Don't forget to read our first blog on The Parade design options which discusses the carriageway
The design options for The Parade are now posted on the Love the Bay website. You have until 9pm Sunday 28 May to provide feedback. This blog assesses the shopping centre design options against the design statements. Thanks to James for doing most of the heavy lifting on this one. The following document shows the five cross sections for the shopping centre options side by side (four new plus the current/original). This is a much easier way to compare the options against each other and spot consistent issues or themes. Summary Option 1B is the clear winner for cyclists, with protected space to cycle. It also maintains a comfortable roadway width for traffic, and keeps footpaths dedicated to pedestrians. The only downside is the reduction in roadside parking as parallel parks fit slightly fewer cars per distance than angle parks. There will no doubt be a loud and negative reaction from many business owners regarding any reduction in parking. That would be a real shame and hopefully retailers will try to keep an open-mind and consider two things:
Bike customers live locally, they bike locally and they are much more likely to shop locally. They shop more often, for longer and they leave parking free for customers in cars
Of the other options:
It should also be noted that every single one of these options (including the current layout) will require a significant change in mentality by all users to make the shopping centre work as a truly shared space, which is the clear intent of the design statements. It is anything but a shared space at the moment. Let's look at each option in turn, starting with Option 1E - the current layout. Option 1E - current Sharrows painted through the shopping centre are only partly successful at helping cyclists take the lane. Drivers often overtake cyclists through this area, and typically expect them to move out of the way (rather than overtaking in the other lane when there’s a gap in the traffic). The traffic volume means that despite the 30km/h limit, sharrows aren’t enough to make this section of road feel welcoming for anyone but a confident cyclist. The removal of traffic calming cushions at the southern end of the shopping area means that speeds are often over 30km/h in that area, just where people on bikes need to merge with traffic. Angle parking means drivers leaving a park need to back out part way into the traffic before they can clearly see around other vehicles - especially when a van, ute or truck is parked to their left. This causes a particular problem if cyclists are forced to the left rather than taking the lane where they are more visible. People searching for an angle park may spot one at the last moment as they pass a long parked vehicle ‘hiding’ a space. These sudden left turns can be dangerous for cyclists. Many vehicles turn into and out of Medway Street - a movement across the path of people cycling along the Parade. Pedestrians suffer from the lack of crossing priority. Better priority for people on foot or on bikes across this intersection would improve safety and make the area feel more welcoming to people not in cars. Overall, these features mean someone using the cycleway encounters an abrupt drop in comfort and safety when they reach the shopping area. The knowledge of this may deter families or less-confident cyclists from using the whole cycleway. This option performs poorly against the design statements on safety and separation. Option 1A 1A provides a protected path for cyclists through the shopping area and is generally well aligned with the design statements on safety and separation. However, keeping the angle parking (for capacity?) reduces the width available for adding the bike lanes, and the sub-2m footpaths are likely too narrow to allow for bins, post boxes and other facilities. Vehicles using the angle parking will be over a metre closer to the traffic flow - a hazard for passing traffic or cyclists on the road, and more stressful for drivers leaving parks. Longer vehicles may not even fit those parks - a double-cab Hilux ute, for example, takes up over 5.6m of corridor width when angle parked, so it would stick out over half a metre into the 3m traffic lane. Other comparable parking/lane-width situations in Wellington often result in parked utes or vans sticking out into the traffic lane. Passing vehicles then swing into the oncoming traffic lane to pass them. Implementation detail will be important - determining whether the cycling area feels like a separate path (height and colour - difference would both be important) or part of the footpath. If there’s not much separation, mixing of cyclists and pedestrians would reduce safety and comfort for both. The protected path is narrower than the current cycleway, at 1.5m. If the cycle path is vertically separated from the footpath there’s not much space for cyclists to avoid pedestrians who move into the protected path, for example when loading or unloading a car or van. Option 1B 1B has the same basic benefits for cyclists as 1A. The change from angle to parallel parking is the most significant. In return for reducing the number of parking spaces, all users have more space which aligns well against the design statements on safety and separation. A 1.8m bike lane allows more room to comfortably bike past, for example, someone loading a car. The footpath and roadway are both wider. The road lane width is the same as today - without a median, but also without angle parks to worry about. There will no doubt be a loud and negative reaction from many business owners regarding any reduction in parking. That would be a real shame and hopefully retailers will try to keep an open-mind and consider two things:
It's worth noting that the layout proposed in Option 1B is basically identical to the new layout proposed for Karangahape Road in Auckland, which has met with widespread approval. The only difference is that on K Road the parallel parking will be used as bus lanes during peak hours. Option 1C 1C relies heavily on a shared path arrangement to make room for angle parking. A shared path is likely to have poor outcomes for pedestrians and cyclists in such a busy environment. Without separated space, people cycling could be moving in either direction and could be anywhere across the path, including right next to business doorways or parked cars. Retaining the angle parking makes the road unwelcoming despite the sharrows, so even competent cyclists may try to ride on the shared path, probably too fast for comfortable sharing.
Option 1C effectively allows cycling right across the road and the path, without making either of them suitable environments. On the road, cyclists are mixed among traffic. On the footpath, the roles are reversed and pedestrians would suffer. Shared paths are The Hunger Games of urban transport. Pedestrians and cyclists are thrown together in a hostile environment to fight over the breadcrumbs left by cars and see who survives. They are effectively a self-sabotaging form of infrastructure. The more popular shared paths become the worse the level of service gets for both modes, which then undermines uptake. Option 1D 1D suffers from many of the same drawbacks as 1C, but adds a new hazard. The on-road painted cycle lanes appear to give cyclists some dedicated space, but they are narrow and beside minimum-width traffic lanes. There’s no room to move if a wide vehicle encroaches into the bike lane, and large vehicles like buses would often pass centimetres from a cyclist's handlebars. With Option 1D, drivers would not be happy to share the main roadway with confident cyclists even though that would be a safer position than in a narrow unprotected bike lane. The bike lane passes behind the short angle parks, so as with 1C vehicles would likely protrude into the bike lane, forming a pinch point for riders. The proposed 0.6m buffer between the bike lane and angle parking also goes against NZTA guidance to have at least a 2m buffer between angle parks and a cycle lane. This is a complete fail against the design statement that "the look and feel reinforces and highlights road rules and protocols". James and Regan Don't forget to read our first blog on The Parade design options which discusses the carriageway
2 Comments
luke
22/5/2017 07:30:00 pm
for north of the shopping centre, Has anybody considered using dee St and improving the path from there thru behind wakefield park?
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
October 2022
|