Have your Say on the Park Terrace Cycleway

As was posted last week, there is a new pop-up cycleway installed along Rolleston Ave and Park Tce next to Hagley Park. The main motivation was to alleviate active mode travel congestion while the museum is being redeveloped, but the opportunity was also taken to extend the cycleway further north to improve safety there as well.

The new cycleway along Park Tce – what do you think?

However, some Councillors and other people got grumpy with this, so now there is some post-construction consultation on what people think of the new cycleway, particularly the section north of Armagh St along Park Terrace.

You have until Sunday 11th June to post your feedback via a short survey asking about your experiences of travelling along Park Tce after the recent changes. This information will be combined with updated traffic data from the corridor and presented to the elected members. So take the time to add your comments now!

Do you like the new cycleway along Park Terrace?

32 thoughts on “Have your Say on the Park Terrace Cycleway”

  1. Return Park Terrace to its original lines as soon as the museum alterations are done. The sneaky way the work was extended should not go unpunished. And next time ask ME first before making such major changes to the roads l use frequently (Tuam St being another example).
    Dorothy Heslop – rate payer

    1. The extension north along Park Terrace was done to improve comfort and safety for path users or people cycling on-road. And that section of road barely sees 10,000 vehs/day – certainly not enough to warrant two lanes in each direction…

      1. Barely 10,000 vehicles a day. How many cyclists a day? Probably not even 100. Certainly not enough to warrant a whole new 2-directional cycleway when there are shared paths on either side of the Avon.

        Perhaps if the cyclists using the old paths hadn’t been mowing down pedestrians, there might have been less complaints from walkers about cyclists using the shared path.

      2. Hmm, well the adjacent cycleway through the Park from the west is currently seeing 1500 a day (despite the frosty starts), so I imagine that there is a decent number also going to/from the north as well. The counter tubes currently installed will no doubt provide that data.

        Mind you, if you don’t provide a decent separate cycling option (separate from traffic and pedestrians), don’t be surprised if existing numbers have been suppressed – that’s why it got built…

        Also, don’t call a 2m-wide footpath a “shared path” (that’s not best practice anywhere) or a path inside the Park a safe option for everyone at night time…

    2. The changes have improved my daily early evening trip into the city and back considerably. Given the number of bikes and scooters now using the route, along with pedestrians on the path I think the space allocation per mode at peak time on Rolleston Avenue is evenly balanced. In time, I think the Park Terrace changes will benefit the central city a lot, and given how bad it has been along there for a long time, the changes are well overdue.

      1. Im not sure what you are counting Robert. I have lived near Park Tce for 20 years and have never seen congestion like I have with the traffic changes around this mess. Change it back to NORMAL commuter conditions asap.The road is for all. If you don’t like sharing the road ,ride on the footpath provided .It has served the people of ChCh well.

    3. Had there been appropriate punishment for those who choose excessive speed along Park Terrace whilst approaching the difficult to negotiate intersection with Armagh Street, perhaps there would not have been so many requests for improvements.

    4. I’m a rate payer too and I love it. It should be well rewarded – great job CCC. You sound a little bit like Boris the Cod (he’s very much about ME, ME, ME). Do you know him? If not, look him up – he’s a crack up.

  2. I am a bicycle riding human being and a ratepayer. I have responded to the short survey thus:

    The 4 laned section of Park Tce has always been WAY TOO NARROW to accommodate both bicycle and motor vehicular traffic. Its as if has been created/maintained this way in order to effectively ban people riding bikes from using this stretch of (increasingly rare, beautifully smooth!) public space/road. The narrow shared use path paralleling Park Tce from Armagh St to Carlton Corner is not fit to be anything other than a pedestrian footpath – if that! Moreover, the 2 lane 30kmph section between Kilmore and Armagh Sts at least southbound was the oddest compromise between the needs of bicycles and motor vehicles and a non-solution for everyone, except for those confident and capable enough to “take the lane” and ride in the flow of traffic (if present).

    None of this has stopped me from using this road by bicycle, at least not always, largely because, all in all, Park Tce is remarkably free of motor vehicular traffic almost all of the time but for periodic waves at certain well defined times of day. Nonetheless, when I do, I always ride the section between Armagh and Salisbury Sts with at least a little trepidation – do I “take the lane (30kmph no problem, 50kmph into our predominant Nor’easterly, less certain) and run the risk of being pushed off the road (seriously – it happens) or dangerously pretend not to exist by and riding in the gutter only to be overtaken way, way, WAY too closely?

    This new cycleway is a complete game changer! It’s fit for purpose and safe for EVERYONE riding a bike, whatever speed they wish or are capable of maintaining! Whoever conceived of it, well done, you deserve a promotion/pay increase! What’s more, it was done very quickly and I assume very cheaply. A model for another way of developing cycling infrastructure in addition the the Major Cycleways, methinks. What’s not to love???

    Now that I know: What to think and what to do about the Notice of Motion due this Wednesday, even before any ordinarily elicited and democratically mandated feedback is due? Questions about the process leading to the current outcome remain open to interpretation, to politics – perhaps, arguably.
    What to say at this point but that any additional intervention in this instance and toward removal of the already installed will come at additional cost? Additional cost to ratepayers for anything, anywhere would be a game breaking equation for some, but seemingly not here? Principles expressive of truly held conscience might/should be applauded whenever present, but the devil is always in the detail, and the nuance or lack thereof always telling: when $25 million goes to a 200m section of road without public debate and without question or meaningful criticism but a seemingly extraordinarily inexpensive cycleway gets the nth degree, well, standards come in multiples and pre-conceived biases do not but reinforce themselves. Alas, the greater the reinforcement, the greater the imagined division and the worse the outcome. Damn.

    1. Velocipede – didn’t I note somewhere the feedback was restricted to 200 words or less ? How’d you do that (-: ?

  3. If you want to stop the Council shutting down this cycle lane please come to the public CCC meeting Wednesday 7th June (9am next Wednesday).

  4. I rode the new cycleway today – it’s fantastic. Thanks CCC! I really hope it stays – it’s a great improvement. The better the cycling, the less cars on the road (as more folks decide it’s safe and fun enough to cycle). Better for everyone.

  5. Bicycles are in the ascendancy. Cars are in decline…. The car era is ending. We should all embrace forms of transport that are low energy dependent and environmentally friendly. Get off your arses and pedal, take a bus, or walk. And save the planet!

    1. Agree Steve! I think active and public transport should be prioritised over private transport within the four avenues. I would like to have ample parking available for disabled and elderly people though.

      1. Concur wrt to disabled and elderly people. The rest have little excuse. ChCh is flat in the centre and ideal for removing private vehicles. There are numerous examples of cities that have improved immesurably by removing cars. Christchurch could be fantastic with a little vision and guts from certain of our councillors.

  6. The new cycle way is completely unnecessary. There is already not one but two cycle paths just a few metres away also the new cycle way is unsightly and ruins the beautiful garden aspect of this part of Park Terrace as one looks across to the river in North Hagley Park.

    1. I’d much prefer to have a view of safe and happy walkers and cyclists in their respective places than a continual stream of fast moving vehicles; a stream which is guaranteed to become a future torrent unless we offer safe, sensible and affordable transport choices to everyone.

  7. Witnessed, there are now two cycle counters in the lanes. One’s outside the Museum and one’s further north, just south of Kilmore Street.

    Please don’t do loops and cheat the count, but also don’t let your ride be missed out.

  8. I have recently returned from a 3-month cycling holiday in Europe and what a good surprise! I didn’t know there was a project to create a separated cycleway along Rolleston Ave/Park Tce.

    I cycle down there several times a week, both ways, and I LOVE IT!! I never used to cycle on the way-too-narrow shared path, with all the pedestrian-dodging it was a very inefficient way to get to my destination on time. But it never felt safe riding alongside cars, especially Northbound. So you can imagine how pleased I was with this dedicated cycle path!

    My question: why didn’t they make it all the way to Bealey Ave?
    Coming from the South, I usually turn into Salisbury Street and find going through the island in the middle hard to manoeuvre. I wouldn’t be able to take the cargo bike there.

    Nevertheless, this is a fantastic improvement so I certainly hope it is here to stay.

    In Europe I cycled in the Netherlands and Denmark (omg Copenhagen!!). I have a dream that Christchurch emulates those places and becomes the best place to be in NZ! A city full of cars has never been a nice city to live in.

    1. Thanks Robert. I couldn’t find any information about why they decided to stop it at the Salisbury St intersection though.

  9. Kia ora,

    I may have a reasonably balanced view as I don’t believe that I fall into any one camp, being a regular cyclist (20 plus times a week), Motorist (10 plus times a week) and pedestrian (currently daily) along the sections in question. Any shared use requires tolerance and consideration, along with a general awareness on how you are impacting on others.

    Cyclists, typically solo, tend to be most aware of their presence and mostly go out of their way not to inconvenience others. The shared use speed demons are typically E-bikes and E-scooters, as opposed to the “acoustic” versions. Pedestrians (walkers and runners) are typically the least aware of there presence and will randomly use shared use pathways as if they were the only users. It is common for these users to line up across the entire shared use pathway, effectively blocking it for others. I agree that these users still have a right to walk/run with friends and converse.

    The cycleway section from Cashel St to Armagh St makes perfect sense as this was the busiest section of shared use pathway. Additionally I have witnessed many car door versus cyclist incidents in this section where cyclists were using the road. The cycleway section between Armagh St and the footbridge makes no sense when considering the room available to extend the existing footpath.

    Kilmore St is a major one way system moving traffic from east to west with multiple lanes hence pointless to restrict it to one lane for a few hundred meters. Any RH turning traffic completely blocks the single lane on Park Tce. At peak times, traffic will que on Kilmore back to Montreal with it taking several sets of lights to get through (all idling traffic). Already I see motorist taking Montreal St and then cutting through on a side street.

    Extending the cycleway all the way to Harper Ave only serves to arrive at the most problematic and dangerous point which is the 1m available to turn at the bridge. It’s not uncommon to see motorist mount the footpath at this point.

    My recommendation would be to retain the section from Cashel St to Armagh St bridge, extend the footway to the pedestrian bridge and divert cyclists across the river. This option will meet the needs of all parties.

    As an aside, the most frustrating users of Hagley park are the cyclists who insist on running 10,000 plus lumen lights, effectively blinding anyone approaching outside of daylight hours. You only need a small front and rear pilot light to be seen by others and park lighting is by and large adequate to see by.

    Lets all remember to be tolerant, considerate and aware of how we are impacting on others.


    1. The only problem with “extending” (presumably you mean widening) the existing pathway north of Armagh is the time and cost to do this. Converting a traffic lane to a cycleway took 2-3 weeks at minimal cost. Widening the existing path (particularly with the various ground constraints along the way) would be considerably more costly and take months (winter is not an ideal time to do work like that either). And you would still have the problem of a somewhat wider shared path at a time when industry best practice is trying to move away from them in busier areas.

      1. Council staff estimated the cost of widening the path north of Armagh St as between $230 K and $250 K . Our mayor reckoned that $50K would have fixed it easily – at the same time accusing council staff of ‘ running amok ‘.

        Widening would have required the removal of the Solidarity Grid art installation and considerable work along one section of the riverbank. Post quake, a lot of damage to the bank area required fixing. Do we need more asphalt in the vicinity of the river ? The stolen lane is working very well.

        Better to spend that money on a safer crossing to allow pedestrians and cyclists access onto Salisbury St and then some more dollars creating the post quake promised cycle lane along Salisbury St to link to the Avon Ōtākaro path to New Brighton from Barbadoes St. Another important section of the network would then be completed.

  10. I am a ratepayer and a cyclist. Cycling is a great way to travel and get excercise 🙂
    Thanks CCC for the Park Terrace cycle lane, I use it weekly to go to an evening meeting. Pre cycle lane it was difficult in low light to share the pathway next to the road.
    During the day there was often bad congestion in the hospital area. Both of those problems are a lot better now with the new cycle lanes.

  11. Funny that all the angst ridden anti-bike folk posting above have moved onto some other “anti” project of theirs, probably co-governance or some other existential crisis.

    And in the meantime there are thousands of bike riders using this wonderful new facility every week – and heaps of scooter riders. And nary any lycra to be seen, just everyday folk doing an everyday thing like getting from A to B safely on a pushbike.
    And the traffic is not getting held up because people get used to things and make changes – that’s what humans have been doing for thousands of years.
    And life goes on.
    And the sky did not fall on chicken little’s head because some of the tarmac was repurposed.

    P.S. as an added bonus narrowing the lanes along Rolleston Ave has socialised vehicle drivers into complying with the existing 30kph speed limit. The previously overly wide road before encouraged them to break the law by exceeding the posted speed limit. This newly civilised behaviour makes the area so much nicer to be in: a coffee or wine outside the Lumiere cinema is a lovely way of finishing up the week.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *