Shared paths really aren’t a great response for anyone, but especially for walkers and cyclists who are put into conflict to save a bit of space in the corridor. Again, it’s hard to see how making it easier to drive over the separators is an improvement for those on bikes compared to the current implementation.īy far the most expensive and most disruptive of the options due to the need to change drainage and kerb lines, this would replace the cycleway with a shared path on the eastern side of the road. Instead of bold down separators, AT suggested the option of in situ separators which could have a different kerb profile with a gentler slope. That just seems like it would make it easier for a wayward driver to mount the kerb and potentially hit a cyclist.Ĭhange the separators – in situ concrete separators. Instead of the existing separators which are about 160-180mm high, this would use lower separators that are about 120mm high. On St Lukes Rd AT just gave up replacing them.Ĭhange the separators – lower profile concrete separators. But if this was anything like those, they’ll pretty quickly start looking dirty and lose any vertical elements such as hit-sticks. This would use rubber separators like those used on St Lukes Rd a few years back. Remove the separators but add traffic calmingĪs the name suggests, this would remove the separators but add traffic calming from interventions like speed bumps at regular intervals to slow speeds down.Ĭhange the separators – rubber separators This would be a cheap solution but might not be all that effective given drivers are already crashing into the barriers and would create noise issues for locals. This would add Audio Tactile Paving, aka rumble strips, to the line outside of the concrete separators. ![]() This scheme actually consists of a number of different options, and aspects of them could be combined, including with other schemes. This would put the road back to the way it was – which given the speeds and how frequently drivers would move into the cycle lanes, is unacceptable from a safety point of view. To address these issues and locals complaints, AT presented five different potential schemes for the future of Upper Harbour Dr – with one scheme having a few different options. ![]() Some will be speed related but they also noted that one of the issues is they’ve left too large gaps between the separators making it easier for vehicles to stray across the edge line and hit the end of a barrier, damaging their vehicle. I attended one of those sessions and if you’re interested, AT filmed them and have put them on their website.ĪT noted that causes of the crashes are not consistent. Image source/credit: Stuff Article by Todd Niall But there have also been issues with the installation due to a number of drivers and even a few cyclists crashing into the barriers. Some of those complaints have been fairly typical anti-cycleway stuff, trying to relitigate their existence despite the lanes existing for about seven years. We’ve already run a number of posts on the topic in recent months, including one two weeks ago which noted that Auckland Transport were running community sessions on the project following complaints about it. This is being rolled out over three years and on the first corridors getting the treatment the installation of concrete barriers has been successful and uneventful with one major exception – Upper Harbour Dr. Our new mayor should love it as it’s a cheap and effective way to expand the network of safe cycleways. One particularly good programme Auckland Transport has underway right now is adding protection to 60km of existing painted cycleways to make them safer.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |