The state of our cycle network
Pippa Coom, former CAA committee member – and now transport representative on the Waitemata Local Board – has been active for a long time making sure future cycle route planning across Auckland is consistent and honest.
Because one of the key problems with all the great goals in documents like the Auckland Plan is that they base their future targets on a starting point of a cycle network of somewhat over 900 km, that is currently “28% complete”.
However, if one looks closely, one is not only struck by the wide variety of quality levels in what the former Councils around Auckland counted as “complete” – no, one also quite often comes across “complete” routes that absolutely have NOTHING on it for cycling.
Not even something like a shared bus lane – which many cyclists (and certainly many potential-but-not-right-now-cyclists) don’t consider a cycleway anyway. So the real starting point is in some areas a lot lower than “28% complete”.
Auckland Transport is currently reviewing the Regional Cycle Network, and will eventually re-release it as the “Auckland Cycle Network”. Have a read on Pippa’s own page about her board’s work during recent months to make sure that the review captures the starting point for the Auckland Cycle Network accurately.
Auckland Transport, General News, Key Projects, Maps, Regional Cycle Network
| 
Auckland, Auckland Transport, General News, Key Projects, Maps, Regional Cycle Network, Waitemata Local Board
Fullers (CAA Sponsor)
Themocracy
I have been mulling over the cycle lanes issues over the past couple of days. And one thought that comes to mind is that much of the discussion over cycle lanes is not around the focus of improving cycling in Auckland, but is focussed on getting bikes out of the way of cars. This means the whole focus is still on motor vehicles. It does not technically care about the status of the “cycle lane” in that as long as it seperates bikes from cars, that is enough. Change the mindset first, and then we might get some real quality cycle lanes.
Hi Kelvin – agree that many still approach it that way. There are however a few projects on the go (such as Albany Highway in North Shore, Te Atatu Road in Te Atatu and AMETI in Panmure-Pakuranga-Botany and so on) where cycling is not just an afterthought.
The result from the review of the Auckland Cycle Network is likely to be a variety of “typical treatments” that would be appropriate for a Regional Cycle Network route and we are working to make sure that these go beyond just paint. Once we have that step sorted, we then need to make sure that the higher-quality results are implemented, rather than “whatever fits”. That will be enough work for the next 20 years…
And fully agree – the key crunch time will come at those locations where you can’t keep the existing car volumes AND do a good cycle facility. So far, the outcomes in those fights have been rather… mixed.
It is much easier still to get locals riled up about being stuck in traffic “because” of cycle lanes (see Lake Road), or because good cycle facilities would mean they would lose “their” parking – than to get the same number of locals excited about new cycle facilities.
I see it as a gradual process. Much of what we do right now, is, honestly, quite average. But it’s better than what we had, and in 5-10 years we may well decide that now’s the time we have enough support to go back and redo some of those much weaker treatments, having much more public support. Portland did it the same way – cycling success breeds more cycling success, and more support for better-quality design.
Okay, long rant – but you’ll see that we are thinking of exactly the same things you are…
Thanks for the honest coverage, Admin.
I understand CAA is constitutionally focused on cycling issues, but it seems to miss the fact that the fundamental problem in our city isn’t about cycling itself — rather, it is the unfair prioritization of motoring over all else.
Does CAA look to ally with public transport advocates, urbanists, walkable neighbourhood proponents, universal accessibility groups, and so on? You’ll find plenty of traction in pitching cycle-friendly improvements within the context of inclusive, integrated, accessible, whole-street redevelopment — even from a large (and growing) proportion of motorists, residents local business owners, and youth.
If an organization like CAA fails to show a sense of urgency, vision, or context, and instead consistently celebrates “average” outcomes, I struggle to see why a non-cyclist might bother to support or affect the change we need.
There are many interesting differences and parallels between the Portland scenario and Auckland, but I won’t go into them here. Let me leave you with a question: where is the inspiration?
No, non-motorist, I am not too interested in answering your leading questions anymore, wrapped in their small chunks of poisoned praise.
I am an incrementalist, not a revolutionary. It may be less sexy, but it has the advantage of working.
I know where my inspiration is.
Too bad.
The only revolution I advocate is in the wheels of a bicycle. Your oversold increments are too often regressive or misled. How well it is all “working”, and for whom, is quite debatable. Surely we can do better, even gradually.
How is it so easy for you to defer substantive progress by five, ten or more years? For many of us who don’t drive a motor vehicle — not even part-time — that’s incredibly depressing. Sex appeal does not even enter the frame, believe me.
Oh well. I too have hope that we will eventually enjoy an equitable transport and land use situation, which prioritizes cycling properly. Doubtless it will have been in part due to CAA’s efforts. I look forward to your continuing contribution, however circumspect it may be.
Hello Non Motorist. You maybe inspired to know that “Admin” was almost single handedly responsible for ensuring $8 million of additional expenditure on cycle infrastructure that will run through the Waterview extension of SH20 to meet SH16. This will also link the lengthy offroad cycle paths that run along these existing sections of motorway. The Genesis of an actual offroad cycle network in Auckland.
Admin does this work for the love of it… He does genuinely love infrastructure, I’ve seen his eyes light up and heard his brain ticking over. He is doing what he can with what he’s got, that is he’s spotting concerns, using his encyclopedic knowledge of planning regulations and engineering principles to suggest solutions to those with budgets to actually get the building done. I suspect writing inspiring blog posts about infrastructure would be hard even for somebody with the prose of Russell Brown.
Would love to hear how you are inspiring your friends, colleagues into cycling?
Julian,
I’m afraid that particular factoid does little to inspire me — especially on occasions when I inhale a lungful of motor exhaust, or amble up to find an advanced stop box occupied by a motorcycle, or otherwise have my life threatened for nothing more than rightfully existing in public space. (Just five to ten more years of this, I should now think…) Well, I expect you know the feeling.
A central thesis of my pseudonym is that we as an urban society live by the motorway, even when it comes to something so forbidden upon it as cycling. A cycleway shaped by a motorway represents this profound deference to motoring almost ideally. I have critiqued the NW and proposed Grafton Gully cycleways for this: they (would) do a fine job of connecting backyards to motorway on-ramps, avoiding front doors everywhere. Our off-road cycle paths are also off-street and often off-civilization.
$8 million seems steep for what is practically a placebo to me. May it help someone. In that case, I might begin to have mixed feelings about the remaining Roads of National Significance, for, who knows, they could also bode Cycleways of Token Relevance.
Look, I don’t even know who “Admin” is among the many good people at CAA, and it hardly matters to my critique how they are privately committed or motivated. I generally refer to CAA as an organization, and how the group officially communicates with the public — of which I am but one member — and engages our governmental bodies, to the extent that any of that business is revealed.
(There is a keen difference in what is expected of an organized group of advocates purporting to be “a voice for cyclists” and any individual, be they Admin or myself.)
I agree that it would be hard to inspire most people about popularly banal subjects like infrastructure. Fortunately, that isn’t required. Rather, this is a matter of priorities: of whether we find worthy the presence of human life, of culture, of serendipitous interaction, of local commerce, of equal access to mobility, of a shared sense of being, in our finite public spaces or not.
Where does cycling fit in that picture? How does something as plain as a proper cycle lane value and respect the life of an individual, eight years old or eighty years old, on the street? Or what of a community? Why does Auckland deserve that kind of investment? What in our shared identity would beget such progress? What does it mean for our youth and future prospects? And so on. Mr Brown should have little difficulty there; heck, Mr Brownlee could probably manage it.
Hello Non Motorist.
If I read your post correctly you want the city to place the human first? And yet as best I can tell from your twitter stream your actions are restricted to online rather than human to human.
You choose a pseudonym rather than use your name. It’s much easier to engage with another human when you meet them face to face if you recognise their name.
You say it doesn’t matter to you who “Admin” might be. He has feelings he’s one of the things I think you want the city planners to give a greater respect to.
Gandhi said “Be the change you wish to see in the world”. So have you tried to go out, connect with and inspire friends, family, colleagues and strangers to cycle? What were the results?
Julian, those are excellent questions.
Yes, I want the city to place the human first. Need I point out to you that Twitter is not itself a city in which face-to-face interaction occurs? Any of our paths may yet or again cross in person, and I would be happy to work with you or whoever else in whatever forum it may be.
The quote of Gandhi is apt. In this respect, the change I want to see in the world is a shift in perspective, so that the conversation is no longer about curing cycling of its supposed ills — It’s dangerous! It’s difficult! So we need more paint, signage, and new cycle paths along motorways! etc. — but of re-prioritizing our allocation of existing public resources, assets and privilege in an equitable way. That is, no longer unfairly advantaging motoring to such an absurd extent, no longer gutting city life, and at last starting to promote cycling in the wider context of people-friendly urbanism on our streets and between our front doors.
My pseudonym, photography, tweets and posts are restricted to this focus. I wish for my testimony and argument to stand alone, and not be distracted by factors of personality. Whatever else I do under a different name, and whatever may be the results, let that be judged by itself.
We all have feelings. I feel threatened, bullied and undervalued as a non-motorist rightfully existing in public space, and I know others do too. This is often a matter of life and death: to adapt an old saying, sticks and stones may break my bones, but a bus will probably kill me.
“Admin” attracts criticism from me due to their official role as a spokesperson for cyclists — in which capacity at least I feel they are doing a disservice in some ways. So I have laid out my critique in a perfectly civil and precise form. If, instead, “Admin” finds praise for honesty poisonous, inquiry uninteresting, and the toxic status quo more or less acceptable, less power to them.
Hey Julian, no personal hostility needed. It’s pretty common to use a blog name – after all “admin” himself sometimes does so on other transport related blogs!
Cycle Action committee members put in untold hours of voluntary work – but there is a bigger debate about cycling within the transport system, one which is a hot topic now for Aucklanders. Non Motorist makes some very good points and having animated responses makes Cycle Action’s website richer and much more interesting – it can tend to read as promoting the good works Auckland Transport is doing hand-in-hand with Cycle Action. Having a bit of philosophical debate is very welcome.
Brilliant work from Waitemata Local Board Members Pippa Coom and Christopher Dempsey with the support of their Board. I would hope that Cycle Action has been involved in discussions with Auckland Transport about this issue on behalf on Auckland cyclists – and if so, can we please hear about it from your perspective? When will members get a chance to give feedback? Given that every roading project seems to have community consultation these days, can we expect something as important as the new Auckland Cycling Network to be open for public feedback – or is it regarded as part of CAA Committee members work with AT? Please keep us informed!
Del, we would expect that the ACN would get publicly consulted by AT. And we will definitely keep you involved. Our next public meeting in September (which I think is also our AGM…) would be a good chance to meet us directly.
Anyone know when the next election for the CAA committee is? Sounds like we’ve got some keen candidates…….
Out of interest, who is “admin”? Are they a spokesperson for CAA? I’m surprised to see the dismissive reply to Non-motorist — the idea of taking a wider approach to improving cycling seems very important to me. It’s also far from revolutionary.
Admin is “admin”. Sometimes (including in this case) it is myself, sometimes other CAA committee members. Sometimes people post [blog articles] under their own names here, sometimes more generic posts get handled under a generic name.
No, non-motorist’s comments that a wider approach is needed is indeed not revolutionary. My dismissive tone was fully due to my personal dislike of his/her attitude (“I’ll tell you how to do it, because you don’t seem to know how!”). I probably should have stood above that kind of response, but when you are passionate about something, go to bat for it daily, and then get told that you are nothing but a “cheerleader” – well, that was simply quite offensive to me.
Getting back to the topic, if you look at what CAA has been doing, a wider approach has been our message for years. We have supported various projects and changes for the better – worked for electric trains (CAA supported them even when their funding was unpopular) and the City Rail Loop, we have worked with bus companies and bus drivers to improve behaviour and cooperation, we have worked with politicians and all sorts of other groups to make cycling part of a broader change. If we haven’t done all we could theoretically have done, please remember that at the core we are 10-15 men and women with full-time jobs. Sometimes we struggle just keeping up, but the passion and the wider view are definitely there, or we would have given up long ago, instead of plowing our time and energy into this year after year.
Thanks. I appreciate the work that CAA does and hope to become involved more actively again when time allows.
One aspect of advocacy that CAA shied away from (still does?) if that roading projects never seemed to be actively opposed. The attitude was that things will probably go ahead and it’s better to be on the inside, getting another path alongside. Is that a fair perception?
ps the politically correct term is City Rail Link (loop is almost pejorative in this context!).
Hi Non-Motorist – I have only been briefly involved with CAA so far, but at the last associates’ meeting I attended there was a representative from Walk Auckland present. We generally agreed there was a lot of common ground and that we stood a much better chance of getting good outcomes for non-motorists generally from working together – eg, from pushing for proper space for both cyclists and pedestrians when new projects are mooted, rather than defaulting to low-cost, low-quality “shared” paths where all we get is a white line down a footpath (and less space for everybody).
So there is definitely an awareness that CAA should be allied with these groups. I suspect that it will be a matter of conscious effort to reach out and include those allies, but the same is true for pretty much any organisation that advocates in a particular area, I think.
I wouldn’t under-estimate the power of incremental improvements either, much as they seem to frustrate you as an approach. If we had some kind of endowment to let a thousand sustainable transport activists work fulltime, maybe we could lobby the authorities hard enough to make it all happen at once – but back in reality we can see that incremental improvements can unleash a surprising amount of latent demand, which (to be honest) is always going to have more impact on decision makers than a small group calling for a totally Copenhagenised city right now.
Just my two cents.
Sam,
Regarding Walk Auckland and other groups, that’s great to hear. My question to Max was sincere, and this is the kind of answer I was hoping for.
I have nothing against incremental improvements by themselves. But especially given the resource-constrained nature of advocacy (and, frankly, government services) it is all the more important to get our priorities right. Incremental improvements are nice to have, but there are other more fundamental things that we need to have.
Besides that, it is also very important that when we get something out of AT/NZTA, it is the right thing for the situation and not some misled handout to placate us (e.g. the wayward Grafton Gully cycleway which neglects Symonds Street and Ian McKinnon Drive).
And if it isn’t good enough, we ought to say it, and potentially campaign on it as resources allow.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that respecting what are essentially human rights (see relevant Bills and Declarations) is a change that lies beyond the realm of reality. Nevertheless, I am not advocating for Copenhagen overnight, but I am not prepared to settle for scraps for five, ten or twenty years — if I should even live that long riding a bike.
hi Non-Motorist. It seems like you are really passionate about these issues and want to make change which is great.
Some suggestions for how to bring about positive change, based on my own experience as an activist over the last 10 years. 1) you could join CAA and volunteer for their committee and try to make the changes in their direction you obviously want to see. Obviously, all volunteer work involves compromise so you’ll have to negotiate those outcomes with the rest of the CAA committee but I am sure they would welcome your help. 2) start a new group to advocate for cycling in Auckland that takes a more adversarial approach to creating change than CAA, 3) get involved with a group like Smart Transport that is taking a more holistic approach to promoting sustainable transport and human centered urban design across a range of modes. I am sure Silvia and Tim would welcome your assistance.
Just some ideas to help you get started.
Thanks for the advice, Lucy.
I would characterise my proposed approach as “visionary” on the positive side, and “rigorous” on the negative issues, but not “adversarial”.
In fact, the us-and-them fire is one that CAA keeps stoking, albeit inconsistently, whereas I believe motorists are also victims of context, who sadly treat each other quite poorly too. I am not a motorist and never will be, but I can empathize.
For example, this blog recently posed a question about mandatory cycling training for those darn car drivers; Barbara Cuthbert couldn’t decide whether the car driver involved in Bishop’s tragic death should be charged for a crime or not; and Max figures “ruthless drivers” are the danger on Triangle Rd. I could go on, but one example stands out:
Among the recent wave of media attention about cycling, the bottom-line message coming from CAA and CAN was a schoolmarmish call for courtesy, sharing the blame for not sharing “the road” — no mention of asymmetrically unsympathetic urban design, disadvantaging humans in public spaces, writ in concrete and asphalt if not laws and by-laws.
A new group? If it comes to that, sure. I still have some hope for CAA, for now. I could not justify it if I hadn’t first raised my concerns with CAA. Anyway, there are obvious disadvantages to splitting our efforts, but if it proves to be the best course of action for substantive progress, so be it.