It took a close encounter with a truck before noticing.

The cycling traffic lights are the same physical size, with the same lamp in behind as a regular car light, but the masq in front limits the light output to somewhere between a quarter and a third of the available light. So its really hard to see, more so given the proximity to the larger signal lights for cars.

Maybe a design thing – the lights on Moorhouse/Colombo don’t show the same disparity in effective brightness.

To clarify, painted on-road cycle lanes are typically 1.5-1.8m wide (depending on adjacent parking or not) because a faster cyclist can always use the adjacent traffic lane to go past. It is separated cycleways that are being generally designed to be wider, because you are typically physically constrained on both sides by kerbing, etc.

I note that the Woolston Park Transport Plan has 1.6m width cycle lanes. Many other plans from Council offer 1.8m width lanes. 2.2m width lanes are rare, even 2m width lanes are not all that common.

Lichfield St / Oxford Tce might be a useful alternative for those from the northwest, but the many heading from Addington and the like may not be so convinced by an extra 200m to go that way to Sth Hagley Park. As noted in other recent posts on this blog, it also sends them through the Hospital Corner area where current plans would have them battling with pedestrians from various directions in a confined space – arguably not a win over St Asaph St.

I’m afraid as a daily user of St Asaph St I would have to disagree that 2m is adequate.
It is a compromise to an already compromised design.
My wife, who fitted the target for these cycle lanes no longer rides into the city after a bad experience on St Asaph st.
However, may I suggest a solution for advocacy?
Rather than continue to argue over St Asaph St, focus advocacy on Lichfield St. It is connected to Ara via High St and Hospital corner by Oxford terrace. It is already a 30kph zone, is not a traffic through route and the traffic that will be there will be slow/queuing for Lichfield st or the Crossing car parks. Turning this into a cycle priority st will only need a few line markings and will bring cyclists, experience and first timers directly into the city centre.
Just a thought.

I was fortunate enough to be one of the 63 people involved in the NZTA cycling Levels survey recently undertaken in CHC, Welly & Auckland.

It involved riding along various different cycleways on an instrument laden bike (mine was called Bart) and then completing a survey on my thoughts on the different types.

The study is now looking for feedback from as many people as possible, here is the link:

https://www.research.net/r/NZcyclistperceptions

Survey closes 30 November.
Now I have to confess I’m regular commuter cyclist and that the only problems I had during the survey was on the separated cycleways – being blocked by a vehicle who pulled out to see the road and then having the cycleway blocked by bins. (I also intensely dislike St Asaph st to the point of finding an alternate route west so I no longer have to use it. Also my wife who is one of those “timid” cyclists that CCC is trying to encourage no longer rides into the city thanks to a bad experience on St Asaph St). So you may wish to encourage others to also have their say. 🙂

Anyway, Hopefully you can promote this to get a wide range of opinions – Survey closes on 30 November and further information can be obtained from Chris Bowie (chris.bowie@opus.co.nz). Opus are carrying this work out for NZTA.

The example shown from Ilam Road is the sort of one sided design that aggravates these issues. To narrow the width needed for pedestrians to cross the road a floating island is provided in the roadway. But only bicycles are sent through the horizontal deflection while the motor vehicle lanes are run straight through. The same (or better) outcomes could have been achieved for pedestrians with a central floating island, with cyclists and motorists both deflected and challenges of motorists cutting the corners are solvable with kerbs if needed.

There is no one size fits all cycling infrastructure, what a family desires for a recreational ride chatting away is a world apart from commuters and they need different infrastructure for their uses. Similar examples from the world of motoring are scenic routes through the country maintained when highways are built, or motor sport facilities. Throughout Australia we see cities with networks of both high speed on road facilities and also recreational path networks away from motor traffic.

Even in the cycling utopia of The Netherlands there is a hierarchy of bicycle paths and routes, just as they do with roads so that local slow speed traffic (and cycling) is separated from faster travelling vehicles on long distance routes. You move from your local street (which has limited or no permeability) to a urban distributor then out onto a highway, and the same thing happens with cycling progressing onto faster and faster infrastructure as distances increase. But that sort of network requires extensive planning and long term support. Just adding compromised cycling infrastructure for the sake of it is not going deliver a functional network that will grow.

I don’t see it as being any different from the numerous ways we expect drivers to moderate their behaviour for the greater good. For example, not driving across that football field simply because it is a shorter distance. Not driving the wrong way up a one-way street just because it is a more direct route. Stopping at traffic lights even when there are no other cars coming. And just because I believe I can safely drive 70kph through a 50 kph zone doesn’t justify me doing so. Cyclists really aren’t being asked to do anything more than what we expect of other road users, which is to moderate our own behaviour for the benefit (and safety) of as many people as possible.