath is the single safest and most efficient option available.

      Cyclists and pedestrians are separated from the main road. The intersection of Carlton Gore and Park road is completely avoided, and the land-area use is very efficient in accomodating commuter cyclists, as well as recreational cyclists and pedestrians at other times.

      There is a further benefit in that uphill cyclists are not exposed to resident driveways and there is an even bigger benefit at intersections where painted cyclways actually increase accidents.

      If (and there is always an if) cyclists want to use the road to the exclusion of safe cyclways then they can always do so – at their own risk.

      To supplement this, a kerb separated dual-use bidirectional cycleway on the East (commercial) side of lower Carlton Gore would be very good. It not only provides more parking for residents than other designs but also much safer transit compared to both-side painted lanes.

      1. “a kerb separated dual-use bidirectional cycleway on the East (commercial) side of lower Carlton Gore would be very good” – That would be a great result. But I dont see how parking wouldnt be removed. It would be either that or traffic lanes would have to be removed – which I have no problem with.

        At the end of the day, this is about competition for space between pedestrians, cyclists nd motorists. This is the biggest issue in cities right now – and remember that is public space.

        Around 80% of the open space in Auckland is made up of road space and the vast majority of that is dedicated to moving cars around or storing them. is that a great use of that space, does it make Auckland a better place to live? I dont think so. That doesnt even reflect the fact that only about 80% of trips are made by car. Motorists need to give up some of that space, either parking or moving space.

        A great result for CGR would be to make the whole thing a shared space, maybe with some parking bays. That would require motorists to drive at about 10km/h but then everyone could just share the street (like everyone did 60-70 years ago). It has worked really well in Fort Street. Then motorists can share the street, just as you are proposing cyclists and pedestrians do on a shared path.

        How about that? It will never happen in terms of AT supporting it (and motorists would resent losing “their” road space) but it would be a solution. Plus it would be great for the retailers on CGR. On Fort Street, hospitality spend went up by 400%.

        1. Finally Ben – you’ve come up with some imaginative, alternative thinking! Yet another opportunity lost because of the stubborn ‘old-fashioned’ plan that MUST go ahead. Why didn’t you push for this from the start???

    2. Well I know that you do represent the majority of motorists in Auckland who have no willingness to compromise and that is why will never be any harmony on our streets.

      The streets of Auckland have been turned over solely to motor vehicles for the last 60 years. We and people like the Transport Blog (transportblog.co.nz) are now trying to turn that tide.

      “sounds like you want to force your own transport choices on other people” – No one is “forcing” anyone. If it becomes less convenient to drive your car and cycling or public transport become more convenient options, how is that forcing? That is all that happened in Auckland in the 1950s. Noone was forced to drive cars then. But our excellent PT system was slowly degraded (mostly by removing trams and replacing with slow buses) until there was no choice – same with cycling.

      As I said above, the fact that a small group like CAA is actually able to get cycle projects going now in Auckland(something that would have been impossible 20 years ago) is because we have the facts on our side. You are just appealing to emotions and “but that is the way it is”. Well it wasnt always like that and it won’t always be and this is the beginning of the change. Cars dont work well in big cities, that is why you are always complaining about congestion when you drive your car – which I predict you do for 99% of your journeys.

      By the way I invite you to go on Transport Blog and share your opinions – I think you will find a lot of people with very good qualifications who will explain to you very carefully why your view is outdated and redundant.

  41. Hi Liz,

    Thanks for re-posting that message from your brother. It was an interesting post that supports my theory but with supporting facts.

    Do you know what AT has responded with yet? 3 or 4 metres does not really matter, there is enough space to create a shared path that satisfies every interest group.

    Everyone needs to get behind this as it is for the collective good.

    1. I’m reluctant to extend this thread but I can’t leave that hanging: “with supporting facts”?! When all I can see areunsupported assertions.

      For example that a shared path 3 m wide on a long straight hill is the safest option. Really? On the opposite side of the road from the many large businesses, including the one I worked in for years.. so where is the extra crossing on CGR to get to it?

      “The intersection of CGR and Park Road is completely avoided”.. Unless you want to head to Grafton train station, or Epsom, or Mt Eden, in which case you are faced with another extra road crossing.

      Not to mention the nonsense about the “exposure to residents’ driveways”.. hilariously conflated with “painted cycle ways actually increase accidents”.

      The plans as proposed may not be not international best practice.. i.e. full segregation of motorised traffic / cycling / walking. But they are the next best thing, a huge improvement, and will make cycling on CGR on both directions safer and more attractive. In time no doubt they will be connected with improvements on Park Road and further west, and on Broadway and further east.

      By contrast, your suggestion of a single shared path on the “wrong” side of the road goes against what professional cycling infrastructure planners are designing overseas. There are examples like this in Auckland of course. All of them more or less useless. A good one would be the shared path alongside College Road in Stonefields.. similarly on the “wrong side of the road” on a long straight hill. And completely unused by cyclists.. who invariably choose to ride on the fast and unforgiving four lane road instead.

  42. Tim,

    If cyclists choose to ride on a ‘fast and unforgiving four lane road’ instead of a safe 4 metre wide shared path then that is the decision of the cyclist. At least the cyclist is going to have that option. The measures being called for in having two dedicated cycle lanes rob the residents of the option to park their cars near where they live which is a pretty reasonable expectation in Auckland.
    As I said somewhere above. If we are going to have more cycle lanes which we surely agree is a good thing then more shared paths are the only way forward.
    I have yet to read any good reason why a 4 metre wide shared path is not a safe and sensible solution for everyone concerned. The only resident contributing to this thread seems happy with sharing her footpath with cyclists, why is that not the proof that this idea is best?
    Examples of why a 4m shared path is unsafe please, not just comments about why should you have to cross a road.

    1. “then more shared paths are the only way forward.” – only if people like you and Liz oppose every single on road facility. Motorists dont pay for local roads and have no more right to it than cyclists, pedestrians or public transport. We all pay for roads. Separate infrastructure for cyclists is the only way forward.

      “Examples of why a 4m shared path is unsafe please” – Max, Tim and I have all given you very detailed reasons why. But is not our job to educate you. We all spend a lot of time reading about these things and it is Max’s job. Do some basic research and see why shared paths are never used in good cycle countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. That is the standard we want. Just read some of the other posts on this blog or on Transport Blog – the evidence (not stories or assumptions – actual evidence) is all there.

      It is far cheaper than infrastructure for motor vehicles, lasts longer and also contributes positively to health. It is the most fiscally responsible thing to spend our transport $$ on.

      1. Ber – could you just get over it. No one hates cyclists. No one hates residents and businesses. None of you actually hate cars because you all seem to have them. All anyone is asking for – and have done since the beginning – is a very small compromise on one side of the road. That’s all. That’s all it’s ever been. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM! Sorry – sometimes I heed to shout. If there can’t be compromise then take the cycle ways out all together and put them where they are needed – that is – where cyclists ride their bikes – that is – Khyber Pass Road and arterial roads near by. It ain’t Carlton Gore Rd sorry – just like you, people don’t come this way

        1. But Liz, why dont you compromise and agree that giving a small part of the road space to something other than motor vehicles is a fair compromise? Why do we as cyclists have to continue to compromise as motorists have been demanding for 60 years?

          Since you are into counting stuff, go out onto CGR and count up how much road space is dedicated to moving and storing cars. How much? 90% or more? That doesnt even reflect the modal share in Auckland – as ridiculously high as it is for a city of Auckland’s size.

          This is all about you wanting other rate and tax payers (the ones who pay for the maintenance and upkeep of CGR) to compensate you for the decision you made to buy an apartment without parking. If you need parking, rent some space in one of the many half empty parking buildings nearby in Newmarket. Or get rid of your car and start cycling or using public transport – like I do and I live in a far less PT friendly area than you do.

          You are fighting a rear guard action for the change that is sweeping Auckland. Your efforts to pretend you care about cyclist safety or indeed any other group are just crocodile tears. This is all about you and your parking, nothing else.

          I assure you I am completely over it. I am over self entitled motorist NIMBYs who think that the whole world should revolve around your “needs” (in fact wants).

          No, I am not anti-car. Cars have their place in the transport picture – but the picture right now is dominated by cars driving around with one person in it.

          1. BenL – please don’t make such sweeping accusations – ‘crocodile tears’ is a bit much. If I really hated cyclists I’d make sure you knew it. But I don’t. Despite you trying to provoke me to. For your information – when I bought this apartment there was guaranteed ‘residents only’ parking – not just ‘residents exempt’. It was the philosopy of the Council to provide for residents in historic areas – and still is in most other city fringe areas. In fact I haven’t found a road yet where parking bays haven’t been installed for residents or visitors on roads that are yellow-lined. Apparently we are an exception. Why? Because it doesn’t suit the design of the cycle way – a design that had no input other than from cycle advocates and AT. There are lots of other ideas Ben for safe cycle ways on Carlton Gore Road – but the redundancy of this project anyway is something that well-meaning residents have not over-emphasised so far. It’s obvious to everyone that the need for cycle ways in Carlton Gore Road is nowhere near as great as surrounding arterial streets. The whole street is somewhat askance – but are too polite to say anything if that’s what cyclists want. Cyclists who don’t even use street – such as you – and probably don’t even know the area.

          2. “when I bought this apartment there was guaranteed ‘residents only’ parking” – if thats what you understood when you bought the apartment then you were mistaken. There is no such thing as guaranteed resident parking for life – and certainly no guarantee it would be right outside your door.

            That is public space and the Council can do what it likes with it – as it is. I wont use the cydle lanes as they are on the other side of town from where I live. The cycle lanes near me I use daily.

            As I said, get a park in a parking building if you cant walk a few hundred metres from your car. Or cycle or take PT, get rid of your car and save thousands of dollars every year.

          3. Point d: Section 8 of that plan: To ensure that parked cars do not prevent the safe use of streets as thoroughfares for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. Parking still comes last, as per the 2001 plan.

          4. If the Council provided ‘residents only’ parking at the time – then that’s what they provided. In terms of clairvoyantly seeing the future Ben, how about a future where cars AND bikes are taken off the roads as a menace to pedestrians. There are certainly a lot more pedestrians than either – or would be if wasn’t for these infernal lumps of metal called cars and bicyles. Pedestrian rights!!!

          5. Kelvin – you seem to read quite selectively. I can quote from the report as well. It says:

            “Shortage of off-street parking makes on-street parking essential”

            “Streets are often parked out causing problems for visitors and residents with no or limited off-street parking.”

            “The need to conserve Auckland City’s built character and heritage in inner city areas in the face of increasing redevelopment is a priotity. This has highlighted the need to allow the provision of parking schemes to support the conservation of heritage dwellings…”

            And here’s the funniest bit (ie – it never happened):

            “Consultation is undertaken with residents (and businesses where necessary)on the affected length of the street”

  43. “Examples of why a 4m shared path is unsafe please, not just comments about why should you have to cross a road.”

    You have just answered your own question.

  44. One aspect missing in this discussion is consideration for the majority of bicycle users – children.

    No parent in their right mind wants their child to ride on a busy road separated from traffic only by a thin film of paint.

    For that reason alone a dual use path in the Domain road reserve is the very best solution.

    In Perth the large majority of journeys both in numbers and distance are made on dual-use paths – partly because major transit routes are designed to include them. For some reason Perth cyclists aren’t ashamed to be seen riding on shared paths – that seems to be a peculiarly Auckland thing.

    1. As you will see if you do 5 mins research on Google – the problem with shared paths, in Perth and elsewhere, is exactly as we have all been explaining above. It is the worst of both worlds for pedestrians and cyclists.

      It is not about shame, it is about practicality and scalability.

      The answer is not shared paths. The answer on busy arterials is separated cycle paths – separated by kerbs or some other physicaly barrier. Just like in the Netherland, where the vast majority of children still cycle to school. Not Perth or Auckland where hardly any do.

      But as long as NIMBY locals keep opposing every single cycle project because it impinges on “their” road space we will never have that kind of infrastructure and the roads will continue to be unsafe for children. I refuse to see my tax and rate dollars used to compensate apartment owners for their decision to buy a cheaper apartment with no parking.

      1. Shame at your name calling Ben! In fact we NIMBYs are proud! So far we’ve kept out nuclear ships, anthrax and even fruit flies (sort of). What we can’t keep out is McDonalds, Miley Cyrus, general ignorance and elitist meritocracy (not to mention corruption and backroom planning)

    2. I would like to not that children are NOT the majority of the bicycle users.

      From the New Zealand Cycling Safety Summit Briefing Notes (available elsewhere on this site) p.13 “In 1989/90 adults covered about half the total distance cycled. By 2008-2013 this had risen to about 85 percent.”

      1. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

        Children certainly don’t do anywhere near as much km as adults. But they certainly do jump on the treadly more often. Most adults don’t ride. Many kids do.

        The real question is will the kids get knocked of their bikes using unsafe transit lanes instead of safe dual-use facilities.

  45. @BenL

    Luckily I don’t have to do 5 minutes of ‘research on Google’ as I was part of the team that designed and implemented many of Perth’s cycleways – all of which are dual use.

    The myth of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists is just that. A myth. Commuter cyclists use dual-use cycleways at different times to recreational cyclists and pedestrians. There is no conflict.

    In Perth the vast majority of long distance commutes occur on dual-use paths – and that is despite adjacent roads being available and mostly cycle friendly.

    In Perth as in other metropolitan areas, the CBD is not the final destination for 90% of commuters of any type. Sound transport design lies around a web-like local commuting network and multimodal transport hubs – I was involved in the design of these as well.

    The concept of exclusive cycling superhighways arrowing into the CBD is both stupid and wasteful. It shows a keen lack understanding of the actual demand for such cycle routes.

    Good transport planning considers all users, not a tiny elite. The majority of users of bicycles are minors who travel locally and at low speed. Separated dual-use cycle paths are an ideal way to encourage cycling and keep the majority of users safe.

    You are remarkably quiet on the topic of children. Can you explain why you want to force children to ride on dangerous on-road cycleways in preference to a separated off-road path that can be used by commuters morning and evening and by others during the day.

    1. Well, great for you – you are also using the IP adress which previously posted comments under different names in very short succession, to make it look like you were multiple people. So tell me why we should believe you, again?

      Amusingly, I broke both my hands on a *Perth shared path*, due to a pedestrian suddenly stepping out in front of me from behind a hedge – while I was going 15 km/h. So even if it is true that you designed those paths, you aren’t exactly making your case.

      1. And of course you also noted:

        “In Perth the vast majority of long distance commutes occur on dual-use paths”

        And that is perfectly fine. CAA supports shared paths in the right environment – like the Northwestern Cycleway. They are unsuitable (especially for short itsy bits) of paths in the middle of town.

        1. Oh, and shoo your “elite” nonsense. Buffered and even more so protected cycle lanes are not for an “elite”. They are what the rest of the cycliscised world cycles on, with mode shares of 10,20, even 30%.

          And the “there is no conflict on shared paths” statement. Yeepers. I ride several shared paths every morning, and am quite patient with peds. I have never hit anybody ever (not even the guy who caused my hands to be broken), but there’s “conflict” (as in – significant negatives and accident risk for both user groups) every friggin day. To simply say “there is no conflict” and “the paths don’t get used by commuters and pedestrians at the same time” is so far from the truth that again, I wonder why I am even typing this. You either do not have an idea, or are willfully trolling.

          1. “Cyclicised” – sounds painful.

            So what exactly is wrong with asking for a separate dual-use cycleway rather than dangerous on-road painted lane that is certainly going to be avoided by families and children.

            Dual-use seems to tick your boxes of “Buffered” and “Protected” rather well.

            And as you admit, cyclists significantly use dual-path cycleways for commuting *Because it’s safer and more convenient* and they don’t have to contend with pedestrians at commuting times.

          2. Nah, sorry, you keep avoiding my arguments. Have a nice day, we both can use our life better than this.

          3. NZ is a democracy. This blog is a meritocracy and you have not shown sufficient merit.

      2. Amazing as it may seem, my son and I share an internet connection. My sister, his aunt, asked us to comment

        How about you look at the content rather than try and score points based on some weak undestanding of the Internet.

        1. Fair enough, maybe I made a mistake. Hard to prove either way, tho. You will notice that I did not delete any of your more recent comments, despite those earlier instances of seeing a short succession of same-IP posts under 2 names.

          I personally believe that we have long gone past the point where discussion remains fruitful here – but I don’t normally believe in stopping discussion, or I would have shut off comments on this long before…

          1. Max – it is not your choice to ‘shut off comments’. This is a democracy – except when it comes to dealing with residents of course.

          2. Bull. This is a website owned by CAA. You being allowed to comment here because we chose to allow you to.

          3. NZ is a democracy. This blog is a meritocracy and you have not shown sufficient merit.

          4. But I’m glad you think even ‘I’ may have had something fruitful to say so far. If only you would acknowledge it 🙂

    2. From my post above: “we will never have that kind of infrastructure and the roads will continue to be unsafe for children”

      So how am I silent on children? Maybe read a bit more carefull. In fact, children would be one of the major focuses of my advocacy. If you bother to read any of the many posts I have written on this blog you will see that I have a big focus on getting 8-80 cycling. Here are some examples:

      I am not a lycra clad, speed merchant, in fact few are at CAA. I am more of a “Dutch” cyclist and share with pedestrians no problem at all. I actually have no personal problem with shared paths and they are better than nothing. But they will not lead to a 8-80 cycling culture and anything less is unacceptable.

      “Can you explain why you want to force children to ride on dangerous on-road cycleways in preference to a separated off-road path” – I would love to see them riding on separated off road CYCLE paths. However, shared paths are not the answer.

      However, remind me again what the cycling modal share is in Perth? Around 2%, the same as Auckland? What percentage of school children cycle to school in Perth? And how much is it increasing with the shared paths? Rocketing up to meet Perth’s goals of 15% by 2029? Unlikely as I havent yet seen Perth heralded as the new cycling mecca of Australasia.

      As you are an expert, you must know that the only countries that have achieved a real cycle culture (especially for children) and decent modal share are Denmark and the Netherlands. And they did that with proper separated dedicated cycle paths, not shared paths.

      Here is what one Dutch cyclist had to say about cycling in Brisbane:
      Notice his emphasis on being segregated from cars and pedestrians.

      Now I know that is not what we are getting on CGR but we need to take the space from the cars first – and this is the first step. Then we can move for separation. Shared paths are just a way for motorists to push cyclists off to the side as they have for decades.

      We wont compromise because if we do we will only make the same progress as Perth and the rest of the Anglophone world, i.e. not much.

      The people fighting this are only interested in one thing, protecting their tax payer subsidised parking on CGR. Let’s not try and make out this is some emotional protest about the children.

      1. “As you are an expert, you must know that the only countries that have achieved a real cycle culture (especially for children) and decent modal share are Denmark and the Netherlands. And they did that with proper separated dedicated cycle paths, not shared paths.

        Actually the reason for Netherland and Denmark cycling share is much simpler. They are flat! That and lack of strip development and short distances from residences to neaby work areas.

        Auckland (and Perth) are very large and have very long all-modes commute distances. Perth is flat too but the tyrany of distance prevails.

        Getting back to very specific topic. Why do you want to force kids to ride on the road in Carlton Gore and Park Road when a safe alternative exists.

        I don’t care about Max’s broken wrist story. That’s simply a result of some council poor design – a detail, not a principle. I worked on many of the railway shared paths which have ample sight-lines (except parts of the legacy lines).

        My question is not rhetorical, nor hypothetical. It’s why do YOU want to force kids to ride in unsafe on-road lanes on Carlton Gore and Park Road?

        I spent a good part of my life helping design multimodal transport facilities including to keep kids and cars separated. The design as proposed here is less safe than others. I would hate to be in AT when the duty of care issue raises its ugly head. Especially if I was the person who created the design.

        Where’s your risk-beneifit matrix? How many cyclists do you expect to have accidents on painted lanes? How many deaths/km/yr? Compare and contrast with the number of broken Max wrists on a shared path/km/yr. Where are your engineering design numbers?

        I’ve seen none of this data and I strongly suspect no-one has done this type of risk analysis.

        1. “Actually the reason for Netherland and Denmark cycling share is much simpler. They are flat! That and lack of strip development and short distances from residences to neaby work areas.” – Wow incredible, you are an expert and think that? Have you ever been to those countries? There is a hell of a lot more going on than just being flat.

          If that is true, why do Belgium, Luxembourg and most of Germany have cycling rates so much lower? Why arent Christchurch and Hamilton cycling the cycling meccas they used to be.

          Sorry that is just such a crazy argument that shooting it down is like taking candy from a baby. Again, I encourage you to do 5 mins research on Google. Or you might start with this http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html

          It seems like you have a long way to go on your cycling education. I wish you well.

          1. I didn’t realise a Humorectomy was required for immigration to New Zealand.

            Flat – tongue in cheek but with more than a touch of reality. I guess Australasian humour is an aquired taste.

            Even Blind Freddy can see that hilliness is an impediment to cycling participation. It’s no coincidence that the two flattest countries in Europe also have the highest cycling participation rate.

            But, as I noted, an important factor is the homogenous residential / work area nature. People in those countries live near their workplace. People in Australasia don’t. That’s why Auckland will never emulate Europe and it’s pointless to try and make it so.

            And you avoid the question again. Why do YOU want children to ride on painted on-road lanes on Carlton Gore and Park Roads to the exclusion of a separate dual-use pathway? That’s a real question. Not to be tossed aside with ‘5 minutes of google’. It’s a question not to be passed over with ‘in an ideal world’. It’s a question about a decision to be made very shortly. You have avoided answering it a number of times now. Will you again?

          2. Well my ancestors immigrated to NZ in the 1880s, so I guess Australasian humour still hasnt soaked in 4 generations later, but congrats for your xenophobia. If that was humnour then you have really missed the mark.

            I would prefer to see a law chnage that allowed children to ride on the footpath. That would address that issue and reflect reality. But children will never start cycling to school like they do in Northern Europe untill we have separated cycle infrastructure.

            No hills are not a major impediment to cycling as Portland and San Fran have demonstrated. If you got off your high horse and read some of the material I have referred you to (by actual experts), you would see why you are 100% wrong about Australasia. Your attitude and misinformation is exactly why cycling has plummetted from the high levels it had until the 1960s. Yes, it did, look it up – how do you explain that our grandparents could cycle in the same cities that we now cant? My home town of Christchurch was probably the 2nd biggest cycling city in teh world – now it has maybe a 4% modal share. It is as flat as ever.

            “But, as I noted, an important factor is the homogenous residential / work area nature” – but Aucklanders’ journeys are not any further than Dutch peoples. The only difference is the mode – most journeys are less than 7 kms (http://bikeauckland.org.nz/general-news/reaching-out-cycling-and-public-transport/). That is actually a myth that is perpetuated in the Anglophone world.

            Will you please answer the many questions I have asked you. Until you stop just stating things that anybody could find out are untrue by 5 mins on Google, I will not “debate” (though there need to be facts on both sides to be a debate) any longer. You need to stop perpetuating myths, upgrade your knowledge from the 1960s and get onboard with cycling. It is the way of the future.

        2. Ever ridden a bike in a 10 knot head wind? You may have noticed the number of windmills in the Netherlands or the massive investment in wind generated electricity in Denmark. Give me a hill over wind any day. The weather is quite a bit more severe in those countries as well. But surely that’s not a factor?

          1. Come on Bryce – ever ridden in a 10-knot wind behind you? Great when you’re going up Parnell Rise. Not much good without. Talking of wind and hills – what are the cycling stats for Wellington out of interest?

          2. And, I used to live in Te Atatu and cycled along the NW cycleway regularly and endured my share of SW winds.

  46. Max,

    You are an Internet Guru. Can you explain why your comment at 2:47 pm to which I responded is different to the copy I recorded via email?

    Perhaps my ‘avoiding your arguments’ is because you edited them after I responded?

  47. @BenL

    Here are some answers to your questions – a concession to you as you have studiously avoided answering mine. Actually some comment as well.

    Anglophone? And you are 4th Generation Kiwi? Yeah right. I use the term Anglophone and Francophone when I’m in Quebec, not anywhere else. Certainly not in NZ.

    “children will never start cycling to school like they do in Northern Europe until we have separated cycle infrastructure”

    Funny that. I cycled to school most days up Gladstone Rd, Parnell Rd, Broadway, and Remuera Rd. We certainly didn’t have cycleways. Gladstone Rd through to Newmarket was THE major transport route from the Port – way more traffic than today and most of it heavy trucks.

    Hills? Come on! Imagine the participation rate in SF and Portland if it was flat (and didn’t rain so much in Portland)

    Cycling decline? Gawd! I was a physics major, but even I know about economics. Cycling declined in direct proportion to the cost of motoring. Cars have become progressively cheaper to be a fraction of the cost of the 60s and earlier based on any economic measure – weekly wage, GDP, you name it.

    Most people drive cars because they are cheap and fast and dry and often cooler. If you don’t like cars put a tax on them like Singapore. Fiddling with roads to annoy drivers isn’t going to work. The Singaporeans are ace at this. They provide an excellent public transit system, wonderfully affordable taxis, and a minimum purchase cost of a private car of ~ $250K – plus it has to be destroyed or exported after 10 years. Incidentally Singapore has a low cyclist participation rate – at least in the CBD.

    Gradparents cycling? Yeah right. They walked or caught the bus or took a taxi. If you want to have a go at something complain about the drop in public transport. That’s a result of cheaper cars and the ability of people to work further away from home away from public transport routes.

    Cars didn’t stop people from cycling. Cars provided a better and cheaper and more practical alternative. “Better a second-class car than a first-class bicycle”

    Google? Sorry. It’s a heavily biased source on cycling. The term Googlebomb applies, but the par-excellence cycling lobby effort really deserves a different name.

    Now my question again:

    Why do you want to force children to ride on unsafe painted on-road lanes on Carlton Gore / Park Rd rather than put in a dual-use off-road path to be shared by commuter cyclists, recreational cyclists, and the odd pedestrian during the day?

    I’ve answered your questions. Do me the courtesy to answer mine.

    1. JeremyA, you owe Ben and anyone else reading this blog the courtesy of at least reading the referenced material and taking it into consideration.

      Rather than generalising from anecdotes and resorting to petty insults.

      1. So my experience of riding during the heavy traffic period in this area is an anecdote while Max’s rejection of shared paths due to him falling off his bike in Perth is not?

        Unless you can come up with better story I reckon I’m one of the most experienced users of this area at a time when traffic volumes were far higher and cyclist safety measures were non-existent.

        Where are you based? Do you use the Parnell/Newmarket/Grafton area a lot? Where is your value-add?

        1. Look, Jeremy, I can’t compete with your experience of biking in Newmarket. I don’t even like driving in Newmarket and certainly would not have let my kid bike there. I live in a leafy suburb to the East of Newmarket, and even here would not have let my kid ride to school. I have seen two horrible cycle accidents and talked to police, one of whom had ‘hung up his bicycle’. Bike lanes are ok but not enough. You have to ban cars, but I need my car! Otherwise get rid of the few peds in this area and let the bicycles back on the footpaths. I do not have stats on this but I am certain, yes, certain, that the decline in cycling came not from cheaper cars but from the exclusive take-over of footpaths by pedestrians. Pedestrians and bicycles can share. Cars and bicycles cannot.

          1. What on earth do you mean? As I pointed out above (before it disappeared – you’ll have to click on ‘older comments’ to see the cat fight – oops – ‘scintillating debate) – pedestrians are the causualties in this whole sorry affair. My lobby group will seek to have both cars AND bicyles banned for ever – hunks of metal that tyrannise pedestrians at every street corner, run them down without even a ‘by your leave’, rush at them when they’ve just come out form a leak in the bush, and overall make life a misery. Pedestrian power, Grant, is the way of the future. Get used it. Auckland is changing faster than you think.

  48. Am I right? Most of the comments on this forum have disappeared. If this is the case – who did it? That’s not ok – it belongs to the public and I would ask that they be brought back.

    1. The web-page is dodgy. Try clicking on the ‘earlier’ or ‘later links to see if the comments re-emerge.

      In general incompetence beats malevolence but sometimes you have to wonder….

  49. Yes – if you click on ‘older comments’ they all come back. Not much good for anyone new to the site who doesn’t know and wants to follow the comments. These should all be visibly reinstated.

    1. I worked it out, and I had left school years before computers arrived. If I can do it one- handed on my smartypants phone while parallel- parking a V8 after work on a dark but clear, windless and dry Friday night, then anyone can.

  50. But then maybe Jeremy – it’s only you and me. The only two voices of reason left on this increasingly desperate forum of justification. What happened to Grant? At least he was funny.

  51. You know – as we sit here alone on the smoking ruins – I start to ponder. No-one ever did tell me why they chose Carlton Gore Road.

    1. I’ll be honest. Never really knew the road existed before this. Thought it was a weird part if the domain. Thought of selling out to the museum, university, hospital or senior college? They could either grass-over, concrete or bollard the road and let us get on with it on Khyber.

  52. This is getting silly.

    Fact – Our Grandparents cycled more than we do because of economic necessity. Back in the days when you were only a 2nd generation NZ family the Government required New Zealanders to have offshore funds/foreign currency before they could buy a new car. I don’t think anyone wants to turn the clock back on car ownership and even if you did, it is never going to happen. Arguing for your grandparents lifestyle is ridiculous, its an argument for living in a past age where women didn’t have the vote and your Dad went to wars for foreign Kings.
    Moving aside from that stupidness.
    I still have not seen any actual evidence of why a 4 metre wide shared path is not the best solution. Max is apparently an expert and the only real evidence he came up with is he broke his hands on a holiday to Australia. I would be happy to meet up with you guys over the weekend in Carlton Gore Road and we can measure how wide four metres actually is. Liz might even make us a pot of tea while we acknowledge the physics of moving 2 bikes that take up about 700mm with rider past each other as well as a couple of pedestrians.
    However, how about another compromise. Make Carlton Gore Road a 4m wide shared path on one side, then parking, then a single lane road with overtaking bays, then parking, then a small pedestrian only footpath. In this configuration the motorists have compromised as the road (whilst still a 2 way street becomes a much slower single track road. Residents compromise because some parking has been lost to overtaking bays. Pedestrians do not have any change, and cyclists are the group that gain because they have a choice now of cycling the shared path or the quieter road.
    Without any willingness to compromise the cycling lobby will become the most unpopular people in Auckland. The public opinion polls in the aftermath of the January cyclist death should have been a warning to CAA about what the majority of Aucklanders really feel towards the cities red light runners, why are you trying to enforce those negative feelings by failing to be flexible?

    1. Really insightful Antonio. I would be happy to make tea – even provide something stronger if necessary. Maybe Max and BenL – if you both came we could really look at this road, the options and maybe even count cyclists 🙂 I thought I had the last word before – the last unanswered question – but if you come along Max you might seriously tell me why you chose Carlton Gore Road in the first place and why you still think it’s a good idea.

    2. Hang on! Our great grandparents (well, mine… Your great great grandparents) didn’t cycle anywhere! Bicycles were invented after cars, not before. Holdenos are the traditional and natural form of transport for the over 60’s.

      1. ‘Bicycles’ were invented in 1847 or thereabouts. Or at least the name was.

        ‘Automobiles’ came along in the 1890s

        Whether either name relates to the actual invention is moot, however the names are a reasonable indicator of the order of invention.

        On the other hand self propelled road vehicles are quite a bit older, it’s just that they didn’t get any fancy name. And as well, two wheeled straddle vehicles are also older but never get a mention.

        Lycra on the other hand was invented in 1959 – around the time psychotropic drugs became a serious element of modern culture.

        1. Now come on Jeremy – it’s nearly midnight in Auckland. And as is the culture, now that legal highs are banned, everyone is sozzled and quite unable to respond – except for me! Let’s just hope all cyclists and motorists have swerved their merry way home. At least my little car is parked safely outside – or rather across the road and a little bit down. Good night!

        2. OK let’s go with self propelled road vehicles vs powers four-wheeled road vehicles. Like horse-powered carriages. Four wheeled vehicles with horse power that can carry things and shelter you from the weather have been very popular for hundreds of years. Necessary, even. The modern ones tend to be made out of metal rather than wood and the horse power is harnessed in engines, but they are still very popular. Necessary, even.

  53. Great Antonio – BenL was heading in the same direction when he talked about a multi-use street (or whatever it’s called). It’s such a shame that an old-fashioned paradigm has got this far (leaving out my questioning of its relevance in the first place). While you and Jeremy have convincingly pointed out the benefits of shared pathways – let’s look at the innovative possibilites that could have been created for the whole street. Auckland Transport and the cycle lobby groups are victims of their own lack of imagination. Nothing will change on our roads. If they want to change the culture they have to change the street. A considerate acceptance of everybody’s needs. I think your plan would work well for Carlton Gore Road.

  54. Just for reference, my residence has 25,000 vehicles per day past the front door and 30,000 out the back. This is in comparison to Carton Gore Road which is 3,000 vehicles per day peaking at 300 per hour.


    My road treatment is dual-use cycle path which is part used by cycle commuters and in addition they use the single-lane roadway.

    There’s really not a cycle issue in my street! In fact it’s a cyclist preferred route!

    I have to ask why 3,000 vehicles per day in CGR compared to 25,000 in my case warrants the removal of all or most onstreet parking in CGR.

    My road topology is very similar to CGR, ditto legal parking, and the various grades almost identical. There’s something funny going on in the CGR area for sure!

    1. Just to add to that, 3,000 vehicles per day on CGR equates to a hundred or so cyclists at absolute max.

      No-one can possibly argue that CGR has anything like 10% cyclist vs Car ratio. Other studies indicate 1% – to 3% cycles vs cars.

      So by the stats there are 30 to 100 cyclists per day! Are there any recent figures for CGR to the contrary?

      And to forestall the usual arguments. The premise that CGR is preferred over Khyber Pass Road must assume that cyclists rat-run CGR over KPR. Evidently this is not happening.

  55. Good suggestions Jeremy and Antonio. I’d like to see a shared cycle path where everyone can cycle.

  56. No one is denying that cyclists should not be accommodated in the transport mix but recognition needs to be made that cyclists make up a small fraction of the community and while cycling may be growing in popularity, it will always be a tiny minority.
    If the cycle lobby groups wont compromise in order to achieve a better and safer route for cyclists then Auckland will never have the cycling infrastructure cycling deserves and Auckland cyclists need to find a better action group to champion their cause.

    1. Why do you assume it will always be a tiny minority? This statement shows why you’re a fan of shared paths.

      1. While there are plenty of peds milling about outside cinemas and shops, they are mainly looking for their cars. 79% of medium and longer distance traffic on footpaths were and should be bicycles. Is it really illegal now? If so, the city council needs to bring back cycling on footpaths.

      2. Bicycles are and always have been an alternative and second-class form of transport.

        In some utopian future they may become more prevalent but the very basic practicalites say not.

        – You get rained on
        – It’s bleeding hot (not so much in Auckland but it’s humid to make up for it)
        – You sweat
        – The wind blows – always against you.
        – It’s hilly
        – It takes a fricken long time to get anywhere

        Now if you eliminate the lycra brigade and focus on the shopping basket brigade then many of these problems vanish – the user experience starts to match the pedestrian experience but at a slightly faster rate even with hills and showers.

        1. You might want to tell the Dutch. Even the Queen cycles. I don’t think you’d call her second class.

          1. She will never be as popular as Queen Elizabeth (my own name actually) and Elizabeth doesn’t ride a bike. She prefers horse-drawn carriages and limosines.

    1. Rather than comparing mode share for entire country, you need ro use a city vs city comparison. Check out Copenhagen’s mode share. (I’ll post a link tomorrow when I’m not on my phone).

    2. Denmark?? Have you seen how small it is?? You may as well bring up how much cycling you do in your bak yard, Liz. Look up cities with the same area as Auckland. Not that you’ll find many.

      1. You know Grant – I’m starting to gather evidence that you are not Grant at all. You are in fact a hairy little troll who emerges each night from the dark and dank Domain to upset this VERY serious forum. I demand this troll be exposed and evicted not only from this forum but also the Domain! Go back to Scandinavia where you can really upset cyclists!

  57. You know Jeremy has a really valid point. If the road is to be used by anyone – shouldn’t it be the kids? There are four schools in the immediate vicinity – three secondary and one intermediate. By all visible accounts this road is used by a small bunch of cyclists who are predominantly adult, male (except for the few same ladies I see every day), white and meritocratic (is that a word? Let’s just say ‘elitist’). Don’t try and say buffered cycle lanes are safe for kids because they aren’t! Bascically guys – this is not all about you!

  58. Haven’t had time yet Bryce but this is a token start (good call to move the whole cycle way project to the Domain edge):

    Bicycle paths or shared-use trails offer opportunities for recreational cycling and commuting that differ qualitatively from on-street riding. Paths may be designed to flow through natural or scenic areas, connect town to town or even region to region, or allow bicyclists to travel through urban areas away from motorized traffic. Bicycle and shared-use paths also may tend to attract bicyclists with a wide range of skill levels, including young children. A path, even if designed primarily as a bike facility, also likely will attract a mix of other users including pedestrians, in-line skaters and others, depending on location and access. Special care must therefore be taken in the planning and design of such trails to provide a satisfactory experience for bicyclists, and safe sharing of the facility with a variety of users of differing speeds and abilities…

    (Take note of the following!)

    Good initial design is also crucial for minimizing future maintenance costs and problems. The process should engage the community so that the facility that is ultimately designed fits with local needs and with the local cultural, natural, and built environments.


    1. The US DOT is not the go to place when researching cycle infrastructure. The NACTO guide is the gold standard in the US yet still falls short of Dutch standards. http://nacto.org/

  59. Hi Bryce – I like that link – especially the bit about on-street parking. Also the inference that widening the pavement works really well:

    If at sidewalk level, a curb or median separates them from motor traffic, while different pavement color/texture separates the cycle track from the sidewalk. If at street level, they can be separated from motor traffic by raised medians, on-street parking, or bollards.

Comments are closed.