“I’m coming around to the idea of just closing the bottom of the Bullock Track and making life safer for everyone, tbh.”
I know that was seriously considered, and of course, not actioned :-( Not even for a single direction closure. I suspect concern at capacity implications and blow-back from drivers was too strong, and that was before the whole Occupy thing.
"There is a generation of roading engineers brought up on the idea of excluding people (for their own safety of course). That generation are now the management in AT and that thinking desperately needs to be replaced."
And unless we want to wait for them to slowly fade out into retirement, we need senior execs who give these people a polite but firm "Change - or leave." message. That was really what I meant with "revolutionary". We may see some of this happening with the new AT CEO, but for example I am not sure how active Phil Goff is on this aspect (even though he has written a rather strong statement of his expectations to AT at the start, he does not seem all that actively involved in transport, at least not on walking and cycling).
They are ceramic tiles. The slipperieness problem is known (crops up as complaints in various places again and again), but apparently there are troubles meeting the code requirements for mobility-impaired (blind / low-vision) people with any other product that has lessof the same issues - and that is available/approved in NZ :-(
As for the design overall – Bike AKL clearly stated about Stage 1 (which “added” the shared paths east of the interchange) that we don’t consider them cycleways (we still grudgingly supported the signalisation of Bullock Track / GNR because of the various safety issues).
We also, in the past, opposed high-level plans which called for shared paths west of Grey Lynn on GNR to Pt Chev. And I don’t think they wil ever happen as part of a dedicated larger-scale bike project for the route. However, AT’s focus was (and should still be, clock’s ticking to finally get them done) on getting separated proper cycleways on K Road and Great North Road east of Grey Lynn town centre done first.
Hopefully after that, the idea of shared paths past this section of GNR past MOTAT and Western Springs being the right way will die.
In the interim, we are very keen to see raised tables – with bike and pedestrian priority! – added to the slip lane. That is a real strong safety and convenience improvement, including for people who still ride on road. I know people hate incrementalism, but until we get some revolutionaries in power, its where it’s at…
Hiya – we (Bike AKL) also noticed the matter of the "directly affected residents / owners", and called it to AT’s attention.
As far as anyone can see, it was simply a copy-paste error when the web page was done, as AT engaged over several weeks before launching it publicly, and there was always clear intention for it to go out to the wider public. And it’s changed now.
Some lessons for Auckland Council here with the Unitary Plan and the push to rapidly increase construction of dwellings in Auckland.
Why does this have anything to do with Unitary Plan? The only tenous connection you could make is that the Unitary Plan wants to see more people living more closely together.
That isn’t unsafe.
It’s cutting safety standards which is. The UP does nothing of the thing.
And yes, pretty much the entirety of the path is "up high" with no dipping down to the creek. Partly for cycle comfort, partly for safety reasons (safer at night). That's also why bridges need to span so long.
The whole path – including the bridges – was ordered by the approval authority as community mitigation, not transport mitigation (as NZTA’S lawyers argued that there was no legal case for a motorway being required to provide a cycleway along a tunnel route).
So the function of the bridge at Alford St is primarily to connect Waterview communities with local areas like the Phyllis Reserve sports field and Mt Albert- wider area cycle connectivity is a great secondary benefit, but not the first thought in its placement.
Auckland Transport or NZTA or whoever it is, is well used to subjecting cyclists to stairs. This is the southern access to the cycle lane, about 300m from the Spaghetti Western. It’s been there throughout the works.
That’s a temporary access to the construction yard only – built by the construction folks, will be going once they leave as no crossing / signals / driveway on western side there anymore.
You could have said that for their own staff they could have added a ramp, but I don’t see it as a massive thing, its only a temporary solution for their own access.
[Though I guess on some extra relfection I can see now how cyclists riding on-road on GNR but then not wanting to ride through the interchange would use it to go to the east side, and the stairs then wouldn’t be that convenient, true]
I guess it depends on what side of that bridge you live whether it would have been a good thing :-)
Huh? Why would a nice ped / cycle bridge be a problem? We wanted it kept there for better links to Avondale, but judges felt that since it was partly mitigation for Waterview suburb, it should be further north. Fair enough, especially considering that there is a low-level bridge at that location already - and now the cycleway along rail line will give a southern skirting route that allows you to miss the most horrible part of GNR....