Auckland Transport are planning long-term works on Glenvar Road & East Coast Road in the northern part of the Shore to cater for a lot more residential growth (= a lot more traffic).

What does it mean for cyclists? Basically, there are four key aspects to submit on – the cycle facilities on the two roads, and two key intersections that are to be changed as part of these works:

Glenvar Road – cycle facilities (bottom half of linked page)

• The future road will include cycle facilities – however, there are still questions as to what type. Auckland Transport favours “Option 2″, which would provide a cycle lane in the eastbound direction, a slightly wider traffic lane in the other direction, and a shared path (2.5m wide) on the westbound side. We think that’s really not too bad at all, considering a relatively tight road corridor and the fact that the terrain is not exactly pancake flat.
• However, there’s also an intriguing “Option 4″ – which doesn’t provide an on-road cycle lane at all, but has a 2.5m wide cycle path (two-way, NOT shared with pedestrians) on the westbound side. Now 2.5m doesn’t sound all that wide if you are in the habit of cycling fast – but it will be bordered by a grass berm of almost 1m width on one side, and a 1.8m wide footpath on the other side, meaning you will be able to cycle a bit closer to the edge of the path when passing than you might otherwise.

CAA is still considering what solution would be best for cycling in the longer term here, and especially what would be best for cycling for transport (currently, we would expect most of the cyclists here to be sports cyclists – but that will change). What do you feel about these options?

East Coast Road – cycle facilities (top half of linked page)

• The design options are quite similar to Glenvar Road – Auckland Transport’s preferred “Option 2″ provides a cycle lane – but only in one direction. There is also a shared path on one side, this time slightly wider at 3m.
• Again, there’s an “Option 4″, that provides no cycle lanes, but has it’s own dedicated cycle-only two-way path at 2.5m width, again buffered by a grass berm on one side, and a footpath on the other side.

A major other factor here is that this section of the road already has cycle lanes in both directions, and that one or both of them would be removed, depending on option. Not good, and an argument that they should widen the cycle-only path to 3m, more useful for fast cyclists?

Otherwise, the choice here is essentially the same as for Glenvar Road – is a one-sided cycle lane and a shared path better than a cycle-only path? You tell us (and AT) what you prefer.

.

Intersection – East Coast Road / Glenvar Road / Lonely Track Road

Auckland Transport is proposing to combine this into one intersection, and change it into a roundabout here – we will be opposing this, because roundabouts are highly unfriendly and dangerous to cyclists, especially the large, multi-lane type planned here. And that is giving them the benefit of the doubt that they WILL provide shared paths and crossing locations around the edges of the proposed roundabout, because the consultation plan shows none.

If the roundabout option is chosen despite our opposition, we will fight for good cycle facilities, possibly including grade separation for some key paths – but it will be a long shot to get that, seeing how expensive they tend to be. So please assist us in voicing your concern about another problematic roundabout being added.

Remember – a roundabout means that even cyclists using the off-road cycle paths will have to cross this intersection “at the sufferance” of drivers, because there won’t be any signalised crossings. Would you send your children to school over it? I bet not.

Intersection – East Coast Road / Glamorgan Drive

We support the traffic signals planned here, though we will ask for a few tweaks – overall, this should work fine though.

Okay, in summary, here’s the deal as we see it, in simplified terms:

• Glenvar Road – Option 2, good, Option 4 – better?
• East Coast Road – Option 2, good, Option 4 – better?
• East Coast Road / Glenvar Road - No roundabout please, we prefer not dodging traffic!
• East Coast Road / Glamorgan Drive – Signals are fine here.

Once you have made up your mind, why don’t you head over to Auckland Transport’s online form and tell them your opinion.

4 Responses to “Shore Growth – Glenvar Road & East Coast Road”

1. richard says:

   October 12, 2012 at 10:32 pm

   2.5 metres wide for a two way cycle path is not wide enough if the path is to cater for all types of cyclists. Generally cyclists travel at about 30kph or more if training seriously.

   Whilst at the point of contact with the road a bicycle (road bike) is only centimetres wide the true width of a cyclist is the elbow to elbow measurement which is about eighty centimetres. Eighty plus eighty is of course 1.6 metres leaving a gap of 90cm at a closing speed of sixty kph. This assumes at all places the cyclist can ride close to the edge of the lane but as soon as there is an object at the edge of the lane the 90 cm reduces.

   A two way path needs to be 3 metres wide. or a single path either side of the road of at least 1.5m. A cyclist should ride about a metre out from the kerb even when in a marked lane on the road . Most on road lanes are too narrow and need to be 1.5m clear space. Authorities tend to mark the lane from the kerb to the centre of the lane line. The gutter is not part of the road but a drain and the measurement should be from the edge of the gutter to the near edge of the lane line.
   • Max says:

     October 13, 2012 at 12:14 pm

     Hi Richard – we don’t think the cycle path would be a place intended for sports training. It would primarily serve as a transport route. Sports cycling is one part of a larger cycle community, and we need to think of all cyclists, including the many residents that will move into these areas in the next 10-20 years – so the matter is more complex than simply considering the 30 kph fast cyclists.
2. Dave M says:

   October 15, 2012 at 10:06 pm

   With regards to East coast road I think it would be a backwards step removing the existing 1.5m cycle lanes especially on the southern down hill section so option 1 for me!
   • Max says:

     October 16, 2012 at 10:36 pm

     Hi Dave – CAA’s submission on ECR will support Option 2, but ask for tweaks to retain the southbound cycle lane as well (which we believe is feasible in the corridor with some changes). But we believe it is key to also provide for those who don’t want to ride on-road on a multi-lane highway…