Another cycle lane option on table

Up to $4.5 million may be spent on a new cycle system in central Dunedin.

The Dunedin City Council and New Zealand Transport Agency have developed a third option for a separated cycle lane along the city's two one-way streets which form part of State Highway 1.

If the council endorses further development of the options, each will be considered as business cases and one could then be chosen.

The council's infrastructure services committee will decide on Tuesday whether to push ahead with the project, enabling the NZTA to fund analysis of each option.

NZTA projects team manager Simon Underwood said analysis would cost between $80,000 and $100,000.

Construction of a new cycle system would cost $3.5million-$4.5million, he said.

Final costs and how they would be shared between the NZTA and DCC would be known later.

''Until now, we've looked at the functionality of separated cycle-lane options and sought feedback,'' Mr Underwood said.

''The business case analysis goes into a lot more detail about landscaping and streetscaping, core engineering such as pavement construction, traffic operations and a whole lot of other aspects.''

The main project development work will be led by the NZTA and concurrently the DCC will develop a parking management plan.''

It was estimated alternative parking would cost the council $270,000-$350,000.

Mr Underwood said the business case for each option could be reported to the council's infrastructure services committee in about 12 months.

Construction of an approved option could start mid to late 2015 ''at the earliest'', Mr Underwood said.

He did not know yet how long construction would take, but said it would be staged and designed to minimise traffic disruption.

The council and NZTA received more than 2000 submissions, as well as hundreds of survey responses, on proposals to improve the cycle network.

They developed the third option to better combine many of the submitters' wants and needs.

Cyclist fatalities and serious crashes on SH1 in central Dunedin sparked a widespread public call for improvement, prompting the council and NZTA to investigate options.

There was overwhelming support for a separate cycle lane.

rosie.manins@odt.co.nz

That someone would be the DCC

I know this for certain as i was one of those involved with noting down every rego of vehicles in every park. I know nothing of counting bikes but this could have been given to one of the other employment agencies.

Interesting what different people notice

I saw people counting bikes.

Speedfreak saw people counting carparks.

Looks like someone might be collecting some fairly comprehensive data.

Survey

tw, The survey in Jan/feb was on carpark occupancy on the one way street systems. It was also done again a few weeks ago to note the difference when students returned. The occupancy was checked 5 times a day at approx 9 and 11am and 1,3 and 5pm.

And Cavlin is right as the DCC is only interested in a cycle lane on the one way as then the LTA will foot some of the bill. We all know that the ratepayers/DCC can't afford to do it by ourselves. 

Tunnel vision repeats

As a supporter of increased separation of cyclists and heavy traffic, the SH1 option is totally ludicrous in that cyclists are still exposed to heavy traffic at intersections.

That aside, Calvin Oaten has exposed the DCC as not having learnt anything from the typoe myopic deciusion making that gave us the stadium disaster.

LTSA + Jim Harland + DCC + over zealous city councillors = poor decision making. 

Real data 2

Griswold - I haven't seen the data published yet, but there were plenty of people counting bikes out on the street for multiple days over late Jan/early Feb.

Can't comment on the survey rigour as yet, though it seems likely to to be lower than during semester time, but perhaps higher than in mid-winter. In other cities, they have induction loops in cycle lanes to count bikes, to get a more accurate year round picture.

Claytons Survey

Simon Underwood claiming the high ground for the SH1 cycle ways option is specious to say the least. If one looks at the surveys we see that there were just 883 responses. Hardly out of the margin of error zone out of some 120,000 residents. Still, we have to give credit to the Spokes organisation as they responded fullsomely. But the survey was a 'claytons' at best. Basically there were two options up for consideration, both on SH1. There was absolutely no alternatives (and I know for a fact there were several off SH1) considered in the outcome whatsoever. The whole business is cut and dried between the DCC and the LTA, has been from the start. This so called consultation process is just a charade. I predict that when it is all in place the frustrations for vehicular traffic  and the cyclists will remain, and the worst part is that the accident instances will still happen with a percentage of fatalities. It is inevitable. Tunnel vision can be a powerful affliction.

One-way system cycle lanes

If seeking information on these proposals, there are a number of reports now available through this web-link covering: the why, options considered, consultation feedback received, response to feedback received - including alternatives, the additional cycle lane option, parking and cycle survey information.  

 

Real data

Scarfie, since I haven't been able to find them, perhaps you could provide the links (or contact addresses) for the "tallies" that you claim have been done. Then we can check them for sample size, temporal frame, representativeness, survey rigour and all of the other prerequisites that distinguish real research from write-in propaganda campaigns and unsupported assertions of numbers, such as yours.

Never again

If the NZTA had a clue dont you think they would have used it long ago? Maybe even when these roads where made? Ask them to resurface something. Fine. But redesign? Hmm what is wrong with the plan they came up with 30 years ago? Got a problem? Not listening. Need to feel safer on the road? Put in a quick fix which makes the problem even worse. Moving on. Got to go put the road back in the same place from where it was washed off the hill killing two tourists. It will never happen again.

Call off the NIMBY brigade

There's a lot of huffing and puffing here but the facts seem few and far between. Thankfully the DCC/NZTA working group has done actual measurements/tallies for the number of cyclists using the SH1 route. They are not relying on cycle advocate submissions nor are they relying on the sandy ostrich vision of you anti-cyclist internet warriors who somehow seem to never see the hundreds of cyclists that ride this route almost every day, myself included. Apparently you want us off of the SH1 yet not one of you non-cyclists knows where to put us. Perhaps you'd be willing to give up space for a protected cycleway on George Street instead? Didn't think so.

I commute on the SH1 via bike several times a day everyday save for when there's torrential rainfall. It has more than its fair share of cycle traffic and in terms of motorists, more often than not it's far less than a rushing throng of stock trucks and race cars you all seem to suggest. The biggest danger for cyclists on this stretch and in Dunedin in general is the ignorance of drivers opening their doors into traffic. I experience careless people opening their doors into my path along the cycle lane on almost a daily basis. Putting a barrier between their obliviousness and my safety is in both our best interests as they can potentially (and rightfully) be criminally charged for their reckless behaviour.

If you are really for speeding up traffic along the SH1 you should be in favour of a separated cycle lane that keeps cyclists out of the general traffic, where we are entitled to be as necessary, and that removes as many parks along the way as possible - idiots pulling in and out of parks and cutting off the flow through traffic are the only threat to the through traffic that I can really see on this route. These protected lanes are in the best interests of both the stock trucks, the cyclists and the clueless and potentially criminal motorists who like to pop out of their vehicles at the worst possible moments and without as much as a glance in their mirror. So what are you lot complaining about again?

No alternatives

Calvin, the fact that the driver didn't see them doesn't make it any less their fault. The drivers were charged in court. You also missed out the bit about the drver opening their door into the cyclist. I'm assuming you mean Anzac Avenue when you say fire station, which was a truck going through a stop a sign without stopping.
There are no alternatives to the one way system. There are only two routes that go north/south in Dunedin - the one ways, and the even more dangerous George St. Where are these quiet alternative streets everyone is talking about? [Abridged]

Predictable and preventable

Calvin, yes it seems fair to say that in 100% of Dunedin's recent fatalities the cyclists were not at fault (besides even if some cyclists had been at fault that shouldn't affect the risk I'm exposed to; ignorance indeed). 

Looking at most of our fatal cyclist accidents seems fairly evident to me that the road design is a significantly large contributor to why cyclists are needlessly be killed in Dunedin. 

These deaths are largely predictable and preventable. I don't know the best solution, but I can safely say it needs to be different to what we do now, and usable by cyclists. 

Facts man

Riley Baker: You state that in 100% of cyclist fatlities the driver was at fault. Not true. The fire station corner was a turning truck-trailer unit which the cyclist was unfortunately caught in a receding space. The driver was unsighted and unaware of the cyclist. Perhaps 50 -50 here. The Gt King St event several years ago was the cyclist swerving to avoid an opening door of a parked vehicle put him under the wheels of the truck -trailer, the driver being totally unaware of the event travelled on. The most recent last July was a replica of the second.  Now that is the truth, and if ever there was shown the need for cyclists not to be on SH1 then those events prove it. But we will see this nonsense carried on with and there will be more fatalities, you can bet on it.You are right however, when you state that the level of ignorance in these comments is amazing.

Pantechnicon alley

Absolutely. SH1 is not a Motorway. The 'Spokes' Secretary told Rebecca Meek on Dunedin39 that motor vehicles use the cycle lanes at times. Dont give an inch, then. The 'Last ot the Summer Wine Club'

sick of cycleway debate

So sick of hearing about cycleways. A trifling issue compared to the stadium disaster, city debt and the Delta land scandal which the Auditor General has glossed over with no recommendations for reform or accountability.

I felt the same about John Wilson Drive. 

Easy: Remove SH1

I agree that a state highway and bicycles are not a good mix. The bikes don't really have other options to go due to their given route and the lay of the land. Thus it is very obvious that SH1 needs to go. It is a state highway not a city highway for a good reason. So relocate it so it bypasses our town centre!

outside the box

Ok, so why doesn't the DCC & NZTA look at relocating SH1, where else do you have a state highway running right through a city?

This option would remove all the traffic lights, and give those no wanting to stop off and smell the roses the option to just miss the place out all together, simplez

Risk on purpose

I would suggest that oxygendebt's contribution to this debate is a result of such a nom de plume on the part of the contributor.  Of course SH1 is a designation, but it is such to effectively route traffic from north to south and vice versa through a very narrow band of available land.  There are thousands and thousands of trucks, cars and motorbikes that use these roads on a daily basis and very few cycles.  That is a FACT and not an opinion. 

Why on earth do you want to put your life at risk on purpose?  Cycling has a place in Dunedin, but for sure it isn't on SH1.  Start getting a grip and advocating for some decent cycle lanes on alternative quieter routes and you will get a supporter from those that aren't zealots.

The logic

There are a large number of head-on vehicle collisions on our rural highways resulting from ill-fated passing manoeuvres. But the solution to this problem is not to ban motor vehicles from the highway or tell people to take some circuitous quiet back street that doesn't actually take them where they need to go. Rather, the solution is to address the problem by putting in wider shoulders and more passing lanes, and where possible to put a physical barrier between traffic moving in opposite directions.
In the same vein, the successful solution for cycling will address the problem where it lies even if it isn't your preferred mode of transportation.
Russandbev evidently want Dunedin to be nothing more than a sewer through which to flush traffic as efficiently as possible. But that isn't why those roads exist (they existed before cars), and I for one don't want to live in a sewer.
"SH1" is nothing more than a designation on paper. The reality of SH1 is something else: it is offices and apartments; it is museums and a university with more than 20,000 staff and students wandering around by foot and bicycle; it is the location of a large percentage of our heritage buildings including the rail station; on some blocks it is actually largely residential with both university colleges and detached houses. These are active, living places that include some of our most important destinations both for residents and tourists.
The reality is that SH1 in Dunedin is not a motorway! Given that reality and the fact that SH1 is the only sufficiently wide route in town to accommodate proper cycle lanes, the question is not 'why would you put cycle lanes there?', the question is 'why would you put them anywhere else?'

For goodness sake, see some logic

Jeremy Clarkson recently on one of his Top Gear programmes examined the role of cyclists in London - a city that has a great deal more traffic problems than Dunedin.  The programme is worth watching for its tongue in cheek approach to the issue of mixing cycles and motorised vehicles on the road.

Of course the first option should be to remove cyclists from SH1.  This decision shouldn't warrant more than a minute's consideration.  My only conclusion to be drawn for an alternate plan is that the proponents must be on some sort of medication that renders them incapable of logical thought.  SH1 exists as an efficient carrier of large volumes of traffic, much of which is heavy.  These vehicles are deadly to cyclists, and the first thing I'd be doing if I insisted on riding my bicycle through Dunedin would be to do so on a quiet street.  Insisting on using SH1 is like insisting on walking in front of the targets on a firing range.

Hell-bent

Why the people advocating designated lanes for "safe" cycling are 'hell-bent' on placing them on SH1 beggars understanding. That is where the fatalities have occurred which brought about the need in the first place. Remove cycles from these main routes forthwith and the problem is reduced straight away. Common sense? It is not as if there were no alternatives available. These have been suggested by many but the powers-that-be are totally deaf to all. The costs could be substantially reduced, the parking left as is, the cyclists still able to get to their destinations. Worse, the fatalities will, by the laws of probability still happen. What then?

Ridiculous

The level of ignorance in these comments is amazing. To say cyclists dont pay a cent is ridiculous; since when are bikes tax-free and since when did cylists not have to pay income tax or rates?

I'm also not sure what you think a bicycle is, but I have not yet seen one that takes up the same amount of space on the road as a car. In fact, I could probably park eight of my bikes in the space taken by an average car. Most cycleways are also only one third the width of normal lane.


"There was overwhelming support for a separate cycle lane."

This is most likley refering to the ODT survey in which it was two to one in favour of the cycleways which had a sample size of over 3000 people from memory.  Your claim that cyclists rarely obey road rules is equally ridiculous. I could point out for one that in 100% of cyclist fatalities in Dunedin, the driver was at fault and the one not obeying road rules, not the cyclists. If you where to stand at any busy peice of road in Dunedin you would see that car drivers have no place calling anyone out on breaking road rules.

For your hard data the DCC has conducted surveys of the current cycleways at multiple times, at differnt times of the day etc. All the basic research has already been done, this process on the cycleways has already been going on for nearly a year. 

Flawed reason

There's a couple of false assumptions in your "reason".

Firstly,  you seem to be sugesting that all cyclists do not deserve protection because some don't follow road rules.  Ignoring your chlidish reasoning that all cyclists deserve to be exposed to risk based on the behaviour of others, obeying the rules of the road doesn't make a blind bit of difference to a law abiding cyclist that is fatally hit by a car.

How would you justify your stance to the mother of a law-abiding child cyclist crushed by a truck because of our poorly designed roads that see such things happen? 

Secondly, you're quite wrong when you say cyclists pay nothing towards roads. Roads are created and maintained not only by vehicle related taxes, but also from local rates and from the government's general fund which all people pay into.

Further, you're making a wild assumption that all cyclists are not also car owners. I own 8 vehicles so there's a good chance that I pay more than you do towards roads, yet you're incorrectly asserting that I don't pay my way as a cyclist. Clearly that's rubbish. 

 

 

Hard data

I may have missed it, but the only 'survey' data that I can find is by self-selected cycling advocates and their anti-oil, anti-car friends swamping the submission process in a well-organised write-in campaign.

Until we have a professionally conducted neutral set of surveys, there is nothing beyond activist advocacy and anecdote to justify the large sums of money being set aside for cycling.

At the least we need to know, on a scientifically robust basis, how many people are cycling from where to where, when (by hour, day and season) and for what purpose. Then we need to know if the mythical hordes who apparently will flood onto cyclist-only lanes really exist. Assertions carry no weight in this.

No business would ever develop a 'business case' at this level of expenditure without this kind of basic research. It may exist, and if it does, we need to know where to see it and peer-review it. If it doesn't, then it needs to be conducted long before 'business cases', and certainly decisions, are even thought about.

Reason is Right

What an appalling waste of money is being proposed.

Cyclists should understand that if they compete with cars they may confidently expect to become involved in an accident. Bicycles move slowly, they occupy a full road space, they are difficult to see, and they offer no physical protection to riders in an accident.

At the same time, cyclists rarely obey the rules of the road - they weave between cars at lights, turn against lights, and do not indicate manoeuvres. Any of which would bring a fine if done on a motorcycle.

And, for all the money spent on protecting cyclists, they pay not a penny.

Maybe motorists should compain about the transgressions of cyclists. But, without a form of identification, like a registration plate, on the cycles it is all but impossible. I wonder how many cyclists have been booked by the Police in the recent past for the numerous offences cyclists commit daily? Not many, I suggest. If they did the community would hear the squeals loud and clear.

Woe betide any motorist who tangles with a cyclist: the Police will pursue you. The assumption is always that the motorist is in the wrong.

It is amazing what a noisy minority can seek and obtain from a compliant and gutless authority.

Answers needed

Why only three options? Why not four? Completely remove the lane from SH1 to a more suitable traffic area.

The author states "Cyclist fatalities and serious crashes on SH1 in central Dunedin sparked a widespread public call for improvement, prompting the council and NZTA to investigate options."

There were two isolated (albeit tragic in their own right) incidents that have been played out to the public for pushing the agenda of a few individuals. Both were a direct result of the decision of past councils to locate the existing cycle lanes on a main arterial route. If you want to avoid more incidents then the only real option is to put the lanes where cyclists are subjected to the least exposure to danger (ie. not a highway).

Also stated "There was overwhelming support for a separate cycle lane."

Can we be given the basis for this statement? Because as far as I have seen it appears to be driven by a few Councilors and a vocal minority of cycling advocates driven by their own personal interest in the project.

Finally the question must be asked, could the projected $3.5 to $4.5 million be better spent on other roading infrastructure projects that would be to the benefit of the majority of the public? The state of many of the roads in Dunedin is now atrocious with poor surfacing and potholes. Surely this is of more importance to our image as a city?

ODT/directory - Local Businesses

CompanyLocationBusiness Type
Elm Lodge & BackpackerDunedinBackpackers
Travel ManagersDunedinTravel Agents
SOLE 2 SOLEQueenstownFootwear
Timeless TilesDunedinHome Furnishings