I agree – 4.5m won’t do, need absolute 5m min (city plan) and preferably 5.4m. Some big vehicles are round 5.4m. See https://districtplan.ccc.govt.nz/pages/plan/book.aspx?exhibit=DistrictPlan for some examples. Angled parking is good- 30 degrees is usually a good balance

Thank you for the clarification on length. It is a better plan than what is on offer and makes clear what a bad job has been done.

The 3m wide bidirectional path is not great, the Cycle Design Guidelines would call for at least 4m in a far less congested setting.

The 2.5m wide footpath would be challenging for those on crutches, in wheelchairs, etc. Given how frequently we are told to slow down, this width would achieve that for pedestrians.

CERA/Otakaro were aware that the Accessible City Plan had designed a massive pinch point here and failed to respond in a timely fashion.

Providing a separated east bound cycle path on the south side of Tuam would also go a long ways to relieving congestion from Oxford Tce.

Yes, confident cyclists will no doubt risk the wrath of the general public and bus users by attempting to share Tuam Street with our bus system and one way traffic. Sadly this will do little to get more people on bikes , more often. This whole project sends out completely the wrong message; namely that cycling is not seen as a valid transport option , that on occasion it DOES require some priority in order to be attractive and safe. Also to enable high capacity and efficient movement of people in a small amount of space. It also tells pedestrians , however old or infirm they may be , that in the scheme of things that they do not matter too much either.

The bi-directional cycleway width is marginal but the footpath width could be 2.5m and the cycleway width 3m, instead of the other way round- or as Robert mentions above, reduce the planter width. The 4.5m parking is measured on the short side of the bay- the long side measures 6.2m which is 0.8m longer than required in this guide for accessible parking (see p14)
http://nzrf.co.nz/techdocs/Accessible-Parking-Guide.pdf
At 3.5m the roadway is significantly wider than required so could cope with overhangs.

However, a 2.5m wide bidirectional path is too narrow for the number of cyclists. 4.5m deep parking is not deep enough for many SUV’s, vans and full size cars. Also needed is to keep the hospital driveway to exit only to minimize conflicts with pedestrians and bikes.

I imagine many confident cyclists will find it easier to deal with the buses and use Tuam Street. Fine, until someone dies.