bythemotorway - Tumblr blog

bythemotorway · 7 years

Text

On bear traps and whether to put up or shut up

Here's a simple analogy exploring the ethics of designing for safety in the public realm. It is about bear traps and reciprocity.

But let's get there via a digression on "put up or shut up".

When I critically approach designers of public space, whether they are city engineers, their managers, even private consultants or fellow advocates, I'm often challenged with the question, "what would you do?"

That question, posed verbally with a hint of seething, partly implies a kind of hostility: put up! or shut up!

It is also meant as a gatekeeping exercise, as often the questioner means to highlight their own vast record of experiences or accomplishments—which is a problematic response for many obvious reasons, including shaming, and perhaps worse, that they are not genuinely interested in an answer.

But let's focus on the "put up" part charitably, as if it is meant to elicit meaningful action out of criticism. Then we might catch some bears.

Sidenote: Sometimes they call it "constructive criticism", but constructiveness is an arbitrary quality (unsteady goalposts). Still, being charitable: let’s say they mean to compare what I and my community have done, are doing, or will do in some tangible way to resolve the transport design problems across the city.

So why is it troubling to be asked to "put up", to take some necessary action such as community organizing, building a petition, or even doing tactical urbanism? Here:

One problem is that it is a special kind of victim blaming. It reframes the situation, not as that of powerful system designers (engineers in the main) who are causing their users to suffer, but rather as a failure of vulnerable people to organize themselves in self-defence.

It suggests thats communities are getting the terrible public realm they deserve—that a root cause is their own inability to get organized.

This is especially vicious because in many respects, community organization only becomes harder as a direct result of the deficient public realm and its regulation and operation (and consequently private developments). The system designers have collectively created it, bearing the most influence over time. Severance, poor connectivity, hollow streets, low density, etc. have all made it difficult to build a variety of community bonds in the first place.

(A cynical observer might not think this a coincidence.)

Another problem is that the act of individually or communally organizing, resisting, and fomenting change, costs money and time and work. The same people who demand that the vulnerable ones should pick up the slack in developing participatory community engagement, will be the ones saying the government agency cannot itself do it because it is too costly (for their million-dollar budgets, in which context it may actually be relatively cheap).

Not only is that a barrier in general, but it is insidiously discriminatory, considering social and economic diversity. Who can afford to overcome the resource barriers to organize themselves and their community? Only those sufficiently endowed with privilege, particularly capital and existing networks. Think about those too poor, too sick, too disabled, too busy raising children, too pre-occupied with other struggles, too homeless or transitory, too foreign, too non-white, too old, too young, too queer, too uneducated, too intimidated to rock the boat, too frightened to expose themselves for good reason (e.g. escaping abusers)…

Will a diversity of people be able to do what is being asked to organize their efforts or their neighbours’? Do they not deserve public safety just because they cannot afford to pay this special “get organized” tax? Which neighbourhoods and suburbs are likely to win or lose in this framework?

(I often call for a basic minimum standard of quality and care that ought to be universal when designing transport infrastructure. The point is to serve just such a diversity of people unconditionally, without demanding that they jump through arbitrary and unreasonable hoops.)

But suppose one were to overcome these circumstantial hurdles of time, money, stress and other resources. Suppose one did organize themselves and their local community. Would they meet with success? Will their shared goals be realized? Probably not.

In such a scenario, the local authority is only transferring the burden and costs of getting co-ordinated upon the community, without any assistance. That may even be a good thing to do, if you are politically inclined to devolve responsibilities and remain free from undue influence. But that is not all they might provide—there is a missing half.

The local authority does not generally ship any kind of authority or ability to execute on plans to locals or local groups. In New Zealand particularly, there is a statutory designation of a "road-controlling authority": a license granted to organizations to… well, control roads. Even the best-organized but hyper-localized communities and individuals do not get such a grant of power. The most they can do is petition the road-controlling authority in the hopes of influencing their eventual plans and programmes. They have no teeth.

Of course, grassroots activists can still act via tactical urbanism, intervening illegally. But direct action only raises the barrier further: what kind of people can tolerate the legal risk? Who is sufficiently well-connected to the road-controlling authorities to be able to attract a blind eye?

So the original question of "what would you do?" is clearly a trap [for humans, not bears yet]. It is a way of relieving the governing authority of the difficult and costly burden of community co-ordination and organization, without extending or delegating any power to build infrastructure with grassroots initiative.

It comes as no surprise that the people usually posing the question have a hand on the handlebars. Typically being government staff or contractors of the road-controlling authority (including some advocates and their proxies), they do have the ability—individually limited as it may be—to influence the physical design of places, legally. Being within that exclusive professional order also means they can fraternize and horse-trade to leverage a little more influence. These are not the dynamics readily available to the general public, however organized.

Now, the usual retort would be that there are many ways to contribute to the development of the public realm, including ways that do not directly depend on having that road-controlling authority. This is true, but incomplete.

Without the powers described above—either to exercise the road-controlling authority, or to professionally "network" (horse-trade)—any outsider from the general public is at a disadvantage when rubber eventually meets road. There is no worthwhile leverage in discussions or negotiations. The road-controlling authority always has the veto power, the ability to pull the plug at any time. Grassroots organizations and particularly individuals are entertained solely at the pleasure of the official officer (and do they like to remind you of it or what…). Advocates may even be prone to being co-opted for low-yield wins in such trying circumstances.

Collectivizing as a neighbourhood or locality is to some extent an illusion of power—it's not all that it's made out to be. Consider the fact that inadequate and inhumane public realm designs, street designs, and transport infrastructure already mistreat a large number of people collectively. And there already exist channels for co-ordination and expression of collective will. We're already getting a raw deal, but we're already voting and talking to apparently enlightened local boards and a council (who nominally have oversight of the transport organization and some limited but more substantive powers than individuals). With no other grant or license of authority, a self-organized community would be largely redundant and lack any leverage to force change beyond the so-far ineffective political machinery that exists.

So long as the road-controlling monopoly is held by one body, it falls on just that one body to wield it safely and decently. If local communities are expected to form grassroots organizations as if they had road-controlling powers then they should be granted those actual powers to some commensurate degree, and probably become subject to regulations ensuring a measure of democracy within the community group etc. Technically in Auckland, it may just boil down to better, more fine-grained and well-defined power-sharing with local boards. Or not—this post isn’t about cans of worms, it’s about bear traps…

What about the bear traps?!

Here's the thing. Underlying the "what would you do?" question is a false sort of meritocracy. For just a moment, it is as if the insider, the engineer, the advocate or whomever, is at the same level as you. You, the little person from the general public. They want to know your ideas as if it could be as good as any of theirs—it may even rise on its own merit!

(Of course, they don't really mean it. You can test that by actually providing a "constructive" alternative—ticking their boxes for tone and style, at least. It typically immediately generates a negative, almost-allergic reaction, and ultimately a rejection of the idea.)

Suppose there is such a momentary equality between the expert and the general user. There should then be an equal reciprocal ethic between them. If the golden rule should apply, then neither party ought to try to, say, kill the other.

So how does it shake out in reality, between the engineer and me?

Well, I don't go around setting deadly bear traps about the town, then sit back and await only objections in the form of petitions from well-organized anti-bear trap communities and sufficiently glad-handing advocates.

Even if, by chance, I got drunk and did something like it on an ill-judged night out, I wouldn't the next morning wake up with a hangover and a compulsion to deny all objections to the traps by saying I won't take them away because I'm too busy setting even more of the damn things.

And I’m not saying I would avoid such an act because it is illegal. (I don't know the law around bear traps, but I can guess based only on fundamental human decency.) I would not do it simply because they are fucking bear traps that could harm others. Even if I had some magical license to do it, I would not.

Now, I can anticipate the rebuttal: what about the nuances and edge cases? What if the town really had a bear problem? What if the townspeople could learn to navigate around bear traps safely?

Yeah, maybe. But the bear trap isn't necessary. There isn't a bear problem. Let's see why, back in reality:

When engineers and other professionals design public spaces and infrastructure in Auckland, they build-in bear traps.

Typically (but not always) there is a legitimate need for some piece of infrastructure or other. Say, a pedestrian crossing.

There are many ways to design pedestrian crossings. There are standards (devised by engineers, but that's another matter), which limit the range of possibilities. But there are usually multiple ways to solve the problem depending on the constraints.

The question is whether the constraints include having a bear trap or not.

The bear trap is usually excess traffic speed, or removable path conflicts, or some dangerous feature that the design could address.

We know the design could address the danger because in a vast set of cases, there exist better designs that are not afflicted with such risk, found elsewhere in the world, and built by other humans inexplicably very much like us. (See: Amsterdam, etc). We know from those precedents that the benefit of a bear trap isn't necessary; there isn't a bear problem; Amsterdam etc survive without that excess speed or removable path conflict or whatever.

One can design a pedestrian crossing without a bear trap, or one can design it with a bear trap. Both are pedestrian crossings. One version is ethically acceptable, one is not. But this is a choice that the system designers make.

So we know there are ways to live without bear traps in our infrastructure and public spaces. And we know that we have them. All over the place. In old and new designs. In designs yet to be built, still being developed. There are engineers and other professionals littering the town with deadly bear traps, and there isn't a bear problem.

That is a failure of reciprocity. I don't go around setting bear traps, so neither should the engineer (or related person). Especially if they are posing the question of "what would you do?"

But they do set bear traps.

Now what would I do about that? [Insert cliffhanger text…]

1 note · View note

bythemotorway · 7 years

Text

A sketchy strategy for better Auckland cycling

Another Twitter user asked again what my alternative strategy would be for urban cycling development in Auckland, after I summarized the status quo as “neglect”.

Really? Given that political support for cycling is thin, what's your strategy?

— PatrickMorgan (@patrickmorgan)

November 19, 2017

I’ve never properly articulated my “alternative strategy” for a number of reasons.

One: I’m still learning, as I have been for over a decade, so never felt comfortable or able to capture it in a pithy listicle. Mostly I have had several contentions and contradictions with the status quo, but no grand unified theory. I am only slightly more confident in boiling things down and assembling relations between relevant domain-specific ideas now.

Two: the thing we call a “strategy” is itself a limited structure woven into a wider structure of funding, statutes, norms, governance, professional practice, etc. An alternative strategy may not neatly replace the status quo; it may seek to alter other things too.

Three: I object in principle to the argument often said or implied along with the question of what is my alternative, that I should have an alternative, and/or should not criticize the status quo. I do not want to encourage this view. As a victim, it is fine and proper to find fault with the perpetrator, while remaining free of the burden of solving it by oneself.

With that said, here is a sampling of alternative rules to consider when constructing a better Auckland urban cycling strategy (as well as culture and practice in design and governance). It is by no means complete, but at least names some key principles that do existentially contradict the status quo and point to a new way.

(Note: this post is likely to be edited often…)

STREETS FOREMOST

Prioritize bike-enabling streets—the familiar ones with names and front doors we know and love (not new paths out of the way). Main streets first; local streets next (weighted by destination and demographics, e.g. school streets); short off-street paths to heal severance. And lastly build new trails and paths by the motorway etc., if and when the network optimization is useful in the context of a maturing bikeable street grid.

HEAL THE STREET GRID

Build many new paths across (not alongside) motorways to heal severance. Auckland's street grid was sliced up but can be healed slowly. More bike-and-pedestrian only bridges and underpasses to restore the urban fabric relatively cheaply.

Take care to see whether new bridges and underpasses actually do cross a motorway and heal severance. Auckland currently has a few bike-and-pedestrian bridges and underpasses near motorways that either do not even cross the traffic chasm or do not stitch two streets together.

Special case: build SkyPath and similar projects traversing large natural geographical barriers that the fine-grained street grid cannot cover in the first place.

Sidenote on recovering motorways: although the street grid can be patched up relatively cheaply by re-stitching street links across the grain of motorway corridors, still more should be done. Motorways should be removed. This may well be a long-term goal (the stuff of "aspiration") but it must be a goal. Eradication of core urban motorways (gradually over time) should help orient other transport and place-making development projects so they are not built to rely on the security of a motorway corridor designation to fund and guarantee their own existence. Expensive compromises such as undergrounding, covering or hiding motorways may be considered but probably won't stack up anyway.

STREET JUNCTIONS FIRST

Especially tackle street junctions first, supporting protected movement in all directions. Embrace intersections, don't defer it for later when building on-street separated cycleways. Seek out intersections like they are magnetic and fix them for all crossing/turning movements along any corridor under consideration. Dollar for metre, aim to fix paths through junctions before adding linear metres of cycleway. Junctions are both peak pain points, as well as multiplicatively beneficial in connectivity terms, for urban users. More linear paths (i.e. straight through movements) are easier for designers to execute but that's not user-centric. Prefer user-centric values.

GOOD GRIDS

Design networks in grids that span meaningful catchments across neighbourhoods, closing over destinations like schools and PT stops/stations, connected via streets with bike-enabled junctions. Dollar for metre, a cross-route forming a grid (via a bikeable junction) is more important than a linear extension of an existing route.

A good grid maximizes three features.

It aims to have a high intersection density, as that provides multiplicative connectivity for more people taking more kinds of trips in the same area. (Hint: this is important also for encouraging social diversity, as demographics affect trip types.)

A good grid maximizes frontage exposure—more front doors facing the cycleway, rather than tucking the bike path out the back away from the life of the street, where one might ride at eye-level and (serendipitously) bump into other people (cycling or not) or encounter opportunities.

A well-designed grid maintains its own identity in its details: it might have a consistent appearance (e.g. color) or standardized affordances for interacting with it, and should be clear to all types of users (cycling or not) at all points, what the purpose and function and priority of the infrastructure is. It shouldn’t look and feel fragmented, ad hoc, ambiguous and inconsistent.

LOCAL MOBILITY

Widen the unit of work in planning from occasional and opportunistic silos of "cycle improvements" to a "local mobility plan" for an area or suburb. Adjusting motoring priority should be on the table, as well as truly integrating with PT.

Use participatory design, not one-way consultation, to devise a bike-inclusive (not bike-only) local mobility plan. An illustration is in a previous post on reframing cycling projects in Auckland.

BUSINESS AS UNUSUAL

Opportunistic improvements should be carried out under the business-as-usual programmes of maintenance, operations and safety. Is an old road getting resurfaced? It should have appropriate cycle infrastructure when relaid (junctions first).

NEW STANDARDS AND RULES

Acknowledge and dispose of old design standards that allow professionals to sign off on crap cycling infrastructure like bike boxes, filter lanes, sharrows, etc.

STOP VICTIM BLAMING

Addressing the “demand side” of the equation by browbeating users and potential users of bikes is just wrong. This currently takes the form of carrots and sticks. Some carrots are actually sticks in disguise. Marketing campaigns are not safety measures. Bike breakfasts are futile. The very notion of “confidence” when cycling is problematic.

An ethical system designer would first aim to maximize the supply of good quality structural features and allow untrained and uncoached to maximize benefit (while being safe). Only after exhausting that approach would a system designer seek to patch gaps and harness risk by resorting to “training” and “education” measures. Active measures are less scalable and less robust; whereas passive measures (such as encoding desired behaviour as design cues in concrete and asphalt) can both incentivize and disincentivize more effectively.

BE USER-CENTRIC

This theme has appeared under other headings above already, but it is worth highlighting on its own. Much of the planning and projects carried out under the status quo regime follow designer-centric thinking. They are constrained and optimized at all levels (from scope to detail) by what is (for some value of…) "easiest" or "feasible" or "affordable". Generally it reduces to what the designer(s) find most convenient to service among the leftovers after satisfying other priorities (be it motoring or transit). It is easy to dismiss this as a political problem of funding or vision, but the fact that the same bias shows up time and again even in the details of a design (well within the control of the engineer or planner), shows that designer-centric thinking is rife among those professions too.

A user-centric approach would change how things are valued at all levels.

In a city-wide sense, it might mean actually weighting and prioritizing places to intervene based on where more users are located and/or travelling, rather than allocating resources by their legal source (e.g. NZTA money implies a motorway corridor route selection).

At the other extreme, in a detailed design sense, it means that the designer ought to consider what the user really needs: not a splash of paint or a pacifying bike symbol, but rather to minimize ambiguity, distress, and acts of improvisation under duress.

Acts of improvisation under duress are the worst, as they give rise to stress and risk-taking behaviour. Too much new infrastructure still forces users to act like this. For example, a separated on-street cycleway may only support straight-through and left-turn movements, completely shunning the right-turn maneuver (the most fraught of all). Users who do (reasonably) want to travel in that direction are forced to improvise: either exit the cycle facility to ride among vehicle traffic, or emulate a pedestrian, or run against signals, etc.

The act in itself is bad, but even anticipating it is terrible. This is a strong disincintive against cycling. Potential users may avoid riding because of the hostility of the street environment; which is technically represented by improvisational nature of the public realm for cycling (under duress: high traffic speeds, unseparated spaces, close distances, etc).

The gap is particularly stark to practitioners of design in other domains, such as interaction designers, user experience designers, product designers, etc. There appears to be a major shortcoming in professional expertise of relevant engineering fields and even many spatial designers. Some understanding of those other design practices is required among those who make our public spaces, particularly walking and cycling infrastructure. There are ways to study, qualitatively analyze, even quantitatively measure, test, validate and verify the efficacy of designs from a user-centric perspective. There are evidence-based review and maintenance practices that can help influence engineering and planning, if they would only allow it.

There is a whiff of some of this in each new project, such as the Grey Lynn cycle improvements most recently. But that's far from enough. Far, far, far from enough.

1 note · View note

bythemotorway · 7 years

Text

A submission on Auckland Transport’s “Southern Connections” proposal

Auckland Transport is consulting on its Southern Connections (stage 2) proposal, which ostensibly aims to improve cycling and walking access through a particular route around Otahuhu.

The detailed designs are available, in 19 pages. The submission quoted below references those pages.

This is an unedited and rushed first-and-final draft of a submission, so pardon the very many rough edges.

Summary

D-

Highly unsatisfactory designs for most of the suggested cycling route. Some positive features along the way but not enough to redeem the project on a net basis. Please revisit the design as outlined in my other comments below.

PAGE 1

Intersection Atkinson Ave & Avenue Road

Concerned that the extent of work stops short of the intersection proper, and defers to the town centre upgrade.

Suspicious of the risk that genuine improvement to bike-enable the intersection will fall through the gaps.

The current project ought to embrace the intersection as part of creating a true cycle route, including treating intersections as gateways to access the straight-through segments.

The on-road cycle lanes with protectors proposed on Avenue Road are significantly less useful without free access from all directions, catering to a limited subset of movements only.

As a thought experiment, consider a scenario where the current project would (A) treat the major intersection and (B) not treat the straight-through road segment on Avenue Road for cycling. That scenario would be more useful than the current proposal which is to do the inverse. This is because intersections are the key feature both for risk and accessibility (including convenience, frustration, etc) for all travel modes, but especially for cycling. It is vitally important that turning movements are provided for, with separation and protection in time (signalling; refuges) as well as spatially (segregated raised crossings; refuges; protected approaches).

The best outcome would be to do both: treat the major intersection with Atkinson Ave for all approaches/exits and turning and crossing movements by bike and foot (separately), as well as provide extended on-road protected cycle lanes on Avenue Road alone.

PAGE 1 / PAGE 2

On-road protected cycle lanes on Avenue Road

Option 1: The separated, barrier-protected and parking-protected cycle lane segment is appropriate, and should be a continuous and consistent treatment all along Avenue Road.

That the cycle lane is only a short stretch that terminates on one side at an untreated major intersection (Atkinson Avenue) and at the other side with a transition into a shared path is alarming. There should be no shared path.

Option 2: Using a shared path for an even greater distance is only even worse.

Shared paths are not only sub-optimal but unacceptable. This is from the perspective of all road users.

Firstly, pedestrians (including especially disabled, elderly and children) are particularly disadvantaged as the most vulnerable class and are most endangered and inconvenienced by risk of collision. On this basis alone, the shared path treatment should be rejected altogether. It should not even be proposed in future plans.

Secondly, from a cyclist perspective, shared paths are inconvenient (as well as inconveniencing for others) which yields stress and is a disincentive to cycling. Furthermore, there are risks with vehicle crossings, street furniture and clutter such as even other parked bikes. The carriageway ought to accommodate cycling safely and easily. Intersections and crossings (even midblock) can be harder to navigate on a bike via a shared path, as it is unclear how to maneuver, which kerb features to use, whether to emulate pedestrian movements at signals, etc.

Thirdly, this generates an avoidable burden on motorists as cyclist movements are likely to be more varied from rider to rider (as cyclists are forced to improvise), and therefore unpredictable. This is especially troubling at vehicle crossings as well as informal road crossings and formally at junctions. Should a motorist expect a cyclist seen on the footpath to merge into the carriageway at any point? Will the cyclist queued at a pedestrian crossing continue on the footpath on the other side, or join the flow of traffic? These are all unnecessary complications that can be resolved by provided a quality separated cycle track with unambiguous and safe paths through junctions and crossing points as well as linear through-movement.

A midblock crossing nearby #23-27 Avenue Road would be useful (unsignalized) for both pedestrians and for cyclists who may need to cross to access destinations on the other side.

PAGE 3 / PAGE 4

The proposed roundabout between Avenue Road and Church Street is entirely unsuitable for pedestrians and cyclists.

The use of shared paths is unacceptable for the reasons stated above, but only amplified due to there being an intersection, which comes with added risks, more conflicting desire lines and elevated situational complexity that means users error rates can be expected to be correspondingly higher under typical traffic conditions.

In fact, what an intersection like this calls for is a focused treatment providing pedestrians and cyclists separated paths enabling all turning and crossing movements, and yielding more certainty and confidence by design for all road users thereby reducing situational complexity.

A Dutch-style cycle-protecting roundabout may be an appropriate solution at this location. The proposed design is totally unworkable. The use of "sharrows" is particularly egregious and bordering on negligence when it comes to servicing a diverse range of potential users aged eight to eighty years, with varying abilities and skill levels.

A worthwhile feature in the proposed design is the consideration given to all approaches and exits, even if the detailed treatment is not suitable. This principle ought to apply to all major and minor crossings along the route, including periodic midblock crossings allowing cycle users to access destinations on both sides of a typical road.

PAGE 5

The segment B-C along Church Street is largely appropriate.

It is unclear why a "Copenhagen-style" cycle way is warranted here but not elsewhere; or in other words, why "on-road cycle lanes with protectors" are warranted elsewhere but not here; other than, of course, name-dropping "Copenhagen".

Nevertheless, the only improvement to the segment would be another midblock crossing for accessibility to both sides of the carriageway, for pedestrians and cyclists.

PAGE 6 / PAGE 7

The intersection of Church Street & Princes Street

Here is a marginally improved intersection that at least supports separated cyclist movement in two directions (straight-through only).

While that is commendable, it is not enough to neglect crossing and turning movements in other directions.

How is a cyclist on Church Street approaching Princes Street supposed to make a right turn?

How is a cyclist approaching a destination on the opposite side of Church Street supposed to use this intersection to turn around to the opposite cycle facility?

Why is there no free left turn for cycles?

Where are the meaningful cycle treatments for cyclists on Princes St entering Church Street? Bike boxes are deficient; they are not suitable for a wide range of users aged eight to eighty and with varying abilities and skill levels.

PAGE 8

The use of a shared cycle and vehicle route along Church Street (D-E) is suitable in principle. However, the proposed design details (as per the artists impression etc) do not seem likely to be effective for traffic calming and for emphasizing shared priority of travel modes.

The likely outcome of a "gun barrel" streetscape, even for a quiet local road, is that motorists will speed along between the bumps and put pressure on cyclists who have no other space to go, by tailgating and raging. This is because the street design is sending mixed signals:

The kerb-to-kerb width and surfacing is suggestive of a typical local road with an implied design speed on the order of 50km/h. The berms and setbacks of the buildings with wide sightlines reinforce this message (which is relevant although outside the scope of this project to affect).

The availability of on-street car parking suggests both that the carriageway is for motor vehicle priority, while simultaneously adding friction that can at least slow traffic speeds a little. The net benefit for traffic calming and shared priority is around zero.

The only features contradicting these prevailing design cues are the speed bumps and sharrow markings. Both are ineffective.

Speed bumps, while they can slow vehicle traffic at the site of the bump, may also encourage above-normal speeding in between bumps. The incentive to drive quickly through these segments adds to the pressure that cyclists feel when being followed and overtaken by motor vehicles. Not to mention other classic unwanted consequences such as noise (braking, accelaration), discomfort/frustration etc.

Speed bumps are also an unnecessary if minor impediment for cyclists.

Counterintuitively, the presence of a speed bump implies that motor vehicles are expected to travel the road (hence the treatment designed to slow cars). But the ineffectiveness (and minor discomfort/frustration) in relation to cyclists suggess that the road design does not account for cyclists (implying that it is not meant for them).

The solution to that particular problem would, of course, be to add cycle bypasses that allow unimpeded travel but also conspicious infrastructure that accounts for cycling.

Sharrows are not sufficient to imply that cycling is expected: as actions speak louder than words, merely pasting bike symbols about the place does not make it welcoming. The bike symbol is only endowed with meaning and significance when it accompanies other conspicuous and self-explaining design features (legible to all road users) that advertises cycle priority unambiguously. A wishy-washy sharrow is easy to ignore, and has less power to contradict motor vehicle priority in a street that is afflicted by other features that confidently scream "fast cars welcome" (width, surfacing, linearity, sightlines, parking, non-separation, etc.

An overall alternative approach would be to treat this segment of Church Street like a "bike street" (per Dutch/German precedent). This may exceed the standard engineering practices of New Zealand, but it would be worthwhile to begin to implement in such a fertile context as a quiet terminating local road. In this "bike street" format, lane markings would be narrowed and aligned to optimize central bike positioning in the cross-section, where motor vehicles are forced to "straddle" lanes. Preferably, the central lanes would be surfaced/painted to appear like wide on-road cycle lanes (thereby giving real effect to the sharrow symbols). This makes clear that motor vehicles are also guests in the street space. On-street car parking may be retained, and speed bumps may or may not be necessary (and if they are deployed, then only with bike bypasses). Buildouts to deviate linear traffic movement may be useful.

In such an alternative streetscape, priority on the road becomes shared mainly by de-escalating surplus car priority that is provided by design. Despite the "bike street" name, bikes also remain "guests" in the space because they will continue to be subject to path conflicts with motor vehicles while being more vulnerable.

PAGE 9

The intersection of Church Street & Luke Street

This is mostly fine. The use of speed tables across the side street is both appropriate and necessary in other locations as well, not only on a quiet road.

Please ensure that the speed tables are designed to visually appearch like a continuous footpath, and not a half-and-half road crossing with ambiguous priority (which by default manifests as motor vehicle priority as a result of the road user vulnerability hierarchy). These speed tables should be flush with the kerb.

Please also withdraw the stop lines on Luke Street before the speed tables. While it will offer poor sightlines for motorists, it will encourage them to slow down earlier and yield to crossing pedestrians, before proceeding slowly forward when clear to get a better perspective to cross/turn.

The narrowed section of Church Street towards the bridge

Here sharrows are benign. The narrowed kerb-to-kerb width, and the terminal nature of the road in the network, already does most of the heavy lifting to calm traffic and allow easier cycling conditions. It may be marginally useful to paint sharrows in such a situation, if only to assist with wayfinding.

PAGE 10

The pedestrian and cycle bridge

Widening the bridge is necessary and proper. For future-proofing, it may be beneficial to widen the bridge to accommodate projected demand ahead a decade or longer. In a future scenario, it may even be desirable to separate pedestrian and cycle traffic, so this should not be ruled out.

PAGE 11

Meadow Street

Once again, the reliance on sharrows alone is worrying. Meadow Street should be a candidate for a "bike street" overall treatment that goes far beyond marking a fow bike symbols. See above in relation to Church Street sharrows. Combining both Church Street and Meadow Street with the same "bike street" design would even offer additional consistency along the route.

The speed tables proposed are appropriate. Again, they should give the impression (visually) of a continuous footway, and the vehicle stop line should be withdrawn before it.

PAGE 12

Intersection of Meadow Street & Mount Wellington Highway

Things were going so well on Meadow street, but now what?

The good: speed table across Camp Road; please ensure flush to kerb, visual continuity of footway, and withdraw stop line.

The bad and ugly...

Exiting Meadow Street on a bicycle appears to be unsupported. There is no cycleway on Mount Wellington Highway southbound, and bicycles are expected to queue among vehicle traffic.

A sidenote on queuing on a bicycle in vehicle traffic: it is not right. In both signalized and unsignalized junctions and crossings, it is not right. This is because the timing and spatial needs for a cyclist are different compared to what is needed for a motorist. The size of a gap, the acceleration profile, the turning radius, all these diverge significantly for cyclists and motorists, with each additional metre, or km/h, or lane count that is involved. As a result, sometimes when a useful gap (or signal duration) appears for a motorist queued behind a cyclist, it can be very frustrating for both users that it is not also useful for the cyclist. So both have to remain stuck in the queue. Motorists rarely understand why (which is reasonable) and expect cyclists to get out of the way (also reasonable), but this manifests as frustration/rage and directly translates into elevated road safety risks, as both users may tend towards risk-taking maneuvers to resolve the contradiction. So do not design for such an outcome. It is predictable. It can be solved trivially. Be part of the solution.

A separate queuing refuge or pocket for cyclists exiting Meadow Street would be appropriate. This can support both left-turning and right-turning movements, without the pressure of queuing motor vehicles following. There is plenty of space for such a layout, considering the existing kerbed island, and the new proposed buildout. As a bonus, a signalized pedestrian & cyclist crossing to the opposite side of Mt Wellington Highway would be very welcome.

Entering Mount Wellington Highway northbound is problematic as again there appears to be no cycle facility worth mentioning. There should be a separated cycleway similar to either the on-road separated cycle lanes or Copenhagen-style paths on Church Street earlier.

Southbound on Mount Wellington Highway is also troubling given the proposed shared path treatment. As before, shared paths are inappropriate for pedestrians as well as cyclists and even motorists. Please avoid this kind of design especially on a busy road that otherwise has plenty of space to accommodate separated cycle facilities.

The T2 lane should be a dedicated bus lane.

PAGE 13

Mount Wellington Highway I-J

Still no cycle facilities to be seen. Please add cycle facilities that support travel by people on bikes aged eight to eighty, with varying abilities and skill levels. This is a main road that goes from and to places that all sorts of people want to go from and to.

The side street Hillside Road does not have any cycle facilities at the intersection with Mount Wellington Highway. In particular, it will remain very challenging to make a simple right-turn maneuver. The alternative of cycling (counterintuitively) southbound to the midblock crossing, and crossing like a pedestrian, before returning to the carriageway, is an unacceptable solution. It requires improvisation by users, and that is likely going to fail most users.

Instead, there should be separated cycleways on both sides of the street, and the midblock crossing should be integrated with Hillside Road so that cyclists travelling in all directions have protected signalized movements available.

The speed table is a good idea for pedestrian amenity, but should be aligned with the kerbs, be flush, provide visual continuity with the rest of the footway, and the stop line on Hillside Road should be withdrawn before it.

The T2 lane should be a dedicated bus lane.

PAGE 14

Mount Wellington Highway J-K

There should be a continuous protected cycleway on each side of the road.

The artists impression is particularly appalling. It depicts a pedestrian and a probably fast-moving cyclist "sharing" a narrow footpath with many cuts and vehicle crossings. No furniture or clutter is depicted or accounted for, such as bins and illegally parked vehicles (inevitably by design given such a traffic environment).

This is a hostile environment for children, elderly or disabled users to either cycle or walk.

The lack of crossings is apparent; it is misleading to represent traffic with only 2-3 cars that look slow-moving, when in fact there are likely to be more and faster cars that would render as a blur in any realistic graphic impression.

There should be a speed table providing visual continuity of the footway across the vehicle entrances at 629 and Mount Richmond.

The T2 lane should be a dedicated bus lane.

PAGE 15

Mount Wellington Highway K-L

There should be a continuous protected cycleway on each side of the road. Bus stops should be "floating" outside any such cycleway.

There should be a speed table providing visual continuity of the footway across the vehicle entrances at 629 and Mount Richmond.

There should be support for right-turning cyclists exiting Ryburn Road. A signalized crossing for both pedestrians (such as bus users) and cyclists woud be appropriate. Or at least refuges for both modes.

The T2 lane should be a dedicated bus lane.

PAGE 16

Intersection of Mount Wellington Highway & Mall Burgess Road & Panama Road

There should be a continuous protected cycleway on each side of the road for all roads approaching and exiting this major intersection, including supporting all turning and crossing movements.

The proposed design is unacceptable.

In particular, northbound cyclists on the carriageway on Mount Wellington Highway will have to contend with a diabolical slip lane, i.e. serious path conflicts with high traffic and heavy vehicles. Even cyclists using the slip lane to exit Mount Wellington Highway will be under undue pressure to occupy the wide lane, travel fast, and get out of the way of other traffic.

Likewise, cyclists exiting the intersection along Mount Wellington Highway northbound on the carriageway will have to assert their position (and feel pressure to ride fast) across the mouth of the slip lane with traffic turning left from Mall Burgess Road.

A similar matrix of risk is true for cyclists approaching from or exiting into Mall Burgess Road.

A slightly different problem faces cyclists approaching from Panama Road. There may be no slip lanes, but they will still have to contend with merging across at least one lane if not turning left. In the case of right-turning cyclists, it can be ambiguous (when lane markings are obscured by other traffic) precisely which lane to merge into, and some cyclists may find themselves stranded amidst traffic in the right-turn-only lane into Mount Wellington Highway, forcing them to merge back towards the kerb upon turning. The signal phasing is not clear from the designs, so it may be that cyclists will also have to deal with split phases during these merge/queue maneuvers, all of which is highly dangerous and entirely wrong by design.

Some cyclists may opt in such a situation to conduct a "hook turn" in order to turn right. This is also not an appropriate solution as it fails most users aged eight to eighty, with varying abilities and skill levels. In fact, the intersection layout and signal phasing can make it hard (and definitely seem unpredictable) even for those who opt to make a "hook turn" confidently. Just for instance, a cyclist "hook turning" right from Mount Wellington Highway into Mall Burgess Road will have to contend against left-turning traffic from Panama Road, as well as an adverse angle, and then still a slip lane exit when they eventually reach the far side.

A meagre shared-path-with-cycle crossing across one leg of the intersection is whole deficient.

Please revisit this proposal to provide a minimum standard of adequate facilities for non-death-inducing road travel by bike. Please also consider pedestrian amenity, not only by excluding "shared" paths, but also by eliminating more slip lanes, and/or providing speed tables at all slip lane crossings with or without zebra markings.

The removal of one left slip turn into Panama Road is commendable.

Where did the T2/bus lane go? There should be one.

PAGE 17

Mount Wellington Highway M-N

The proposed pedestrian (and not proposed but entirely necessary cycle) crossings across the vehicle entrance at #511-#517A should have a raised table and visual footway and cycleway continuity. If possible, consider adding a splitter kerbed island to reduce the daunting pedestrian crossing distance in the face of heavy vehicle traffic in the area.

There should be continuous cycleways on both sides of the street, separated from both motor traffic and pedestrians, and protected by barriers.

The flush median is a poor use of space.

The footpath crossing at George Bourke Drive should be straightened to align with the natural desire line, and the stop line for vehicles exiting there should be withdrawn before the table. The new speed table should provide visual continuity of the footway.

Where did the T2/bus lane go? There should be one.

PAGE 18

Mount Wellington Highway N-O

There should be continuous cycleways on both sides of the street, separated from both motor traffic and pedestrians, and protected by barriers. Shared paths are inappropriate for reasons referenced several times already.

The flush median is a poor use of space.

Realigning the bus stop kerbs is commendable but it should be done in combination with a "floating" design accommodating separated cycleways, as well as T2/bus lane designation to maintain level of service for bus traffic.

The artists impression is again particularly objectionable. It shows that the vehicle crossing at #500 will remain a motor-priority space at which pedestrians will be subject to queued or hostile traffic, having to hurry along or walk around vehicles. It does not make a clear enough distinction (with surfacing, grade and visual continuity) between the footway and vehicle area. Once again, painting bigger and brighter symbols is not the answer. Geometry and typology are more powerful design cues.

The artists impression also depicts how hopeless it is for a pedestrian who wants to cross the road. There is no crossing in sight, only a gun-barrel road design with 4+1 lanes of fast linear traffic.

The token cyclist is not helping matters.

Please revisit this design from the ground up.

PAGE 19

The mega roundabout of doom

This is no way to treat your fellow humans. Something somewhere has gone terribly wrong to result the uncivilized layout that exists here.

While this may be verging beyond the extent of this project, it remains that something must be done to remediate and rehabilitate the public realm at this fearsome roundabout.

What is not helping matters: a fiddly shared path on one corner that does not in the slightest help with any turning or crossing movement in any direction other than perhaps the most trivial of all: the kerbside left turn.

The most hopeful thing about this location is that there is plenty of paved space to work with, so a Dutch-style protected roundabout, or at least a multi-stage signalized bike circuit should be eminently feasible. Please do this.

0 notes

bythemotorway · 7 years

Text

A conversation with an engineer from Auckland Transport

Me: Hello

AT: Hello? Is this [Non-motorist]?

Me: Yes, it is. Is this [senior engineer]?

AT: Yeah, yeah— how did you get my name, sorry?

Me: Uh, [other engineer] told me.

AT: Oh okay. That's— righto. He's not supposed to do that but that's quite okay. Um, so yeah, calling regarding Symonds Street. I understand you've discussed this with [other engineer] already—

Me: That's right.

AT: So how can I help?

Me: Uh, so… my discussion with [other engineer]— just to recap what happened…

AT: He's given me a good recap so I understand the situation, the vehicle's parking on the pavement.

Me: So he's already given you the briefing. Okay, so, um, why I was unsatisfied with that discussion I had with [other engineer] on the phone and the site visit is that he seemed to have a very different idea of risk and I wasn't— I actually found it quite difficult to point out the difficulty that people were having with the pedestrians crossing, even though he was standing right there and watching it. Um, so I think the prioritization that the issue is being given is not appropriate. Uh, and at the same time, the other aspect of this is that this is a multi-factor kind of situation and I don't think [other engineer] was able to recognize that—

AT: What didn't he recognize? What do you not think he recognized?

Me: Well he tried to refer it to parking enforcement services as an illegal parking issue, but—

AT: That's absolutely correct and I'll back him up— yeah, so, in terms of any infrastructure and so forth that you have suggested or you think may be appropriate… bollards or something to physically prevent people parking there, that's not something we'd consider here because there's nothing— it's very clear, that it's a footpath. Like there's a— the kerb and channel is fully constructed. Uh, so there's nothing in infrastructure that would suggest to someone that it's a place that they should park— that they can legally park. So as with any legal footpath where you're not allowed to park, it's an enforcement issue. So all I can do is reinfoce what [other engineer] said to you previously. Uh, please do call for enforcement. I'll also go and talk to the parking enforcement manager, uh, now, if he's still here, or else tomorrow…

Me: Did he— did he—?

AT: So there is evidence, I've seen photos of people parking there, so we don't want that happening, I agree, but the mechanism for deal—

Me: Yep, okay, but did he—?

AT: The mechanism to deal with that is through parking enforcement, okay?

Me: I'm just— I'm just wondering, did he convey what our response was to that?

AT: Pardon me?

Me: Did he convey what our response was to that suggestion?

AT: Ah, no, what was that?

Me: Um, that—

AT: He may have, but I can't recall.

Me: Ah, that we've already tried enforcement multiple times—

AT: Yeah, abs—

Me: And the trouble is that—

AT: Absolutely, cool, so—

Me: It's a recurring issue.

AT: Yep, sure, so I suspect that most of it are recidivist people that are parking there, it's not a place that you would typically park. So I suspect that the people that are doing it, are doing it, um, continually themselves, like it would be a select number of people that are doing it, possibly associated with the shops there. Um, so if we can get some enforcement out there, and if you can advise particular times of day that it's a bigger issue, by all means let me know now, and I can try and have that enforcement targeted.

AT: So as opposed to being completely reactive, whereby they get out there and people may have moved on, um, if we can— I can ask that the parking enforcement people be a bit more proactive around going out at certain times, as opposed to being requested, um, then that— hopefully that might be able to help resolve the issue.

Me: That is what we've done though. And that's what I'm saying that there's, uh—

AT: Yeah, so you've c—

Me: Multiple factors— one factor is that. The other factor is that the design invites people to park there.

AT: How— how does the design invite people to park there? There's nothing— I've— I've drove— I've driven down there many times, there's nothing there, like there's no— in terms of the kerb and channel and so forth, what would suggest someone could park there by driving up and over a formed kerb and channel?

Me: Uh, there's a couple of things. One is the dimensions of the space, it quite neatly fits the number of cars that they park there. And it suggests that because it's quite wide, that they can park there without getting in the way of pedestrians.

Me: So when they do the parking— of their cars, they think they're actually doing the right thing because they're not blocking the paths of pedestrians, I mean they know—

AT: Nah they— anybody parking there, anybody parking there knows they're doing so illegally, I guarantee it. Like they know that they've— if you've got no kerb ramp to go up, and there's no vehicle crossing, and you're having to physically run up—

Me: Well— yep, or—

AT: Run up over with your vehicle, two wheels up, four wheels up, and so forth, so yeah, okay.

Me: Yeah, yeah, so having witnessed how they do it, um, they enter through the— either the, uh, pedestrian crossing ramp at the slip lane, or at the—

AT: Yep.

Me: Vehicle entrance just before that.

Me: So they can easily mount the footpath, and they think that that's sufficient for them to just keep out of the way, as long as they're not literally in the direct path of the pedestrians—

AT: Again, yep—

Me: And that's true, they don't block the footpath, there's about—

AT: Nah—

Me: A metre and a half or two metres that they leave clear for pedestrians to keep walking, so the risk is actually from the, uh, limited visibility you get for oncoming traffic when you're further downstream. So, that's the bit that they don't get, they don't see that they're blocking visibility of oncoming traffic, they—

AT: Look, yeah, look, irrespective of what they think— irrespective of what they think—

Me: Yeah yeah yeah, no I'm still— well, yeah, sorry you can't say "irrespective of what they think" because that's what I mean when I say—

AT: Please let me— please let me finish. I'm saying, irrespective of what the driver thinks, in terms of whether or not they're blocking it, I— I agree they shouldn't be parking there

Me: Yeah—

AT: Absolutely, I agree with you in that sense. However, there's nothing infrastructurally that we'd to do prevent them because it's not required—

Me: Hang on, hang on, hang on, this is—

AT: Nah, please let me finish, otherwise I'm gonna— I'm going to terminate the conversation if you do not let me finish, sir.

AT: All I'm saying is we're agreeing with you, that vehicles shouln't have parked there, we would not physically put— put barriers up there. Number one, bollards are also an impediment to visually-impaired pedestrians, so we only put them where absolutely necessary. We don't do it to deter illegal behaviour that is clearly wilful. So anybody parking there, particularly if they're driving up the pedestrian ramp at the crossing, as you suggested they're doing, they know that they're doing something they shouldn't be doing—

Me: Hang on, so—

AT: Okay, so— er— okay, so— that's our position, so as I said before, probably won't have a chance now, because this convers—

Me: Can I get a chance—

AT: You have had many chances, I don't think if you— unless you're going to say something—

Me: Wh— in response to what you've just said, though.

AT: Go for it.

Me: Cause you've used the keyword "irrespective of what the driver thinks" but my proposition is that the design invites drivers to do things, which means that it does matter—

AT: No, no.

Me: What the driver thinks.

AT: Well, my professional opinion and that of the senior engineer who has been there is that it does not do so. A wide footpath does not say you should park here. A wide footpath is providing an added amenity to pedestrians and other road users who are using it, so there's nothing about it. And you— you've made the point yourself, so you're contradicted in the sense that to drive up and over the, um, at the veh— the pedestrian crossing point where the kerb is lowered, and then there's the— um, tactile pavers, it's clearly a pedestrian crossing point and the vehicles are crossing there as you said you see they do and which is how they access the site. It's clearly illegal and it's clearly willful and it's clearly deliberate.

AT: So I will work with parking enforcement, and I'll talk— I can talk with the police as well—I've a liaison meeting—that we don't want people parking here, of course we don't. Um, and the fact they are, we don't want them to be parking there. So and I agree with you in that sense, we're not going to put any infrastructure in to do it, becaues it's not necessary, we don't— otherwise, you know, you can put up— put bollards up throughout the city—

Me: Suppose—

AT: To prevent people parking where they shouldn't.

Me: Suppose I accept that proposition, that, uh, it's not necessary—

AT: Well it's not necessary, so that's— so it's a fact.

Me: I accept that it's your position, and suppose I accept as well. Um, my question then is, following on from that, how do you intend to test it, or how can I be— able to test it in an objective way, so I can come back to you and say "yes it's worked, good job, and enforcement is sufficient", or how can I come back and say, "enforcement hasn't proved to work"— like, what's the test here?

AT: Well the test is that the people that are ticketed there no longer park there. And I suggest— so, if you have particular vehicles then by all means call in the registration numbers if you have, or if you see them accessing particular businesses and that they're doing it— if you— if you see it as regularly as it sounds like you do, you're probably privy to that information so by all means let us know, and put it— and make it for the attention of parking enforcement and then hopefully it will get to them sooner rather than coming through this mechanism.

Me: Ah, well okay, so let's say I come back in four weeks time and given it some time for enforcement to take effect, and I still find that there's a chronic issue of people parking there, are you suggesting I go back to enforcement and say, "do more enforcement"? Or what?

AT: Yep, absolutely, yes.

Me: Uh, but if— so that'll be three strikes then, I— I've— I've kind of done the more enforcement thing already, given it a chance—

AT: Yep, you've done all that you can do. Um, I'm satisfied that no pedestrians have been injured because of it but I still don't want people parking there, so we're not gonna— again, physical infrastructure— again, as we manage the— the network across the city we need to be consistent, what we do here we have to then be able to justify not doing elsewhere for the same reason— for lots of different reasons it's just not warranted. Again, we don't want people parking there, they shouldn't be, if enforcement doesn't work, if they're not doing enough, I can ask for them to do more, so that's where we're at.

Me: Ah, so th—

AT: Okay?

Me: That's a terminal condition, you're saying we just go in a loop with o— parking enforcement services over and over again—

AT: A— As with anywhere on the network, illegal parking needs to be dealt with by our parking enforcement team. And they are stretched at times but give— given—

Me: But you— you also don't recognise the multi-factor issue that there's actually a coincidence of other things happening at the same time, that the design invites parking, that the pedestrians line of sight—

AT: No, I— I absolutely disag— I— yeah, no— the design doesn't invite parking on the footpath, you're completely wrong on that point, I must say. Um, that's a moot point. The design absolutely—I drive there frequently—does not invite people to park on the footpath. Yes, it's a wide footpath, and— but it doesn't—

Me: You say that despite the fact that people actually do it?

AT: Absolutely. Completely.

Me: So the evidence that people are parking there is not, in your view—

AT: No you— no, so look, you're not— you— please listen if we're going to continue this conversation. You said yourself, that people drive up the pedestrian ramp to access this area, did you not?

Me: Yeah, that's right.

AT: Yeah, you did. So people— the pedestrian ramp— the, um— corresponding infrastructure, the tactile pav— that's clearly not a vehicle crossing, is it?

Me: One of them is.

AT: Pardon?

Me: Uh, one of them is. So on one side there's a pedestrian ramp, you're right, tactile pavers and everything, on the other side is a vehicle crossing.

AT: Yep. So it's a vehicle crossing, so is it a driveway, it's an access?

Me: Yep, that's right, one of them is.

AT: Yep, cool, exactly. So as with any other driveway. So throughout the city, do you see anywhere where people see a driveway and say, "okay I'm going to park on the footpath here"?

Me: Yup.

AT: Where?

Me: Er, do you want me to tell you a million—?

AT: Yep, no no, there is, then that's cool, so it's clearly willful. So people are doing it deliberately, so by all means call for enforcement in those places. I'm going to have to go sorry, because we're getting— you're not going to get much further here. But I will as I suggested talk to parking enforcement tomorrow, it's too late now, then hopefully—

Me: One last question, one last question— just a procedural issue. Um so, if I'm not satisfied with this phone call, can I escalate this any further?

AT: Uh, I'll talk to my manager but I suspect that this won't go any further.

Me: Uh—

AT: Cause there's nothing more— there's nothing more that we can do.

Me: Can I talk to someone? Like wh—

AT: Pardon? You have— you've just escalated, this is the escalation process.

Me: Yep, so what's the next step in the escalation process—

AT: And we're gonna— and I agree with my senior engineer in that we're gonna attempt to address it via parking enforcement.

Me: Okay, um—

AT: So yes, so by all means if you're not satisfied that parking enforcement has not dealt with this over the course of the next period of time then by all means call back and escalate again.

Me: Um, how do I—

AT: I'm gonna have— I'm gonna have to go, I'm afraid. I'm gonna have to terminate this call— we're not getting—

Me: No hang on—

AT: We're not getting any further, I'm— I'm afraid you've not been listening very—

Me: I just want to know how do I go to the next step here, where do I go to—

AT: Um I've talked with our customer feedback team regarding escalation issues because I know you raise a lot of issues with us. Um and so this one I don't consider, um, requires it at that time. If you want to then by all means you can write in again and if you— if you choose to do that then I won't see the need to go through this process with parking enforcement, but I'm happy to do that. And if you don't see a resolution then by all means raise it again.

Me: Uh, with customer services?

AT: Yes.

Me: Okay, so that's what you're suggesting, that if— if I'm not happy with this procedure that's ongoing at the moment, I should go to customer services and raise a new issue?

AT: I can't hear you anymore if you're still there.

Me: Uh, are you suggesting that if I'm not satisfied with the way the procedure is working out at the moment, that I should go to customer services and raise a new issue or complaint or something? Is that it?

AT: So you have the number associated with this one?

Me: The case number? Yup.

AT: So by all means, as we discussed before, the process to go through there is such that we will— I will, try and get some targeted enforcement, not—

Me: Yeah, got it.

AT: Excuse me—reactive— excuse me, as it has possibly been in the past. If you're not satisfied that over the next few months that addresses the issue then by all means call back and we can escalate it then.

Me: Er, cite this case number? So this— this will not be closed?

AT: Uh, I can close it but it can still be added to, they can reopen it.

Me: Er, I've literally just been on the phone with a different case and they said if it's closed they can't add anything to it.

AT: Okay, I'm not sure who you spoke to, but anyhow.

Me: Er, that was the customer services call centre.

AT: Okay. Irres— irrespective, I don't need to close the case— well, I do, we'll close the case, otherwise it stays open forever.

Me: You will? Okay.

AT: But by all means when you come back quote the same number so it gets linked to that same case.

Me: Okay, I see what you mean, okay.

AT: Okay? Okay, thank you.

Me: Okay, I appreciate the call, um, but I have to say, frankly, I'm unsatisfied with the outcome here.

AT: Oh— clearly you are but what you are doing— I mean, it's like— for what reason though? Like I agree that we don't want people parking there and we're doing what we can with our current mechanisms to try and deal with that. So what is that you are not satisfied with? Cause I do feel like you're being very unreasonable.

Me: Um I'm particularly not satisfied with the— uh, failure to recognise that there a design issue here that needs a—

AT: Well there is no— there is not— absolutely there is not a design issue here. I don't know, are you a professional— are you professional engineer my sir— my friend?

Me: I grant— I grant— I grant that's your p—

AT: How long have you been doing traffic engineering for?

Me: I grant that is your position— I grant that's your position, that's fine. I'm just saying that that—

AT: Pardon?

Me: I grant that that is your position. Um, you don't need to repeat that—

AT: But— but— but on what basis are you saying that's a design flaw when you're disputing the two trained engineers? When I suspect that you're not.

Me: Er, I'll be happy to go through it step by step, but you seem to be in a hurry and not interested in listening—

AT: No no, you have you've gone through it all, I've not gone— you've met—

Me: I've barely scratched the surface—

AT: You've met [other engineer], I can see, I know the area well, I go there frequently, and there's nothing, to me, that says you should— people should be parking on the footpath, which is what you're saying— which is kind of what you're saying.

Me: The one thing I have on my side is the evidence that drivers are actually feeling invited and they do it, so—

AT: No they are not feeling invited, they are choosing to do it, people choose to speed and they choose to drink and drive, they are doing illegal behaviour willfully.

Me: Well I had this discussion with [other engineer] as well, where he said, for instance—it's just as an example—he said, if he was to install some kind of bench or something that that would block parking but would also be an amenity for pedestrians, that that would invite pedestrians to run into traffic from the bench, and that— that— therefore it's not a good idea. So he recognises that, for instance, that you can have infrastructure that invites certain kinds of behaviour, and—

AT: You can, absolutely you can, and we don't in this situation, so that's—

Me: Even if it's— even if it's an unintended consequence, the fact that the design kind of— enables it and gives them a really convenient way to do it—

AT: This— yep— but you— but in this case— that is no lon— that is not the situation. So, I apologise, but I'm not sure how long you've been doing this for but I've been doing it for eighteen to twenty years, so.

Me: I understand there is a contradiction there, that there's— I mean in the design it says, "don't park here". But I'm saying that there's— equally the design also says "kind of sort of, wink and a nudge, you can park here", and—

AT: No, no it doesn't at all. We're going around in circles, so anyhow, I'll talk to parking enforcement as advised, and, um, we'll leave it at that, okay?

Me: That's what I meant by— we're barely scratching the surface about this design issue. Um, if you—

AT: There is no design issue, so, if that's okay?

Me: If that's your starting—

AT: If you want— if you want to get some information from a— from a professional engineer and tell us what all the design issue are, by all means, but my professional opinion and that of [other engineer] and probably anyone else who looked at it, would be otherwise. There's nothing there that suggests that you should be parking in that location. A wide footpath does not say— a wide footpath, by definition, which is a— a increased amenity for pedestrians and ho— you know, vulnerable users of that sort, does not say "you should be parking here" just because it's wide enough.

AT: Absolutely it doesn't. I'm sorry, you're absolutely wrong, you are wrong, I apologise, I'm going to tell you that flatly.

AT: Um, but I don't think people should be parking there, I agree with you in that sense, and I will raise it with our parking enforcement team which is exactly the mechanism for us to deal with it—

Me: Well— well okay so—

AT: So I'm sorry, so I'm going to go, I don't want to hang up on you, I'm going to say goodbye—

Me: Hang on, why— why do you build fences for pedestrians where they don't have a crossing, like if there— there's nothing in the road that says "don't cross here" but you sometimes you build fences for pedestrians to prevent pedestrians from crossing there?

AT: Absolutely, sometimes it's necessary.

Me: Yeah, I— and I agree with you—

AT: Depends— depends on the location, it's very location-specific.

Me: There's nothing in the street, for instance, that says pedestrians are supposed to cross here, there's no crossing, there's no refuge, there's no zebra marking or anything. But still people feel invited to cross, and they do it, and you've taken a realistic approach in many cases as engineers, and you've built fences to prevent pedestrians from doing that.

AT: Well there's pros— pros and cons to pedestrian fences to be honest, but that—

Me: Yeah I agree, but in many cases you've come to the conclusion that it's required, which is probably appropriate—

AT: That's nothing to do with— that has nothing to do with this issue at all. It has no relevance whatsoever.

Me: Well it does have relevance in that it's a similar situation where driver behaviour is determined— you know, realistically they do something because they feel invited, then you put a fence up—

AT: No it's different, we're talking about illegal behaviour, a pedestrian—

Me: But a—

AT: A pedestrian crossing midblock is not illegal, provided do they do so safely.

Me: Not— not midblock. Near the— near the crossing, so within the 20 metres or whatever, but they still cross, like on Symonds Street near the, uh, K Road—

AT: We're talking about illegal behaviour, what— what people are doing in the situations you're talking about on Symonds Street are parking illegaly, that's completely different, and I'm going to— I'm going to go, it's been lovely talking to you—

Me: But hang on, pedestrians crossing are ill—

AT: I'm going to go, goodbye.

END

1 note · View note

bythemotorway · 7 years

Photo

Affront: Karangahape Road, Auckland Central.

#frontage #cycling #parking

0 notes

bythemotorway · 8 years

Photo

Royalty: Pitt Street, Newton.

#motorbike #motoring #classic

2 notes · View notes

bythemotorway · 8 years

Text

An exchange with Auckland Transport

Sometime in 2016, Auckland Transport consulted the public on potential improvements to the intersection of Khyber Pass Rd, Symonds St, and Newton Rd, in Newton, Auckland. This is a massive intersection with several traffic lanes and a couple of free-turn slip lanes. It is hostile to pedestrians, bicycle users, disabled users, and humans in general.

However, in response to the consultation, Auckland Transport only found that a couple of zebra markings across the slip lanes were worth installing, and there was no space for cycle lanes. The zebra crossings would not even be on raised tables.

I contacted Auckland Transport, and this is the exchange that transpired.

First, here is the status quo intersection:

And here is the proposal for improving this space:

So I requested more information to understand how and why Auckland Transport came to such a futile conclusion. Here is the body of my inquiry:

I am requesting information relating to a recent public consultation that AT held.

The consultation was for a proposal by AT to install zebra crossings in the slip lanes at the intersection of Khyber Pass Rd and Symonds St in Newton (ended 25 May 2016). In its conclusions, AT describes a number of findings (published at https://at.govt.nz/about-us/have-your-say/road-safety-consultations/central-auckland-road-safety-consultations/#khyber). I am seeking detailed information in connection to two of AT's claims, as follows.

1) AT claims: "The intersection currently does not meet the traffic and pedestrian volumes required to install a Barnes Dance."

Could you please provide the parameters of traffic and pedestrian volumes that AT requires in order to proceed with considering a Barnes Dance installation at such an intersection?

Furthermore, could you please provide the pedestrian and traffic counts used in the quantitative analysis for this particular decision, including what peak time pedestrian and traffic volumes were sampled (if any)?

Finally, in the qualitative analysis, did AT consider that pedestrian volumes may be lower than required precisely because the walkability of this intersection is poor, and that improving it with a Barnes Dance may increase pedestrian volumes? If so, why did AT conclude that a Barnes Dance installation would still be inappropriate? Or if not, why not? Please provide any relevant documentation used or developed in the course of this finding.

2) AT claims: "There is currently insufficient road width to incorporate an on-road cycle lane."

Given that:

a) The kerb-to-kerb road width in the north-south axis (Symonds St) is in excess of 33m, and consists of three general traffic lanes, two bus lanes, a landscaped median, a pedestrian island and a slip lane;

b) The kerb-to-kerb road width in the east-west axis (Khyber Pass Rd) is in excess of 41m, and consists of five general traffic lanes and two slip lanes with two pedestrian islands;

c) The intersection in question has a total footprint of about 2 sq. km;

What novel rules of geometry and mathematics did AT use in order to find that there is no road width for cycle lanes at this intersection? Please share any internal documentation and/or external references showing how this conclusion was arrived at.

Thank you.

And this response came three months later:

Thank you for contacting Auckland Transport regarding consultation undertaken on walking and cycling facilities near the intersection of Symonds Street and Khyber Pass Road. We would like to provide our responses to the comments you have raised in your submission to the project as outlined below.

As part of our engineering analysis, a full day pedestrian demand survey including origin-destination movement at the intersection was conducted. The survey results help us understand the current pedestrian crossing demand for both parallel crossing and diagonal crossing. The diagonal crossing is currently in the form of two-staged parallel crossings and is the movement that will most benefit from introducing a Barnes Dance.

The survey revealed that the pedestrian demand on crossing diagonally is not high enough to justify a Barnes Dance phase at this strategic intersection. We have attached details of the survey results which show pedestrian counts for each origin point including two-staged crossing during the three survey periods. For example, SWN2 means that the starting point is at the south-western corner (SW) and heading to the north (N) with two-staged parallel crossing (2).

We have also considered the phasing at this intersection; please refer to the diagram attached. Given the size of the intersection we would need approximately of 40s to service the Barnes Dance; however the intersection only runs a 130s total cycle length. This leaves very little green time for the two key arterials and will definitely cause significant congestion to public transport services as well as general traffic. Therefore the current signal phasing at the intersection limits the potential of introducing a Barnes Dance.

However, we are pleased to advise that there will be an on-road cycle lane on Symonds Street between Mount Eden Road and Khyber Pass Road, due to be constructed in September this year. Auckland Transport will continue undertaking studies and investigations to identify more opportunities to improve cycling facilities in the Upper Symonds Street area, and to prioritise potential improvement projects in the future when funding becomes available.

We trust the above answers the questions you have raised and appreciate you taking the time to bring this matter to our attention.

Which I have translated the key parts of:

(Some detailed pedestrian counts and signal phasing drawings were attached, but they are less interesting than the assumptions that influenced the design.)

So I have since tried to follow up with this cordial message:

Thank you for the detailed response to certain parts of my inquiry regarding improvements to the intersection of Symonds St, Newton Rd and Khyber Pass Rd. However, I find that this response does not address several specific questions I raised that are relevant to the choice of facilities planned for the intersection.

To recap, the first part of my inquiry dealt with pedestrian amenity, specifically providing a Barnes Dance for crossing in all directions. Here is the relevant part:

"did AT consider that pedestrian volumes may be lower than required precisely because the walkability of this intersection is poor, and that improving it with a Barnes Dance may increase pedestrian volumes? If so, why did AT conclude that a Barnes Dance installation would still be inappropriate? Or if not, why not?"

In your response, you state that "The survey revealed that the pedestrian demand on crossing diagonally is not high enough to justify a Barnes Dance phase at this strategic intersection."

That leaves my quoted question unanswered. Or am I to understand that AT did not consider the likely uplift in demand that providing improved walking facilities (such as a Barnes Dance) would have?

Regarding phasing, you state: "Given the size of the intersection [...] the current signal phasing at the intersection limits the potential of introducing a Barnes Dance".

However, this relates to the second part of my original inquiry. In particular, I had asked:

"What novel rules of geometry and mathematics did AT use in order to find that there is no road width for cycle lanes at this intersection? "

I am now perplexed to find two of Auckland Transport's propositions standing together:

a) That the intersection is too small to accommodate cycle lanes.

b) That the intersection is too big for a Barnes Dance.

What is going on?

Finally, I would like to focus on two premises that Auckland Transport is taking as a given:

a) That the size of the intersection is fixed.

b) That the current signal phasing is fixed.

I would like to note that in my search for alternative solutions to improve walkability and bikeability as well as accommodating public transit and general motor traffic, I do not assume that the intersection needs to remain so oversized, and I do not assume that the current signal phasing needs to remain in place.

Why does Auckland Transport take a different stance? Is there a policy directive that requires this? Or are there other constraints, e.g. budgetary or otherwise?

To summarize, so that no part of this follow-up is lost, I have three outstanding questions:

1) Did or did not AT consider the likely uplift in pedestrian demand consequent to improving walkability such as through a Barnes Dance? If not, why not?

2) How can Auckland Transport find that this intersection is too big for a Barnes Dance, yet too small to accommodate on-road cycle lanes on all approaches and exits?

3) What assumptions is Auckland Transport making about the geometry, signal phasing, traffic flow and demands, and why? What specific instructions, policies or strategic objectives are Auckland Transport's staff/contractors following to arrive at these assumptions?

I look forward to hearing substantive responses to these questions from you.

Let’s see what surfaces next.

1 note · View note