Hard News: Two roads lead to the city
35 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Brent Jackson, in reply to
One pedestrian crossing (for which cars must stop) and two lights-controlled crossings, down from three pedestrian crossings and two lights-controlled. There’s quite a loss of pedestrian rights in it.
I'm not sure about that. Currently there are 3 single lane pedestrian crossings to get pedestrians from footpaths to traffic islands, and then 3 lights-controlled crossings between the islands, each one going at the same time as the traffic that doesn't cross it.
The new set up replaces the eastern one-lane pedestrian crossing with a lights-controlled crossing, apparently because it is going to be 2 lanes wide - no getting away from that. The lights-controlled crossing across St Lukes Rd, and the pedestrian crossing from the island to the western side are unchanged. So the big change is that the Motat-side island disappears so the lights controlled crossing across Great North Road goes only to the western island so that it can run when the lights allow the cars out of St Lukes Rd to turn east (towards the city), in the same way it does now. The big losers are cars proceeding along Great North Road, which have a permanent green at the moment, who will be stopped for 2/3rds of the new cycle. I don't think pedestrian crossing is unduly affected by this change. It is only when it is combined with the 2-lane light-crontrolled crossing that pedestrians are slowed getting from Motat to the east side of St Lukes Rd.
I think the new set-up will be safer for pedestrians as well, since I have seen several near misses on the pedestrian crossing on the Motat side, as pedestrians fail to check for traffic and walk straight on to the crossing. Of course the drivers are required to give way, but some motorists are not treating this small pedestrian crossing as they legally should.
-
I cycle through this intersection frequently. It's a 'mare, and whenever I am travelling away from town I always mount the kerb and cycle under the threatened trees before crossing the bridge (still on the kerb), joining the road again at lights the end of the St Lukes Rd offramp.
Going the other way is easier, but the merging after making the right-hand turn at the lights can be tricky - there is a lot happening and lots of cars changing lanes. A cycle lane along here would ease things.
I've long thought that the issue with the bridge is not it's mild gradient, it is that it needs two extra lanes. I think this is an example of the designers seeing a use-it-or-lose-it opportunity to reduce the gradient and get the bridge closer to best practice (i.e. flat). If they could do it without affecting the trees, I'd be fine with it. Given that in all my time living not far from the bridge (16 years), I have yet to see an issue to do with the gradient of the bridge, I think the cost (losing or damaging the trees) is simply not worth it.
I agree with Brent around the pedestrian crossings. Things are not ideal at present, and I'd certainly feel safer with light-controlled crossings. And being able to cross the bridge on both sides is a good development too, and will reduce pedestrian congestion, especially when there is major event on at the stadium or the park.
-
You still get Mamata bagels? Surely not...
-
PS - I notice in the new plan they've changed the city-bound Great North Rd lane from a through-lane (no lights), to one that has to go through the lights. Also, looking at the lane plan over the bridge, I see one lane turning West (right) onto the motorway, one straight ahead into St Luke's Rd and one shared, which will, naturally, end up getting blocked by right turning traffic. It makes you wonder if anyone studies the traffic flow. The two holdups I can see are in the straight through to St Luke's Rd, so why not make it both lanes, and turning left into Gt North Rd from St Luke's Rd/the bridge, where right-turning Western Springs and Grey Lynn traffic holds up those us wanting to head to the Chev, which then holds up traffic further behind who can't fit on the bridge.. Seems stupid to me.
-
And Banks is guilty. Yippee!
-
Rough chip surface? A solitary pothole? Luxury...
Come cycling in Christchurch for some real adventures!
-
Brent Jackson, in reply to
The two holdups I can see are in the straight through to St Luke’s Rd, so why not make it both lanes, ...
I think the reason why the middle lane is straight and turning is so that traffic that has come from the West along Great North Road does not have to get over 2 lanes to be able to go straight ahead along St Lukes Rd. But you are right, in that they are likely to be held up by right-turning traffic trying to get onto the motorway, but that depends on the phasing of the lights.
... and turning left into Gt North Rd from St Luke’s Rd/the bridge, where right-turning Western Springs and Grey Lynn traffic holds up those us wanting to head to the Chev, which then holds up traffic further behind who can’t fit on the bridge.. Seems stupid to me.
They are adding an extra lane over the bridge, so there will be a devoted left-hand turn lane, so I'm not sure where you are seeing the stupidity.
-
This is an
interesting visualisation.I wonder what it would look like for Auckland. Moar roads, I suspect.
(Though if you take "Auckland" as the fully sprawling council area, that would include a lot of green space).
-
Mark Graham, in reply to
My mistake
-
Auckland Transport, there are many things I’d like you to do with Meola Road, including good shared paths (there’s heaps of room). But mostly, I’d like that bad stretch upgraded to something commensurate with the use to which Aucklanders put it.
And lo, it was done.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.