Cycle highways: Why do we build so many of them?
Guest blog by Lucy H.
Yesterday, I did a blog post about the pros and cons of cycling highways. I think it showed that they are a good form of transport investment but they do have their drawbacks as well.
I should probably say right now that I personally love cycling highways. I live near the North-Western and I go for rides along it frequently. I probably wouldn’t do a lot of those rides otherwise (because I dislike riding in heavy traffic) and if I did do them on regional arterials I wouldn’t enjoy them as much.
There is no doubt in my mind that my physical and mental health benefits from living so close to a cycling highway.
Having said that, while cycling highways are great for recreational cycling, I’m still not convinced that they are the most cost-efficient way to get more people cycling for transport, i.e., to get places they need to go.
In fact, I suspect that in many cases, it would probably be a lot more cost-efficient to put cycle lanes onto an existing road. So why is it that we are building a lot of cycling highways in Auckland?
I think it is a result of the following three factors.
- A huge reluctance to take any road space away from cars ever. By their nature, almost all on-road cycle facilities require you to take space away from existing road users. Whether you just paint a cycle lane on the road or you put in a separated cycle way with bollards as in the photo above, you will almost certainly take space from cars. You can do that by narrowing lanes, getting rid of carparks or cutting the number of lanes on the road. Aucklanders and Auckland transport agencies have historically been extremely reluctant to do all three of these things. Let’s not forget – Jane Bishop likely died because Auckland City Council took 5 years to remove a carpark that cyclists pointed out as a hazard in 2006.
- All of our funding goes to state highways. The main reason we keep on building cycle highways next to motorways is probably to do with funding. The government is pouring huge amounts of money into new motorways while allocating only 0.8% of the national transport budget to walking and cycling. That constrains what councils can spend and so the only transport agency with any money to spare for cycling improvements in Auckland is the NZTA. To give them credit, the NZTA in Auckland have also been pretty good about including cycle ways along new motorways. This is why we have built some cycle ways next to highways in really weird places (from a getting more commuters perspective) like Greenhithe or Hillsborough rather than in town centres or villages.
- Auckland has a very high proportion of recreational cyclists. Statistics suggest that at least half, probably more, of the people in Auckland who cycle regularly are doing it for fitness, rather than to get somewhere. Recreational cyclists love cycling highways because they’re long, they’re often quite flat, and they have few lights. Because recreational cyclists make up a big proportion of voters and they give positive feedback on cycling highways that encourages local body politicians to build more of them and so on.
These are all good reasons why we’ve built a lot of cycling highways and we’re planning to build more. But I think it’s a mistake to see these reasons as immutable laws. We know that there are cities overseas (Portland, Copenhagen) which have actually changed these things.
We don’t have to just accept that every time in New Zealand we elect a right wing government (or a left wing one, actually, because Labour didn’t do a whole lot for cycling either) that we will not get any funding for active modes, for 3 or 6 or 9 years.
We don’t have to accept that our transport funding is split up into all these crazy little pots (NZTA, council, local boards) and allocated in a really weird way which has pretty much nothing to do with the merits of projects and everything to do with the whim of the current Minister of Transport.
And we don’t have to accept that Auckland will always be a place where it is impossible to take space on our roads away from cars. In fact, the only way we’ll ever change that paradigm is by not accepting it.
What do you think? Do you think too much funding and effort is going into cycle highways and not enough into on-road cycle lanes? Would you prefer to make Auckland Council push through one really controversial on-road cycling project, rather than two off road cycling highways? Or do you disagree with everything I’ve just said?
Funding, General News, Infrastructure, Off-road paths
| 
Auckland, Funding, General News, Infrastructure, Off-road paths
Fullers (CAA Sponsor)
Themocracy
(Wish and it comes true — I just posted a comment to your previous post asking for your thoughts on this. Missed the update.)
I think this is another fair post, Lucy. Cycle highways have merit, but given where we are in Auckland at present, it seems to come down to a cognitive dissonance about cycling: we (cyclists, potential cyclists, advocates, transport agencies, even governments) basically want more people to cycle, but nobody with a voice wants to shift any sacred cows to get there.
Nipping around the edges with “Quick Wins” is a fine thing from an operational or maintenance perspective, but bold new developments always seem to slide off the street (between front doors) and go bush.
If there are limited resources for cycling to leverage, then surely it becomes even more important that it gets spent in the best possible way: at what point do we say “no, but nice try” to a misguided project and aim to refocus that funding elsewhere?
To answer your questions in the order they appear, Yes, Yes and No.
Cycle highways are nice to ride on and I like them allot – more so than I like riding on on road cycle lanes, but on a very limited budget(which is what we have) to me there is no question which should be the priority.
I’d also guess that it would be much easier later on to secure more money for cycle highways after a good network of on road lanes has demonstrated how popular and effective cycling can be in reducing congestion/creating a healthier population/ saving everyone who does it tons of cash-stress-time / making the city a much nicer place to be-live in etc etc etc.
Can’t help wondering if there is a history where cyclists used to ask for on road bike lanes but got so consistently knocked back that they have given up and gone on to do more of something they where successful in- building cycle highways. But their seems to be a mood for change since the super city so maybe it would be worth asking again.
In any case the coming of the rail loop and other improvements to mass transit systems should see a whole bunch of mini networks linking populations to stations around these be put in. But maybe that’s another discussion.
PS great discussion thanks Lucy and all the other contributors.
I think it should be emphasised again that in fact, the wide majority of cycling projects currently going on or recently completed in Auckland AREN’T cycling highways, but are instead either cycle lanes, shared paths or protected cycle lanes.
What have we currently going on in terms of cycling highways? One Grafton Gully Cycleway, and the Waterview Cycleway. Maybe the Waterfront Boulevard, but I suspect some of the criticism raised about cycling highways in these posts would not apply for the latter.
And the Waterview funding is not even coming out of the tight cycling budget, but being an add-on from the motorway. While the Waterfront Boulevard, again, is ALSO not coming from the cycling budget, but from general Council / Waterfront funding.
So why the presumption by some that our program is skewed? I don’t think it is.
I talked to Lucy about this earlier, but we had to acknowledge that it is very hard to put numbers to the general cycling spend – but it is much easier to point to a specific project like the Grafton Gully Cycleway and, especially if you don’t like it, say “Here’s X million that I think should be used better / elsewhere”.
I think what the comments really show to me is that people are very frustrated that AT / NZTA, while more friendly to cyclists these days, are still unwilling to put cyclists ABOVE car traffic, including by pushing through projects that would require sacrifices of car parks or traffic lanes. Like a protected cycle facility on Queen Street, or Symonds Street.
That is a fair enough frustration, and a boundary that needs to be pushed more in the future. But I don’t think it should make us look down on the awesomeness of a good cycle highway. The fact that the Northwestern is Auckland’s Nr 2 in cycle numbers (below only Tamaki Drive) isn’t an accident.
I broadly agree, Max, and thanks for sharing your perspective. The subtleties are hard to ignore, though.
For NZTA projects associated with motorways, it’s tempting to believe that this is money that would never be available for cycling improvements anyway, and so something is better than nothing. However, I know from experience at the RLTP submissions that AT wants us to account for non-activity-class expenditure in addition to what was projected as a 0.8% budgetary spend for walking and cycling — and they raised the fact that NZTA motorway funding incidentally goes into cycling improvements too. They claimed that cycling benefited from something like 2% or better in the end. And if I recall correctly, to advertise this number more widely was one of their final cycling-related LTP recommendations. Generally in response to many worthy submissions, they simply said there was not enough money to go around for cycling. We can’t let them have it both ways.
Taking a step back, we can ask whether it is right that NZTA should expend resources on cycling in the first place. I’d suggest the answer is yes — but then they ought to take the bull by the horns and independently invest in regional cycling networks on a cycle-appropriate scale and geometry, not just padding motorways where they can get away with it.
Alternatively, perhaps NZTA can instead disburse some form of credit to the local authority with conditions to improve local cycling infrastructure, equal to their proposed spend on motorway-shaped cycle highways.
Slicing the accounts arbitrarily makes it convenient for government agencies to abandon their responsibility to provide the minimum decent thing for all transport users in public space, and that’s unfortunate.
By the way, the theme of my remarks regarding cars is not exactly that cycling should be promoted above using private motor cars, but that the latter should not continue be inequitably promoted to the detriment of every other mode. If you frame the tradeoff as “sacrifices of car parks”, for example, then there is no hope. What we have already sacrificed for that car park is good public space — let’s reclaim it for a better purpose, for everyone — including cyclists, wherever appropriate.
“The subtleties are hard to ignore, though.”
Exactly, non-motorist. If you work with NZTA and Council people a lot, you learn that there’s limits to how far you can push the system at one time.
The stuff you are talking about makes good sense – if we had a different government AND a different legal funding structure. Since we don’t, as advocates we work WITHIN the system, doing our best to get results. Those results won’t be what you’d get in an ideal system that is more logical, and less skewed towards cars and less divided by “patches of influence” (such as why NZTA isn’t building cycleways outside their motorway land).
That’s not to say CAA isn’t working with progressive people in NZTA and Council to help them improve such structures and attendant ways of thought. But we can’t just stop all actual projects until we have changed the frame of the world… I’d rather create a couple of compromise projects – that I can still be very proud of – instead of holding out for perfection.
“Taking a step back, we can ask whether it is right that NZTA should expend resources on cycling in the first place. I’d suggest the answer is yes — but then they ought to take the bull by the horns and independently invest in regional cycling networks on a cycle-appropriate scale and geometry, not just padding motorways where they can get away with it.”
I don’t think you could expect NZTA to do this. It is just not anywhere in their legislative mandate right now.
“I’d also guess that it would be much easier later on to secure more money for cycle highways after a good network of on road lanes has demonstrated how popular and effective cycling can be in reducing congestion/creating a healthier population/ saving everyone who does it tons of cash-stress-time / making the city a much nicer place to be-live in etc etc etc.”
Alan – I think this is basically the crux of the matter. The logic of biulding cycling highways is that they are one of the only types of infrastructure we CAN progress right now in the current funding/legislative system. So we should just get on with it, build them, lift cycling numbers and create the momentum we need to start getting more on road cycling lanes.
I kind of agree this with to a certain extent. I don’t think it’s an either or – I think we need to build on road AND off road cycling lanes. And as Max points out that is currently happening. I guess I would just like to see maybe a little more emphasis being put on the on-road cycling projects. OF course, if i want that to happen it’s my responsibility to get invovled in advocacy. Which I do hope to do at some time in the future, although not right now as I have no time. And on that note, back to work!
I would like this city to hire a Dutch traffic planner or equivalent to go right over the entire map and totally recast all of Auckland’s roads to the equivalent of what they would look like if this was Holland. That means cycle paths everywhere, and probably space for light rail so far as population densities allow. I want to see a big vision and a master plan to work towards. The current approach is just piecemeal. We need something revolutionary.
Except that Holland’s “cycle paths everywhere” where not built by a revolution, but by gradual, piece-meal improvement.
Similarly, Copenhagen’s wonderful cycle network, and Portland – as was clarified by Jan Gehl, the best known Copenhagen urbanist, and Jan Geller, Portland’s bicycle coordinator.
Progress is a succession of smaller steps. Every generation (heck, every couple years), we recast our plans of what type of city we want, built some parts of that plan, then say “we really need to re-think this – this isn’t radical enough [to fit the nwest thinking]” and do a new plan. Auckland HAS consistent plans for a great cycle network. We just haven’t implemented them yet, and never will in one fell swoop. What we need to do is keep pushing for key parts, and more key parts, and more key parts, to be added, and done, and to the highest standard that we can get away with.
Max, your point about how progress happens (“a succession of smaller steps”) is not wrong, but unless there is a shared vision or goal (my point), progress will stutter. Something revolutionary did happen in Holland in the mid 1970s, as documented widely online (e.g., “How the Dutch got their cycling infrastructure” etc). Of course it happened step by step, but not piecemeal and not without vision. These Auckland plans of which you speak — they need more profile. They need to be normalised. Maybe via this website for a start. Ultimately perhaps by projecting them onto the front of every citizen’s Google glasses.
I’ll have a view at the video you recommended later today. And I don’t want to dismiss your correct comments – maybe I just got a bit knee-jerk tired and defensive in my response when I heard yet another person calling for “a revolution”.
Too often, those comments come from – no offense intended – people who have NOT spent years and years trying to make very slow, ponderous government thinking and funding systems change course for the better. Of course I would like revolutionary change too.
But being human and of limited number, advocates in NZ have so far achieved “only” incremental improvements – and we are quite proud of those, because we know how much effort was behind achieving just those few initial steps. Maybe one day they will call them the start of a revolution. That would be a great legacy. Right now, we spend most of our time in the present and 1-3 years out, because that’s where the decisions will be made. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have plans for how the city should look like in 10-20 years. But if we don’t achieve interim improvements, all the fine plans remain just that – plans.
Thanks Max, and I can see where you are coming from. Every inch of cycle track has been hard won and CAA deserve full credit for this. The thing I liked about Holland was that people made the connection to child welfare and the movement got mass support. Road safety is such a collective blind spot in our society. Quite apart from the health benefits of exercise. Keep up the good work!
I think it is just a fact that building any kind of infrastructure in or around the CBD is going to be expensive – road or otherwise. As for other cycling projects, it is very encouraging how many things are being done, especially when you consider that many would have been unfathomable just 5 years ago. The ‘project greenways’ route appears to be just one of the kind of ‘piece meal’ programs that could make a big difference to how we get around in Auckland. Personally, my favourite part of the NW cycleway is up past (through?) Unitec. No traffic, lots of trees and an interesting outlook.
I have just watched a linked video about the Dutch city of Houten. The main point I took from that is the linked greenbelts through the city. What would it take I wonder for Auckland Council to buy properties as they become available to link existing parks together. A 5 to 10m wide corridor, linking parks, around and through Auckland would be pretty cool. I would even advocate for a swap type of system where parts of existing parks that are not really used and are ‘just there’, could be developed in order to provide income. I would love to live where one side of my property backed on to a cycleway / reserve and the other on to a road. This is a pipe dream of course but it would be cool and I am sure parts of it could be done quite easily. Just from looking in my own neighbourhood there are quite a few parks that don’t quite link together, and if they did would provide a fantastic opportunity for people to get away for walks and rides without having to share with vehicular traffic.
Hi Bryce – as you yourself mentioned, the Greenways project* is attempting to do something like that – though property prices are so high that many of the links between parks may have to be high-quality on-road links.
*Though when talking of Greenways there’s currently two main things – the original scheme by the Greenways community group, and the same-name project by the Puketapapa Local Board, who use the moniker for a similar project in their board area. CAA had some posts on the project on this website in the past, just google it, it is very promising stuff.
Max, thanks for your comments clarifying the balance of funding between the two forms. Also for your comment…
‘I think what the comments really show to me is that people are very frustrated that AT / NZTA, while more friendly to cyclists these days, are still unwilling to put cyclists ABOVE car traffic, including by pushing through projects that would require sacrifices of car parks or traffic lanes.’
Hit the nail on the head! Then to use use another pertinent phrase, give me an inch and I’ll take a mile.
Maybe a tactical approach to getting the ball rolling on getting some of those ‘sacrifices of car parks and traffic lanes’ that Max mentions could be to start with removing the short areas in between existing cycle lanes. To use an example of an area I know their is a approx 50m gap between the wonderful newly improved lanes toward the city end of Dominion Rd/IanMckinenn and the hill down to eden valley shops.
I do feel that under Mayor Len Brown CAAs efforts are far more likely to be receive a positive response than if John Banks had become Mayor(can you imagine what a nightmare that would have been). I really hope that this is something that will be capitalised on to the absolute maximum before/if the pendulum swings back the other way.
“Auckland HAS consistent plans for a great cycle network.” It would be great to see those plans posted here (apologies if my limited search missed them), maybe under Key Projects > “The Works” (Master Plan for Total Transformation of Cycle Infrastructure in This City).
Hi George
To clarify (and then we can discuss what can be improved on them). When I said that, I basically refered to several things:
- Auckland has the Regional Cycle Network (most up to date one is here)
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/plans-proposals/ActiveTravel/Pages/Auckland-Regional-Cycle-Network.aspx
The RCN is a very great tool, but it has a number of inaccuracies (which Auckland Transport is currently in the process of fixing) and it does say little about WHAT we will build on these routes.
- Auckland has both NZ-wide guidelines (such as the Austroad’s design guidelines) and local guidelines for how to build good cycle facilities (and yes, that includes “the good stuff”, i.e. cycle lanes with protective kerbing, and so on). Auckland’s own guidelines are currently being developed, and CAA has been involved – but they are not ready for public viewing yet.
- Auckland Transport is currently taking both these elements (the existing planning map, and the various design guidance available) and developing a new planning tool that will supersede the old-style approach that was inconsistent due to being split up between the various legacy Councils and the Regional Council and NZTA, and because no-one of all these could agree what a “regional cycle route” actually meant in terms of minimum quality (or even, what type users it was for).
From that process, we hope we will get something that is both visionary (in showing how things can become) as well as practical – setting out what we start with and what we aim for.
Sorry if the answer “we have such plans” is a bit more complex than you expected. Maybe a good example of my “plans constantly evolve” comment.
As an example, by 2020, the intention in the Auckland Plan is to have completed 70% of the cycle network. However, I think it is quite realistic that by then we will realise that some of the stuff we considered OK in 2012 could still be a lot better, so we’ll have to go back and consider some parts again. That’s what I meant with “piece-meal” – I didn’t mean “not having a plan to follow” I meant “any plan has to be constantly updated”.
Thank you Max for that comprehensive response. I will bookmark the ARCN page. For my sins I’m up to date with CAA subs and been to exactly one meeting (a few years back) and put in a Regional Plan submission.
As daily cycle commuters we (me, my wife, and our kids) greatly value the work you do, including your attention to the comments on this website. Thanks again!
That’s okay – everyone’s involvement goes up and down according to their interest and amount of time available. That’s the case for both our committee members and friends as well as the general cycling public. And by riding regularly in the whole family, you are doing cycling a great service already