Comments on: What can Christchurch learn from The Netherlands?

By: Vincent

Vincent — Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:04:29 +0000

LennyBoy > Fairly casual behaviour by many riders because (like cars in many other countries) they are often the “dominant species”. So lots of cellphone use while riding (which is legal here BTW) and ignoring of red lights, pedestrian crossings, and so on (although generally manoeuvring to avoid hitting anyone). Not sure if you can fix that one; it is human nature

And even then: ½mv²

By: FrankThuis

FrankThuis — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:09:21 +0000

You are probably already aware of this, but the construction of Delft railway station you mentioned was finished last summer. You can read about it here:
https://goo.gl/GkAu7J

By: Koen

Koen — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:26:27 +0000

In reply to Guest.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/junction-design-in-the-netherlands/

By: LennyBoy

LennyBoy — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 01:32:03 +0000

In reply to Will.

We’ve covered this elsewhere: http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2014/02/23/are-the-chch-cycle-design-guidelines-up-to-scratch/

By: Will

Will — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:53:39 +0000

Please check this: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/02/christchurch-new-zealand-cycle-design.html

By: LennyBoy

LennyBoy — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 01:53:59 +0000

In reply to Guest. Certainly poorly-designed pedestrian bulb-outs can create a cycling pinch-point, but even best-practice design in NZ recommends a minimum of 4m (and pref. 4.5m) per lane when extending the kerb out into the road for peds. Short answer for the Netherlands is generally no, because either (a) the cycleway is separated and so the bikes would go behind the pedestrian bulb-out, or (b) the street is so quiet (low volume/speed) that no pedestrian bulb-out is even required.

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 20:11:57 +0000

Do the Dutch have pedestrian bulb-outs? They can be painful for cyclists.
( example: https://ladotbikeblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/snapshot-2011-01-20-11-52-16.jpg )

By: willandrewsdesign

willandrewsdesign — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:02:02 +0000

Awesome, cogent analysis Glen! Useful clear photos too. Have only cycled in Holland a little, but I agree with you a million percent! My 2 cents worth is about Culture-
Seeing the mix of nationalities at VéloCity Adelaide in 2014 revealed a huge cultural difference between the delegates & speakers from high-cycling-share European countries and more car-dominated countries like NZ. Taking out a parking space, for example, wasn’t an issue to those Europeans, but the Aussie and Kiwi mayors (and Irish politicians I know!) would quiver at the thought of the backlash and loss of votes. And, judging by Nelson’s experience, they’re not wrong!
You touch on this, under ‘priority of safety over efficiency’.
Car dependent thinking (‘transport = car, door-to-door car journeys are normal & must be facilitated’) can change, but we must think carefully about it and act cleverly if it’s to change.
Comparisons about infrastructure, regulations and road use patterns need to be set alongside the cultural context -which feeds the political actions.
OK difficult for a city to change such nebulous factors, but each city has its own way of doing things, its own atmosphere, and no reason Christchurch can’t become a leader!
On another point, I reckon making a good-sized 30km/h zone in Christchurch will be a big symbolic change, not just in Christchurch but nationally. A big difference from just designating a few streets, like in Wellington. Just a pity the original plan to change to two-way streets wasn’t respected.
OK stopping now. Thanks!

By: Ben Ross - Talking Auckland

Ben Ross - Talking Auckland — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:30:13 +0000

Reblogged this on Talking Southern Auckland and commented:

Something has been bugging me since Minister Simon Bridges announced the Urban Cycleway Fund. Where the money is going Auckland wise, i.e the Auckland Isthmus.

Now to be fair looking at the maps that came out from the announcement there are “plans” to fund more cycleway infrastructure across the rest of the City except Southern Auckland (apart from the Southern Motorway).

So it came to me why is Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, and the Government dithering on cycling infrastructure in an area of Auckland (the South) that has high social deprivation?

The South needs all the help it can get (through infrastructure and encouragement rather than the punitive BIG STICK like Sugar Taxes) and for the most part we have the basics to a cycling network down here. The problem is that it is very fragmented thus not well connected. Our roads are not that much better either and that could be in part to both bad planning and the fact we house four of the five heavy industrial complexes (so we generate a lot of freight traffic).

However, Southern Auckland has a lot of urban and rural beauty that you can not find on the Isthmus as well. Also as we know most commutes generated are within five kilometres from home (so local).

So where does this lead us to?

A very large area of Auckland that sadly does have high social deprivation but also have remarkable positive geographic qualities not really being focused on in terms of active transport investment.

What makes the situation even more bizarre to downright frustrating is that South Auckland is first off the rank for the New Bus Network next year. So we get a new public transport network but missing a connected complementary active transport network.

Something smells here folks it really does.

I wonder why the South is not the focus of more cash to build more active transport infrastructure to complement the incoming public transport infrastructure.

I hope the reason isn’t due to class and elitism from the Isthmus……

By: Jan

Jan — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:48:02 +0000

Watch the fraffic flow on this life webcam at a roundabout in Purmerend (Netherlands).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1agHAa6eG8