Auckland Harbour Bridge.

[Swoop]

The "getacross (http://www.getacross.org.nz/)" website is soliciting for opinions on the bridge being modified to accept cyclists and pedestrian traffic.
Presumably scooters and bikes would not be permitted (going from previous transit decisions...).

A cycleway is needed, but at the expense of one lane of traffic flow?

My submission to "name the cycleway" came back with "Thanks for your name suggestion. It sure is a great idea!". Im really happy that they like The Lycra Lane:rofl:

[vifferman]

I think it's a stupid idea having pedestrian and cycle access over the bridge. Under it might be OK.
On the North Shore, the council has sunk lots of money into cycle lanes, that way less than 1% of the population use. One Saturday recently, I drove around all over the Shore, and saw no (zero!) cyclists at all. Commuting to work, I usually see only one or two, and one day last week, the only one I saw on the way to work was riding next to the cycle lane, thus obstructing traffic. The only reason for this seems to have been that he was a Serious Bicycler, and his own private road hadn't been swept, so it had quite a bit of gravel'n'crap in it.

[Morcs]

This is happening everywhere. Sacrificing an entire lane of traffic just so that a bus or whatever can go through every 10 minutes.

What a load of shit. Cyclists dont pay rego, so why do they get to take our road?

[jrandom]

... his own private road hadn't been swept, so it had quite a bit of gravel'n'crap in it.

All good points.

From the perspective of a cyclist, I must say, I think that 'cycle lanes' are largely a waste of time. When traffic is heavy enough that it's moving slower than I can pedal (30kph on the flat, 15kph up hills, etc) I just filter between cars.

Otherwise, I just stay left-ish and let them around. No hassle for anyone concerned.

The most laughable arrangement is when councils paint white lines down the middle of bumpy, shitty pedestrian sidewalks full of driveway exits and expect cyclists to use them instead of the roads.

[jrandom]

Cyclists dont pay rego, so why do they get to take our road?

I'm a cyclist (well, occasionally) and I pay rego for three vehicles, one of which (my car) is hardly ever used, so STFU.

Anyway, bicycles (when ridden correctly) take very little to no space on the road, don't wear the road surface away like large vehicles (and even motorcycles) do, and emit absolutely no pollutants.

Not to mention the positive effects on society from its members getting out and doing some exercise.

All very good reasons to exempt bicycles from the vehicle registration tax.

[Big Dave]

Maybe - but then if they get one maybe we can get one eventually.

Been to several Asian cities where they have bike and scooter lanes. Complete carnage - but they have them.

[Morcs]

I'm a cyclist (well, occasionally) and I pay rego for three vehicles, one of which (my car) is hardly ever used, so STFU.

Anyway, bicycles (when ridden correctly) take very little to no space on the road, don't wear the road surface away like large vehicles (and even motorcycles) do, and emit absolutely no pollutants.

Not to mention the positive effects on society from its members getting out and doing some exercise.

All very good reasons to exempt bicycles from the vehicle registration tax.

Those arent points im getting at. it annoys me that they go to lengths to do these things for cyclists. When did they ever do something like that for motorcyclists? they wont even rip down a couple of wire barriers FFS.

But where is the governments motivation for cycle lanes? trying to encourage more people onto bikes? Less revenue for them through regos, fuel etc...

[jrandom]

Those arent points im getting at. it annoys me that they go to lengths to do these things for cyclists. When did they ever do something like that for motorcyclists? they wont even rip down a couple of wire barriers FFS.

It's uncool to hate cyclists; it's cool to hate motorcyclists. The majority opinion carries the day.


But where is the governments motivation for cycle lanes? trying to encourage more people onto bikes? Less revenue for them through regos, fuel etc...

Ever consider that just maybe democracy is functioning as intended, and it is not The Gubmint (tm) causing things to happen, here, but simply a populace with a large and vocal number of people who ride bicycles?

[Swoop]

The email that I received that contained the link, had this message:

Hi all,
You already know my thoughts on this and some of you have joined me on clandestine cycle rides across the Harbour Bridge to support the harbour bridge cycle lane concept. A major campaign called "get across" was
launched by Y&R yesterday. Transit will do major works on the bridge in
July and we could swing the votes at board level by acting now. Now is
the chance to show some support without putting your lives or your
wallets at risk. You'll need to click on the link at the bottom of this
email and say "Yes" to the "Get Across" campaign.

Umm...? Clandestine rides across the bridge? On a pushbike?
This is a way to "promote" this?

[ManDownUnder]

Per the website...

"Giving all Aucklanders – and our overseas visitors – free access to our iconic bridge will be a huge positive step. Right now, apart from a few isolated stretches, Auckland is an unfriendly, even dangerous place to walk or cycle. Compare this to other Pacific rim cities like Sydney and San Francisco, where easy access to their harbour bridges and waterside is a part of everyday life. Opening our bridge to everyone is one of the best things we can do for our city."

See - it's one of the best things we can do - they said so! Let's see... restrict traffic flows on the bridge, cost truckloads of cash but enable how many cyclists an d pedestrians to use the bridge??? ummmmm nuh

Closing off a lane for light rail makes more sense to me...

[jrandom]

Umm...? Clandestine rides across the bridge? On a pushbike?

:crazy:


This is a way to "promote" this?

Well, hmm, yes, riding bicycles over the bridge as it stands is a step too far. I'm all in favour of carefully-targeted civil disobedience, but not carefully-targeted suicidal civil disobedience.

[WRT]

I'm a cyclist (well, occasionally) and I pay rego for three vehicles, one of which (my car) is hardly ever used, so STFU.

Does that mean that as I pay rego on my car that I don't need to on the Aprilia? If so, then I like your logic.

[jrandom]

restrict traffic flows on the bridge...

Hang on, is there meaningful evidence that it would restrict traffic flows on the bridge, or did you just throw that statement out at random?


cost truckloads of cash...

It's not as though we can't afford it.

For what it's worth, as far as I've been able to tell over the years, the majority of Auckland's cycling population lives on the North Shore. I wouldn't be surprised if there was, in fact, significant usage of a cycle lane over the bridge, with a concomitant drop in the number of single-occupant cars commuting over it every day.

[Swoop]

:crazy:

Well, hmm, yes, riding bicycles over the bridge as it stands is a step too far. I'm all in favour of carefully-targeted civil disobedience, but not carefully-targeted suicidal civil disobedience.
I am having to guess here, but to me "clandestine" takes on the impression of "night time"...
Which would be really silly.

[jrandom]

Does that mean that as I pay rego on my car that I don't need to on the Aprilia? If so, then I like your logic.

Actually, I think, as do many others on this forum, that that's quite a good idea.

One part of the registration system being inequitable is no argument to extend the irrationality further.

Those railing against cyclists not paying rego would do better to rail against motorcyclists who also own cars having to pay rego more than once.

For what it's worth, I'd agree that, yes, a cyclist who owned no other vehicle should pay registration (to an appropriately pro-rata'd level based on road wear, ACC risk, emissions etc).

[ManDownUnder]

Hang on, is there meaningful evidence that it would restrict traffic flows on the bridge, or did you just throw that statement out at random?

It was a "qualified random" comment based upon the acccepted rules of a constriction and its effect upon flow. You take a lane away from cars with minimal (if any) regard to reducing the number of cars using that lane at peak times and lo....

TRAFFIC JAM!


It's not as though we can't afford it.
Pre completion of the ring route I'd take serious issue with that statement.



For what it's worth, as far as I've been able to tell over the years, the majority of Auckland's cycling population lives on the North Shore. I wouldn't be surprised if there was, in fact, significant usage of a cycle lane over the bridge, with a concomitant drop in the number of single-occupant cars commuting over it every day.

Yes - the will be a drop in the number of cars, just there may be a few drops of sweat falling from the brows of the mighty cyclists as they heavy themselves over the bridge on their travels to and from work.

The negligible impact of those drops of sweat falling into the Manukau remind me of something - aaaa yess.. the negligible reduction in traffic - especially at peak times. And what are the contributors to those peaks? Let's examine the weather as one that I've personally noticed.

Crap weather = people rushing in droves to the comfort and security of their cars (you'll find this is true on the quoted Sydney and SF bridges too). So on the days where the peaks are worse we have ... 1 less lane to cope with demand, and one empty lane costing ratepayers gazillions only to negatively impact traffic flows when it most need relief.

Still faaaaaaaar from convinced.

[jrandom]

Actually, I just realised the real reason why we can't have a bicycle lane over the Harbour Bridge.

The plummeting old ladies (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=69118) would be a terrible shipping hazard!

:laugh:

[jrandom]

It was a "qualified random" comment based upon the acccepted rules of a constriction and its effect upon flow. You take a lane away from cars with minimal (if any) regard to reducing the number of cars using that lane at peak times and lo....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the plan is not to take a lane away from the cars - it's to widen the clipons slightly and narrow the existing lanes slightly to create just enough space for a cycle lane on one side and a pedestrian lane on the other.

I don't see how that will restrict traffic flow.

The only negatively-impacted road users will be motorcyclists who (like me) use the current fairly-wide lanes to allow easy filtering over the bridge.

And, for that matter, if there was a bicycle lane, I wouldn't be using the motorcycle.

[WRT]

For what it's worth, I'd agree that, yes, a cyclist who owned no other vehicle should pay registration (to an appropriately pro-rata'd level based on road wear, ACC risk, emissions etc).

The problem I see (and trust me, I'd like to have to pay just one rego, not 2 plus a trailer), is that you cannot guarantee that the correct person is using the car/bike/cycle. Why not just register every vehicle/cycle in the family under (for example) "Dad's" name, then Mum, brother, sister, Great Aunt Fanny etc wouldn't need to pay their regos.

Anyway, that's a topic for another thread, point is that at the moment, the system in NZ demands all vehicles except cycles have to pay rego and road taxes, so why should those paying vehicles give up precious lanes for other methods of transport that don't pay their share?


The negligible impact of those drops of sweat falling into the Manukau remind me of something - aaaa yess.. the negligible reduction in traffic - especially at peak times.

The Manukau? When did they shift the bridge?

[jrandom]

... why should those paying vehicles give up precious lanes for other methods of transport that don't pay their share?

Well, once again, I don't think we're considering the idea of motor vehicles actually giving up lanes, just the creation of a little extra space for 'mini-lanes' than can be used by bicycles.

[WRT]

Well, once again, I don't think we're considering the idea of motor vehicles actually giving up lanes, just the creation of a little extra space for 'mini-lanes' than can be used by bicycles.

In that case - my bad, sorry. But reading the first post:

"A cycleway is needed, but at the expense of one lane of traffic flow?"

which coincides with what I had heard previously elsewhere, that the proposal includes using existing traffic lanes and converting them for cycle use.

[Swoop]

Well, once again, I don't think we're considering the idea of motor vehicles actually giving up lanes, just the creation of a little extra space for 'mini-lanes' than can be used by bicycles.
If it is like the NW M-way, it will become covered with shit. Glass from bottles and accidents will get swept onto it.
"Extending the clipons"? With the state that the bridge is in, this will be a difficult economic viability.

Some years ago there was a bike-bus service across the bridge. A minibus with a trailer for the bikes. This did not get the patronage required. Perhaps re-assessing if this would be viable again (and perhaps using the "official" bus lane as an encouragement?).

[ManDownUnder]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the plan is not to take a lane away from the cars -

Quite right, my bad

"The walkway and cycleway don’t affect the number of traffic lanes so the bridge will have just as much capacity as it does today, yet every walker or cyclist means one less car on the road – reducing traffic congestion on the bridge."

So back to my other thought then... i.e. bad weather = conjestion which the lane wont ease, money should be poured into public transport etc.

I love the thought of the greater Auckland region cycling to and from work... it's on two wheels and fully aligns with those clean and green ideals I occasionaly hold aloft but... I can't see it happpening...
Spend the same (probably more to allow for the weight) and chuck some light rail over the bridge at the same time... and THEN you get my support.

If you're going to spend tons of money, get the best value from it.

[Maha]

For what it's worth, I'd agree that, yes, a cyclist who owned no other vehicle should pay registration (to an appropriately pro-rata'd level based on road wear, ACC risk, emissions etc).

Surely they would Fart while peddling hard out after a Muesli and Soy Milk Brekkie?

[Ixion]

And how many people will use this lane. Not once in a while , but every day? Rain wind or shine?

About 4 years ago they put cycle lanes down Cavendish Drive in Manukau. I work there, I drive that road about 4 times a day on average, and see it from where I werk.

In those 4 years I have NEVER seen a single cyclist use those lanes. Not one. Zilch. Zip.

And I bet the Harbour Bridge qould be the same (after maybe a few weeks of initial euphoria).

Now, Cavendish Drive didn't matter too much, it didn't really cost anything except a bit of paint. But puitting lanes (and shields , and access lanes across the motorways etc etc ) on the HB is going to cost a bundle. probably many millions (and I wouldn't for a moment believe any figures trotted out so far).

Transit have a responsibility (moral and statutory) to see that the public money which they disburse is spent FOR THE GREATEST GOOD. That means, in such a way that it benfits the maximum number of people. Not for the purpose of furthering the ideological zealotry of a tiny minority.

I voted No on their website.

[jrandom]

Spend the same (probably more to allow for the weight) and chuck some light rail over the bridge at the same time...

I wouldn't be surprised if the cost to enable train traffic over the bridge was an order of magnitude higher than adding a cycle lane and a pedestrian lane.

;)

Can you tell I'm always the annoyed-looking geek at the back of the room in brainstorming meetings pointing out why the marketing guys' ideas won't work?

I tend to eventually get kicked out.

[Ixion]

The big cost won't be the bit on the bridge. It'll be getting the cycles onto the bridge and off it. Going south, you either have to allow them down the len gth of the Northern Motorway, or have some way of crossing the motorway (actually that MIGHT be possible. If anyone has a REALLY long memory) . Going north, you either have to have them come on down Sheely beach Rd (? Is it, the access from Herne Bay) , which the psyclists will never agree to, cos it's too far from the latte shops. Or somehow get them across the oncoming traffic.


And you cna bet they won't settle for a single on an off point, they'll demand access and egress at each point the cars can. Cue massive earthowrks andmotorway redesign.

And - if psyclists are allowed, why aren't mopeds. And horses.

Pedestrians is a little easier, cos they can climb stairs.

[ManDownUnder]

I wouldn't be surprised if the cost to enable train traffic over the bridge was an order of magnitude higher than adding a cycle lane and a pedestrian lane.[\quote]

Yeah nuh. Nothing to base it on but ... nuh. Besides, lets face it neither proposal's going to get past the RMA this side of 2015 anyway...

[quote=jrandom;1467334]Can you tell I'm always the annoyed-looking geek at the back of the room in brainstorming meetings pointing out why the marketing guys' ideas won't work?

It is fun isn't it - I'm the annoying Marketing type that keeps schtum on the fact I was a geek. When the geeks try to close me down (in my given fields of expertise) I smile sweetly and talk straight back to them on their terms. There's the man (a dude in Paris) possibly still smarting from it... and that was back in 2000. A whole other story but he opened his mouth (being the man) pointing out the error of my ways only to find himself victim to his own attempted coup de gras.

.... my work here is done...

[jrandom]

.... my work here is done...

Yes, you strike me as one of the ones I'd be wary of.

<_<

[ManDownUnder]

Yes, you strike me as one of the ones I'd be wary of.

<_<

I do prefer to be underestimated. At the risk of dragging this off topic (me??? nooo....)I hate so many of my "peers" who feel totally capable of discussing IT... they're comfortable with topics like "databases", "Documents" "Data" and "Operating Systems"

I mean what else is there to know? :sick:

[jrandom]

I do prefer to be underestimated. At the risk of dragging this off topic (me??? nooo....)I hate so many of my "peers" who feel totally capable of discussing IT...

I detest the whole deal so much that I prefer not to describe myself as 'working in IT'.

If anyone asks, I'm a programmer, and that's it.

The vast majority of my professional life has not involved working on 'computer systems', per se.

(And, to bring the thread back on track, I commuted by bicycle to most of those jobs...)

[Timber020]

I think its a great idea, anything that looks to the future further than puting in more car parking buildings down town. This can only do good things for Auckland, I dont cycle anymore but I would think it would bring out the lycra louts out of the woodwork.

Fantastic

[motorbyclist]

I think it's a stupid idea having pedestrian and cycle access over the bridge. Under it might be OK.
On the North Shore, the council has sunk lots of money into cycle lanes, that way less than 1% of the population use. One Saturday recently, I drove around all over the Shore, and saw no (zero!) cyclists at all. Commuting to work, I usually see only one or two, and one day last week, the only one I saw on the way to work was riding next to the cycle lane, thus obstructing traffic. The only reason for this seems to have been that he was a Serious Bicycler, and his own private road hadn't been swept, so it had quite a bit of gravel'n'crap in it.

you might find alot more people on the north shore ride their bike once the lane is open....

but why they can't put it under the bridge where it's sheltered from wind/rain/traffic is beyond me


It's uncool to hate cyclists; it's cool to hate motorcyclists. The majority opinion carries the day.

democracy is asking two wolves and a sheep what to have for dinner



It's not as though we can't afford it.


didn't they want to make the new motorway loop a toll system?

although if they're rebuilding the bridge anyway i don't see why not to put in a cycle lane