|
|
By Patrick Reynolds, on January 30th, 2012 A plainly daft piece on the proposed Auckland Plan by Bill Ralston recently appeared in the NZ Listener. In it he claims, completely without any reason, that the plan sets out to demolish where he lives, as well as every other desirable part of Auckland in the name of instensification. This is simply untrue. It is true that the Plan hopes to encourage Auckland to continue to become a more intensive city, but not by demolishing the very best bits, or even very much of it at all. In fact it is decidedly half-hearted about containing the spread outwards, even proposing 140,000 new detached houses be built in the next 30 years under one scenario. All on what is currently productive and attractive distant countryside, and all to be served by endlessly and expensively rolling out new services: From the current 385,000 detached houses to 526,000! Did you actually read the thing, Bill?
In any case, intensification is clearly a matter of degree and the areas proposed for the kind of high density high rise growth that so alarms dear old Bill [but of course not everyone], is all carefully allotted to currently empty or underused commercial ‘brownfields’ sites on transport corridors in areas like the CBD, Glen Innes, and New Lynn. Not Bill’s neck of the woods. Other areas are intended to be encouraged to move from low to medium density. Bill’s place isn’t on this list either.
Ironically, in light of this reaction, the type of intensification that would go a long way to both accommodating Auckland’s growth and greatly improving our quality of life is about trying to help more of Auckland more closely resemble Bill’s very own suburb. His suburb is, in fact, a role model for how much of Auckland ideally could be. But that isn’t by repeating the thing that Bill thinks his ‘burb is all about, the appearance of the buildings, but rather about how they are organised. Not architectural design, but urban design. Really, how?
Freemans Bay is, along with St Mary’s Bay, Herne Bay, Parnell, Devonport, Northcote, Ponsonby, Grey Lynn, and Mt Eden, a highly sought after and therefore expensive bit of old Auckland. So it is worth asking what is so good about it?
Well most of the buildings are old. That’s it isn’t it? Most people love old houses, with their mature trees, and in Auckland that means Victorian and Edwardian houses, usually detached wooden dwellings. Unlike Sydney, Auckland isn’t old enough to have Georgian buildings and also unlike Sydney or Dunedin there wasn’t the resource of stone or even much brick to compete with the pillage of the native forests that our forebears felt so entitled to use so completely. Furthermore, in a reversal of the trend of the second half of the last century we have recently been rediscovering the advantages of these close-in old suburbs. So instead of looking on these areas as slums and bulldozing them wholesale in order to build motorways as we did from the 1960s we have recently been turning houses like this one: More and more into houses like this one:
But that isn’t the whole story is it? Properly understood three factors make Freemans Bay such a great place to live, and only one of them is the irreplaceable age of the structures. And this is important because while we can’t time-travel and build real Victorian houses again we can take the best urban design features from these areas to improve what we build next, and even fix other parts of the existing city with these ideas too. The three essential features, in no particular order, that make Freemans Bay so desirable are:
1. Physical Heritage
2. Proximity to the centre
3. Population density
All the things that you may like about Freemans Bay flow from these; for example, great cafés and shops? They are a function of the quantity of people around and the desirability of the place, which in turn is because of the density of the housing and the proximity to the centre of town. Retail businesses need enough customers, and specialised ones need an even higher number going by because their appeal is, by definition, narrow.
But hang on, waddaymean population density?, this is just a suburb with detached houses and some shops isn’t it?, same as Dannemora or Botany? Well it isn’t high density but it is medium density and is considerably higher than most more recent suburbs. And here’s how: As this post by Admin shows, when looked at in detail you can see that the narrow streets and painted shiplap conceal a clever spatial order that maximises private space yet retains public charm. It is in fact this spatial order, and its resultant density of population that sustains the local businesses and other amenities all at close proximity.
Of course old buildings add texture and charm, but it is important urban design features and not architectural ones that make the real structural differences. Let’s look at Bill’s favourite café, mentioned in his article: Agnes Curran. Yes it is in a building pleasingly made of plastered brick and the door to the rooms above are surrounded by Georgian style decoration, lovely. But let’s look at everything else that makes this a really successful streetscape and business. The café occupies a tiny space about the size of two car parks, it is right up to the generous footpath, a footpath separated from the traffic by mature Plane trees [with a new one recently added on the right], the trees also accommodate a limited number of on-street car parks. A small apartment building to the left of the shot is smack up the boundary with the cafe and the footpath, and there are other levels of accommodation above retail spaces on the main road. Thus there is an extremely tight integration of the residential and commercial functions of this neighbourhood; so everyone walks, no need to drive when your destination is already right there. Here it is from above: The cafe is in the alley between the grey and reddish rooves at bottom left. Occupying the space that would have to be given over to off-street parking were this a new building- by current council regulation. Note that the houses are closer than is currently allowed in new subdivisions, and that their garden space is all together in one piece at the rear of each house. Small, but all usable, and private. And Ponsonby Rd is, by Auckland standards, relatively well served by public transport, especially in the form of the frequent new Inner Link bus service, connecting this place to the CBD, the universities, the hospital, everything really. It is easy to see that this is quite an intensely built place, but also pleasantly leafy, and is in fact at the intersection of two pretty busy roads; Ponsonby and Franklin. How can it be of such density but still be so pleasant, it must be the design of the buildings? Well that is of course important, but how much they appeal to you is really a matter of personal taste, no, it has much more to do with what is not visible in this picture. To show what that is lets have a look at a cafe in a more recent part of town: Dunkin Donuts at Botany Downs courtesy of Google [sorry but I'm not going there]. And from above: Well in fact there’s a whole lot of food outlets on in this image, a KFC, a seafood place, as well as Dunkin Donuts. And yup they are all pretty nasty new buildings, built to a price and without any conviction that they mean to stay. But also note there are no houses or apartments of any kind here and no one walking. But there is the one amenity that is almost entirely absent from the earlier scene. This is a place rich in carparking. Viewed from above or from street level it is clear that this is a place entirely made for the movement and storage of cars. Yes you can argue that that what most distinguishes the natures of these two places is the age and design of the structures, but it is also clear that the spatial organisation is at least as important a difference. Put simply the first is designed for people and the second for cars. The first has a higher density of humans and the second of machines. The first, of course, commands much higher values and is where Bill wants to live. And the first, while more expensive to buy into, is actually cheaper to live in, because the intensity of the place means the costs of movement are much lower. It is a place that you can easily function without a car at all for example [As local resident, Bill, says in this article].
But of course the people living Freemans Bay do still use cars, but unlike those that live in the these new areas, they don’t have to use them just to get to their local café or other common local amenity, like schools, workplaces, or bars. They walk more and they use public transport more. Why? not because they are cleverer than the people in Dannemora but because their area was designed for those choices to be the most obvious, most productive, and most enjoyable things to do. And we can spread more of this simple genius to other parts of our city, even Botany, if can just reverse the insane auto-centric planning priorities of the last fifty years. This means putting people at the centre of the spatial organisation of places. It means repealing the rules that insist that the car must be catered for first. And it means for many of our primarily residential areas mixing the living and working and playing in the kind of intense proximity that Bill enjoys in Freemans Bay.
And it also means that we must provide systems of movement that do not devalue the very places they are meant to serve. Which of course means fast, frequent, smart, public transit. Something lacking in the newer suburb.
Furthermore, if we can get those planning settings right and are able to encourage the kind of spatial organisation that Bill enjoys so unconsciously in Freemans Bay, it is highly likely that we will see the design of the individual buildings in these places improve significantly, because increased intensity of humans also means increased intensity of economic activity. And, of course, because it involves unlocking the land and the resources currently tied up so unproductively in providing so much amenity for vehicles.
We can have Freemans Bay’s qualities of urban design in other places with contemporary design and technologies, after all Freemans Bay isn’t all old buildings and is all the better for it. It isn’t a museum. Here are two quite different and award winning recent detached houses there, The first by Marsh Cook: And the second by Malcolm Walker: Freemans Bay also has contemporary buildings by Mitchell + Stout, Stevens Lawson, Fearon Hay, Andrew Patterson, and more. Along with council pensioner flats, town houses, and apartment buildings.
And remember, while The Plan doesn’t envisage the core of Freemans Bay changing much at all, it does for some other underperforming areas of Auckland. And as the picture below of Freemans Bay in 1877 shows change is always possible, and can be a very good thing indeed……… Anyway, why shouldn’t more Aucklanders get the chance to enjoy their neighbourhood as much as our friend Bill Ralston enjoys his?
By Matt L, on January 29th, 2012 A pleasing trial is starting on Waiheke Island which involves adding bike racks to buses to make it easier for cyclists to get around. The Waiheke Bus Company which is owned by Fullers has installed the racks on three buses and each rack can hold up to 3 bikes at one time. Here’s the press release”
The Waiheke Bus Company has become the first public service bus operator in Auckland to offer bike racks on its buses as a trial and as part of its initiative to help promote cycling as a mode of transport.
Waiheke ferry customers can already take their bikes for free on the ferries and now this is extended to the service buses as well.
Bike racks have been installed on three separate buses, each capable of carrying 3 bikes each. The racks have been imported from the USA where they have been successfully deployed on public services buses.
The aim is to improve the options for cyclists and many commuters who choose to ride to and from the ferry terminal or who want to explore the island’s many cycle tracks, whilst giving them the flexibility of being able to hop on a bus with their bike in order to venture further, get home after dark when cycling can be hazardous, or in the case of cycling visitors, link up with the 360 Discovery ferry service that calls in at Orapiu Wharf and connects to The Coromandel on a regular basis. The Coromandel shuttle bus service from Hannaford’s Wharf to Coromandel Town now also provides bike rack options meaning cyclists can take their bikes even further.
At the launch at Matiatia today, attended by representatives of Auckland Transport, NZTA, Cycle Action and the Local Board, Fullers CEO Douglas Hudson said “Fullers has been committed to carrying passengers and their bikes on their ferry services for a long time and were awarded for being a cycle friendly business by NZTA at the CAN (Cycling Advocates’ Network)Awards in 2009.
We are very pleased to be able to extend this to the buses on Waiheke Island for the benefit of commuters and tourists who visit the island. This may only be a small step but it has taken a lot of effort to find and import the right racks that are sturdy enough to work effectively on the Waiheke roads. We hope that people will see this as an opportunity to explore more of the island and also connect with the 360 Discovery service that carries passengers from Orapiu at the Eastern end of the island to Coromandel, where the shuttle service from Hannaford’s Wharf to Coromandel town now also has bike racks on board.”
The trial, which will run until the end of Easter, will allow the Fullers owned Waiheke Bus Company to gather data and opinion from users before deciding how to adapt the service and how to develop it further.
Last summer the company worked with Cycle Action Waiheke and Auckland to produce a map of Waiheke cycle touring routes. Publicity about the map has encouraged increasing numbers of cyclists to tour the island, enjoying its cafes, vineyards, beaches and accommodation.
The bike racks are expected to be welcomed by local commuter cyclists and visitors alike. Touring cyclists may be encouraged to ride to the vineyards on the Onetangi Straight or even further afield, rather than stopping at Palm Beach, if they know the bus will help return them and their bike to the ferry or accommodation in Oneroa.
Cycle Action Waiheke supports the trial as an important local transport and tourism initiative for Waiheke. Chair Tony King Turner said “We thank Fullers for taking this step and see it as just the beginning of what could be very exciting developments for cycling on Waiheke. It will also be very important as we work towards our goal of getting Waiheke included in the National Cycle Way program.”
Barbara Cuthbert of Cycle Action Auckland is also impressed with the trial. “..having seen the positive impact that cycling initiatives can have on communities and how it can boost tourism, I am confident that when we look back at this moment in 10 years’ time, we will understand how important this launch and trial is.”
Auckland Transport also strongly supports this initiative and sees it as a good example of the private sector delivering outcomes that encourage integration between cycling and public transport. Such projects link very strongly to the work of Auckland Transport across the region in improving safety for cyclists and encouraging more sustainable travel
The bike racks will be used mostly on the Onetangi bus routes and feedback forms will be available at the Fullers ticket office at Matiatia as well as on the Fullers website.
This is obviously quite good for tourists who want to get around the island but don’t want to pedal the whole way but the thing I like about this is that it can really help to extend the reach of the bus system for residents. Instead of a bus only having a catchment of people who can walk to the bus stop it enables a far wider catchment of potential users which should help to make the buses more attractive. Hopefully after the trial is finished we will be see these racks installed by other bus companies in other parts of the region as I think it has the potential to help both boost bus patronage and the number of people cycling around the city and can be done without needing new vehicles or infrastructure to support it.
By Patrick Reynolds, on January 26th, 2012 As there’s been a lot of discussion about population density here I figure this post from good ol’ Cap’nTransit is on the money. Yes this is my view too, you think more density is needed? Well build the transit and the density will follow [all else being equal], foolish to try to wait for some ideal density then meet that demand with infrastructure. Transit supply is causative. Or as the Cap’n says: ‘The population density to support my ass’
Here are two interesting posts on Twitter and Transit. One beautiful the other more for the quants. Both instructive.
The second is via Atlantic Cities where there is also this argument for High Speed Rail in the Union’s most populous State, California. Newt of the GOP has been banging on about the US heading back to the moon in some kind of pissing contest with China, but frankly if they can’t even get a train to run from SF to LA and any decent speed I think he’ed better dodge that race. *Note for Geoff: These arguments here for HSR are intended as a metaphor for local arguments for urban transit, not as a literal argument for HSR in NZ. Same things apply, land use transformations, economic return not a financial one etc, but at a vastly different scale.
More from the States on gas prices [as they call them] and what to do, and for once this doesn’t involve bombing somewhere else or other wise frackin’ it all up.
Closer to home; no round up from me will be complete without at least a passing note on resource supply issues. As we head to the exciting singularity of peak damn near everything it’s good to see some people have their heads up. Here’s an introductory note from across the ditch, what I especially like about this is that it states a view that I also have, namely that it could just be that a world with less freely available oil may well be a lot better in a number of ways; once we’ve made the adjustment. Like London after the peasoup smog and mountains of horse-shit. I’m also guessing less isolation, more localiasation, more human interaction, less alienation. Perhaps more meaningful lives. Perhaps.
There’s also this guy, Denis Tegg, I know nothing about him but he has been manfully plugging away on this issue in NZ for a while and here he is bringing an important shelved report to the surface. I say manfully because there is a really creepy silence on this issue and Climate Change in the mainstream media and in government in NZ. It’s like if we don’t mention these problems they’ll just go away.
Look away Actoids! Here’s a well reasoned piece on the attractions and limitations of neoliberalism. It’s short too. Relevant how? Transit like our cities need long term planning, by elected bodies. The market is a great tool, but a lousy master, and an even worse god. As I think we’ve just seen.
Those interested in the strange ways that change can happen will like this. Why the US Marine Corp may well lead the US into a solar future.
Back to transit, and more personally; I have new wheels, yay! and loving it, but won’t be going to these extremes to protect them. No.
By Matt L, on January 22nd, 2012 This news seemed to slip through in December unnoticed. Auckland Transport and the NZTA are planning on building a bridge over SH16 near Westgate to help improve accessibility and safety. As it is at the moment there are very limited options for people in the area to get to the Westgate shopping area other than driving due to the motorway cutting between the two areas (and Hobsonville Rd over the motorway isn’t the most friendly place to be walking). The safety aspect is to stop kids running across the motorway due to their not being any real other options and from memory one was killed doing just that some years ago. Here’s what AT have to say:
To improve access and safety, the New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Transport are building a fully-accessible walking and cycling bridge across SH16 near the Westgate shopping centre.
The bridge will connect Oreil Avenue at Manutewhau Walk reserve to Westgate Drive near the Westgate Shopping Centre. Work is expected to begin early in January 2012 and will take approximately one year to complete.
The Northwestern Motorway currently divides east and west Massey, meaning those on the eastern side have limited access to the new town centre, shopping, schools and community resources. The bridge will remedy this and provide a safer, more accessible connection across the motorway for pedestrians and cyclists.
As part of the project, the Manutewhau Walk reserve will also be revitalised. Whilst some of the trees in the area are in poor condition and will need to be removed, significant new planting will take place. A decision on the location of the bridge took into account the vicinity to housing, technical factors such as gradient and the existing creek.
In order to gain the required length, it was necessary to design a curved or ‘wave’ bridge which will connect onto the embankment leading to Oriel Avenue. A steel framework will support the bridge and allow for unobstructed views in the reserve.
Community consultation was undertaken in 2007 on a range of options by the former Waitakere City Council. In 2009 the New Zealand Transport Authority together with the former Waitakere City Council jointly commissioned preliminary designs. Three options were investigated and assessed but wave bridge option was identified as the preferred option.
And here an idea of what it should eventually look like.
 Where it joins Oreil Ave No word on how much this is costing but hopefully we see a few more of these types of projects helping to fix communities that are severed by motorways.
By Matt L, on January 12th, 2012 I love the shared spaces and have absolutely no problems walking down the middle of them even when cars are around but I can understand why others don’t feel that way and get nervous about the interaction between cars and pedestrians. This is especially the case when there are too many cars using the space, even if those numbers have reduced significantly from before the upgrades and admins post the other day about needing to ensure we get the right balance made me decide to post my thoughts on how we could solve the problem.
I do think that that the long term solution is to pedestrianise Queen St with perhaps the exception of using it for some form of PT however it is going to be a number of years before we can get to that stage so my solution focuses on what we can do today to further reduce traffic which will help to make pedestrians feel safer in these areas.
My main concern with traffic is the ability of the streets to be used as rat runs due to how they were traditionally used and both the Elliott /Darby St and Fort St suffer from this as the diagrams below show. The solution is to simply change the direction through which traffic travels, this would would negate these streets as rat runs while still preserving vehicle access for vehicles that really need to use them i.e. delivery vehicles.
In the case of Elliott/Darby St traffic wanting to get from Wellesley St to Victoria St or even just wanting to bypass the Queen St and Victoria St intersection, which has a lot of pedestrian phases, can use these streets to do so. Elliot St is also the only way to access the car park in the currently empty site at the northern end and vehicles have to travel use it and possibly Darby St to access that car park (of course ideally that site would be developed but who knows when that will happen).
 Elliott St Before  Elliott St After Simply changing the direction of these streets and only allowing left turns on and off of them would remove that rat run and mean that anyone using them will result in a vehicle going around in a circle which means that only cars that had to use it would do so. In this case it would also mean that cars accessing the car park wouldn’t need to travel the length of the road but only one end of it.
The second example is Fort St which is probably even more of a rat run based on the number of vehicles I see using it. For anyone coming from Beech Rd and wanting to get to Queen St it is probably far easier to use Fort St than get through the three intersections along Customs St East. I think what makes it even worse is the straight section between Gore St and Commerce St allows people to accelerate and they don’t slow down as much which means they travel faster through the shared space section.
 Fort St Before  Fort St After Again changing the direction of the traffic would remove that rat run, also as cars would need to turn off Queen St to access the shared space they would be more likely to travel slower through the area. It is also worth noting that the section between Gore St and Beech Rd is also eventually meant to be a shared space, I am undecided about the best direction for this but have opted to leave it the same to avoid creating more confusion/phasing at the intersection. Commerce St, Gore St and the middle part of Fort St will remain a normal road but the footpaths are being upgraded and widened as well.
The thing I think is best about these changes are they are simple ones that could be done fairly quickly and easily as they only require a few changes to signs and a bit of education but they have the ability to remove a lot of traffic from these areas in which pedestrians have been given far more priority.
By admin, on January 10th, 2012 As regular readers will know, I’m a huge fan of the shared spaces we’ve seen rolled out around Auckland’s city centre (and in New Lynn) over the past year or so. It’s fantastic to see pedestrian freely milling around streets that were once the sole property of vehicles, but also to see a regular “eyes on the street” value that traffic can provide, if you compare shared streets to pedestrian malls. In terms of practical implementation, shared streets also seem to be simpler (if more expensive) to make happen, as property access, deliveries and so forth can still be retained. Elliott Street has been a particular success in my opinion (although this photo is taken on a day when the street was closed to cars, generally Elliott Street seems to work the best of the lot):  A key part of the shared space philosophy is to reduce the amount of signage and general “road clutter” that normal streets have in spades. Obviously, the distinction between the footpath and the street is also removed, so that all users of the street are put much more on a “level pegging”, having to think and negotiate their way through the space.
An interesting blog post from the UK “As Easy as Riding a Bike” blog, analyses shared streets in Britain (which are really taking off in popularity), looking at the question of what makes some shared streets work really well, but others work not quite so well. The blog post makes the argument (and I haven’t followed the issue close enough to really know whether it’s a completely fair accusation) that shared space proponents say the biggest problem with our existing road environments (in terms of their friendliness to pedestrians and cyclists) is all the signage and separation between different users:
What is causing the real ‘impact’ on the urban environment is, apparently, the engineering measures – not the dozens of motor vehicles clogging up the space.
The problem I have here is that a symptom – the clutter, the rules and the control – is being treated as if it is the problem itself, the root cause of the decay of our urban environment.
Now while I accept that excess clutter and demarcation can be an issue, per se, Hamilton- Baillie is missing the point. There is a correlation between street clutter, rules and control, and the decline of the quality of our urban environment – this much is true. But fundamentally, it is the emergence of the motor car, and its gradual dominance of our street environment, that is responsible both for the declining quality, and the increase in rules and regulations. It has also eroded the natural sharing of spaces that we see in historical pictures, or today in places where the motor car does not exist, or is only present in low volume.
So we have to be very careful not to assume that simply stripping away the clutter, rules and signage of our present-day streets – returning them, essentially, to a nineteenth-century street – will result in a civilized environment, because that clutter did not arise spontaneously. It emerged, as I have said, in response to the motor vehicle, and it is quite clear, to me at least, that if you don’t take action to tame the motor vehicle – not to get rid of it, but to tame it – then you won’t see a civilized street, the kind in which vulnerable users are genuinely happy to mingle, which is surely a prerequisite of a street being shared.
I think this is a fair and well made point. It is the volume and speed of vehicles which determines the pedestrian friendliness of a street as much as the physical design of the place. We are seeing this with the different shared streets around Auckland’s city centre: Elliott Street has very low traffic volumes and high pedestrian counts so therefore pedestrians dominate and the place feels like a “proper” shared space. Fort Street has much higher traffic volumes and pedestrians tend to stick to the sides of the street, meaning you don’t really see the interaction and pedestrian domination of Elliott Street. Fort Street is still a million times nicer than it was before its upgrade, but it hasn’t quite succeeded (yet) to the same degree as Elliott Street has.
East Street in Horsham is shown as a successful example of a shared street – because of its low traffic volumes:
 Crucial to the success of this shared street are the restrictions placed on motor vehicles entering it. Only vehicles delivering disabled passengers/drivers to a couple of dedicated parking spaces, and loading vehicles, are allowed down East Street – severely limiting the number of vehicles it has to cope with.
New Road in Brighton similarly discourages traffic – not through outright bans, but through clever design making it an impractical and “silly” through-route for any prospective vehicles: One issue I’ve had with the Darby Street shared space is that it’s actually a really attractive ‘rat-run’ for vehicles travelling from Queen Street to Victoria Street as they can zip down Darby Street and avoid the traffic lights. So you see quite a lot more vehicles using Darby Street as a through route than you would if, say, it was one-way in the other direction and therefore not any use as a rat-run (I can’t really see vehicles from Wellesley to Queen bothering to use Elliott and Darby instead of just Queen Street as the rat-run is much longer).
The blog post goes on to talk about how the ‘balance of power’ between pedestrians and cars in their ‘unregulated interaction’ on a shared street is very important:
Moving on from how rules – or their absence – affect the way in which streets are shared spatially, we can consider how streets are shared in a kinetic sense; how its users, of whatever mode, interact with each other.
Shared space advocates are, again, fans of a lack of regulation. The analogy Ben Hamilton-Baillie often gives is of an ice rink, or a camp site…
…These are environments with no formal rules or regulations, yet with people (and in the latter case, vehicles) moving around and interacting with each other quite happily, and in reasonable safety. Surely we could apply the logic of the campsite, or the ice rink, to our streets? Why can’t we interact freely with each other on our streets the way we do in these other unregulated environments, by getting rid of the rules and regulations that differentiate a street from a campsite?
There is a superficially attractive logic in operation here, but it rapidly falls apart when we start to consider the details. A campsite is, typically, a field with lots of pedestrians in, with perhaps one or two cars actually driving around at any one time. Shared space advocates argue that despite the absence of a regulatory framework, these environments are quite safe. This is obviously true. But they go one step further, and argue that it is the absence of the regulatory framework itself that makes the environment safe. Add more rules about how to drive, they say – treat drivers like idiots – and they will behave like idiots. Putting up lines about where to drive in the campsite might a good example – drivers would probably drive faster, and perhaps with less caution, within those lines, for instance.
So far as it goes, this is plausible. But let’s imagine a parallel example – exactly the same field, but this time, instead of it being full of people on foot, milling about unpredictably, this field is now full of cars being driven about, in just as unpredictable a way. And instead of just the one or two cars you might find being driven in a typical campsite, we now just have one or two pedestrians, inching their way through this field full of unpredictable cars.
Is this field just as safe for pedestrians as a ‘typical’ campsite? If safety was only about the absence of regulation, then it must be – but I don’t think that is true. You wouldn’t feel as comfortable letting your child run around in a field full of cars driving around unpredictably as you would be for them to do so in a field that was like a genuine campsite; likewise an ordinary ice rink is very different from, say, an ice hockey game. There are seven foot Kazahks wearing body armour, whizzing about. Even if they’re being careful, that, again, is a very different environment to introduce your child into.
My point is that power relations are an important component of safety; even if we assume that all those drivers moving their vehicles around the field are experts, or the giant ice hockey players will be more than capable of avoiding your offspring, there is an unequal distribution of risk, that will quite obviously affect how the more vulnerable parties will behave in that environment.
So once again we see the point that numbers (of both pedestrians and vehicles) really does matter here. For the space to feel like it’s properly giving pedestrians equal status to vehicles, we need to ensure the number of vehicles does not dwarf the number of pedestrians. Some analysis done to inform the development of the Exhibition Road shared space in London highlighted the importance of keeping traffic volumes low – saying the following:
…if vehicle flows are greater than 100 per hour, pedestrians will not use the vehicle zone as a shared space
Another study, by Transport for London, made a similar conclusion:
A study undertaken by TRL in 2003 for TfL’s Bus Priority Team indicated the limits to which pedestrians in London may be prepared to share a surface with traffic. This study found that below flows of 90 vehicles per hour pedestrians were prepared to mingle with traffic. When flows reached 110 vehicles per hour pedestrians used the width between frontages as if it were a traditional road, that is the majority of pedestrians remained on the equivalent of the footway and left the carriageway clear for vehicles.
The blog post probably takes a more negative view of shared spaces generally than I do (perhaps because of a fear they’re being introduced in inappropriate places) but overall I think the point is very well made. An extremely important part of making shared spaces work is to limit traffic volumes – so that the ‘balance of power’ between pedestrians and motorists gets tipped further towards the pedestrian. I don’t necessarily think that the vehicle per hour numbers are a fixed rule though, as surely that depends on the concentration of pedestrians. If you have an extremely busy pedestrian street (like Queen Street, for example) then pedestrians are still going to dominate the space, even if you had more vehicles than the seemingly magic “100 per hour”. As we see more shared streets rolled out across Auckland in future years, I’m hopeful that these issues are taken into account – to ensure that all shared streets can be as successful as Elliott Street is.
The blog post goes on to talk about how the ‘balance of power’ between pedestrians and cars in their ‘unregulated interaction’ on a shared street is very important:
By admin, on December 24th, 2011 This looks awesome:
Playing in the Streets clears Queen Street of traffic for a day and opens the road up for kids, young people and families. Aucklanders will be free to populate the roadway, creating a space of joy and amazement in the heart of the city.
This unique event will turn Queen Street into a sports park, with five-a side-football, cricket, squash, netball, badminton, gym sports, Zumba and aerobics taking place between the kerbs. Kids will be able to have a go at a range of sports, and meet some of their sporting heroes.
Cafes and shops will be open and picnic spots will be provided, so families are invited to come along and make a day of it. When
Sunday 19 February, 11am-4pm
Where
Queen Street between Customs and Wyndham streets, central Auckland
Events like these are a great first step towards permanently pedestrianising Queen Street. I can’t wait.
By admin, on December 10th, 2011 I have discussed previously the importance of not only making cycling actually safer through the provision of cycle lanes, but also making it feel safer by ensuring those lanes are constructed to a high standard and provide some real shielding from vehicles. I can’t see too many people feeling that some green paint and a white line makes a huge difference to the likelihood of them being run over by a truck while cycling.
A recent Streetfilms video highlights the approach Chicago is taking, through what they call “protected bike lanes”. This is exactly the kind of thing that I think we need to focus much more on providing here in Auckland:
At a guess, I doubt this would be particularly expensive to do, especially along streets that do seem unnecessarily wide (Richmond Road and Surrey Crescent come to mind as candidates on this count).
By admin, on December 4th, 2011 Research done by Auckland Transport shows that the shared spaces have been really successful in increasing the number of pedestrians along the various streets which have enjoyed the upgrades.
“The Queen Street upgrade and continuing city centre improvements are making the walking journey in and around the city centre much more desirable and attractive. Shared spaces may be a new concept for most Aucklanders but pedestrians have really taken to them and as a result are adding healthy walking to their days.
“Pedestrian activity on Darby, Lorne and Fort streets has increased by between 50 and 140 per cent. On Darby Street, there are now fewer cars and they are travelling at slower speeds.
“And the recently completed shared space project on Totara Avenue, New Lynn is another example where the street environment has been made friendly for pedestrians.”
Something that I’ve found quite interesting when observing the shared streets is how each of the streets in the city centre that have been upgraded differ slightly – and also how they’ve changed over time since they were first opened.
Darby Street was the first to open, and for a while didn’t seem to work that well – because of the large number of cars which continued to use the street (mainly as a bypass of the Queen/Victoria intersection). People parking along the street also made things problematic at first, although better enforcement by Auckland Transport parking officers in more recent times has helped minimise that problem. The photo above was taken pretty soon after Darby Street was open. These days the retailers have opened out towards the street more, with seating for people. Overall, it works really well and a lot fewer vehicles seem to be using Darby Street than before.
Fort Street probably remains the busiest of the shared streets in terms of the number of vehicles travelling along it. In particular, it seems that a lot of traffic uses Fort Street to access Queen Street, although as the cars generally take forever to find a gap between pedestrians before pulling onto Queen Street, I wonder whether this number will reduce over time. Out of all the shared spaces, Fort Street is probably the one that you’d feel least comfortable walking down the middle of – because of the higher vehicluar traffic flows. It’s still a far nicer place than it used to be though.
Elliott Street is, in my opinion, the biggest success story out of all the shared spaces. If you go there at lunch time these days, it’s absolutely humming with pedestrians – and you hardly ever see a car driving through the area. The close proximity to Atrium on Elliott shopping centre and foodcourt has helped Elliott Street become a success – but overall I think it is clearly the pick of the bunch. Here are a couple of picture of is opening day:  The other shared space is along part of Lorne Street, outside the library. It works quite well too – and I must get along there to take a few more photos and do a more detailed post.
I think the shared spaces will really come into their own over the summer. I hope that the Council keeps a close eye on numbers and provide some more seating if that’s considered necessary – as well as considering closing off some of the streets at certain times. I’ve thought that having Elliott Street closed to traffic each Friday would work well.
By Matt L, on November 7th, 2011 Auckland Transports monthly board reports are great for giving us an insight into what’s going on in the organisation and they usually give some form of update on many of the big projects that are on-going but they doesn’t tend to give much information on the little projects.
For that the local board meetings seem to be a good source of information as AT provides a regular update to things happening in the area ranging from queries and complaints from residents to planned projects. It’s from this I have learned about a couple of cycling projects happening in my area that I don’t think I would have heard about otherwise.
The first cycling project mentioned is Triangle Rd, the road already has cycle lanes but the report has this to say
Auckland Transport would like to advise you about concerns that have been raised regarding cyclist safety and the operation of the cycle lane between the Huruhuru Creek Bridge and the Lincoln Road intersection.
Auckland Transport is proposing some measures to improve cyclist safety along Triangle Road. These concerns relate to the morning peak period when traffic on Triangle Road is often congested, and driver’s queue in the southbound cycle lane. After investigating the issue, AT have concluded that some changes to the road layout are required in order to address this issue. AT are therefore, proposing to realign the traffic lanes in order to provide more space for the cycle lane. This will allow AT to install some bollards as protection for cyclists using the southbound cycle lane, whilst retaining enough space for drivers to queue in 2 lanes during the morning peak period. In order to accommodate the above changes, it is necessary to remove on street parking from the bus stop.
It is pleasing to see that AT are able to act on this to make things safer for cyclists and really interesting that the cycle lane will be separated by bollards to stop drivers queuing in it. Hopefully in time more on road cycle lanes will get these.
The next item on the list is this:
Council, the former WCC commissioned a feasibility study for cycle routes in Waitakere. The resulting Strategic Cycle Network Feasibility Study (the Study) is an extensive report that prioritises cycling routes throughout Waitakere. The Study recommended cycling infrastructure to form a cycle network. Many of these routes are noted as being appropriate for dedicated cycle infrastructure, for example, on-road cycle lanes, combination bus/bike lanes and off-road cycleways.
Cycleways on Rathgar Road, Pomaria Road and Te Pai Place are included on the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s (ARTA) regional cycle network map which was produced by ARTA in conjunction with local Councils. This map is being used to guide investment in cycling in the Auckland region. Cycle routes on this map will receive a high priority for funding from NZTA.
Concept designs for Rathgar Road and Pomaria Road were delivered to residents in those streets and surrounding side streets in May 2009. The consultation materials outlined the proposal for on-road cycle lanes including the widening of both roads so that existing on-street car parking could be retained on at least one side of the road where possible. Recessed parking bays are proposed around St Dominic’s College and possibly close to Liston College. Concept designs illustrating a proposed off-road shared path on Te Pai Place were delivered to businesses in Te Pai Place in May 2009. Community consultation closed for these projects on 5 June 2009.
The proposals for on-road cycle lanes on Rathgar Road and Pomaria Road received some opposition. This was almost entirely due to the loss of some on-street parking proposed in the concept plans. Strong support was received from people who wished to see dedicated cycling infrastructure provided in these areas. The Te Pai Place project was specifically supported by two businesses and was not opposed by any submitter. Fifty-six submissions were received in total for the three projects. Around 70% of submitters were very supportive or generally supportive of the projects.
Around 30% of submissions were not supportive of the projects. The majority of these were concerned with the removal of on-street parking proposed on Rathgar Road and Pomaria Road. Of particular concern to many submitters was the loss of car parking around St Dominic’s College
and Pomaria Primary School. In a response letter to all submitters, it was restated that it was anticipated that there would be a loss of between one and three on-street car parks only between the St Dominic’s College gates and Swanson Road. It is considered that this has alleviated the concerns expressed for this section of the proposal.
Council Officers have considered the feedback from the consultation and considered the following options were the most suitable to implement.
These are:
• On-road cycle lanes for the full length of Rathgar Road from Swanson Road to Universal Drive.
• On-road cycle lanes for the full length of Pomaria Road from Rathgar Road to Lincoln Road.
• Off-road cycleway for the full length of Te Pai Place from Lincoln Road to Central Park Drive.
Waitakere City Council’s Infrastructure and Works Committee met on 5 August 2009 and approved the commissioning of detailed design work for the cycleway project proposed for Rathgar Road, Pomaria Road and Te Pai Place.
Subsequently Council had received a notification that a subsidy from New Zealand Transport Agency was not available for these three cycleway projects. Therefore, these cycle projects were on hold indefinitely.
Auckland Transport has recently approved the delivery of this cycleway project for construction in the 2011/2012 financial year with the intention to go out to tender as early as possible to enable construction around the schools during the school summer holiday period.
I’m really pleased to see these three roads will get cycle lanes added, I was actually looking a few months ago at what route I would take if I was ever to try riding to work and using these three were on the route I chose, Rathgar in particular makes a lot of sense as there are 3 schools within 500m of each other along the road.
I was also pleasantly surprised to see that 70% of all submitters including a few businesses supported the idea as it hopefully indicates that people are becoming more accepting of cyclists. It is also pleasing that AT see enough value in these projects that they are building them even though they the NZTA won’t provide a subsidy for them .
This also follows on from other recent news that AT will be widening Te Atatu Rd in part to add cycle lanes and that as part of the works to widen Tiverton & Wolverton St’s they will be putting in a cycle route away from the main traffic flow. To me it shows that AT seem to have much more regard for cyclists than many of our councils have in the past so good work AT (although it would be nice if more cycle lanes could by separated by bollards).
|
Recent Comments