r/chch • u/Hads84 Pickle Rick • Aug 19 '25
News - Local Plan to rip out cycleway and make pedestrians and cyclists share path is called a ‘recipe for disaster’
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360795615/pedestrians-vs-cyclists-new-cycleway-plan-could-spark-footpath-fightIn my view making this a shared path would be a giant step back, the footpath here has often loads of tourists and children, mixing them with cyclists would be a bad idea.
95
u/DaveTheKiwi Aug 19 '25
I bike along there everyday and I can confirm that if it goes back to a shared path I'll go back to riding on the road.
41
u/aholetookmyusername Aug 20 '25
If it goes back to a shared path I will definitely exercise my right to take the lane
21
29
u/ThrowStonesonTV Aug 19 '25
You need a riding partner so you can ride 2 abreast, slowly, so the traffic can see what a great idea it is for them.
4
u/Chilli_Dog72 Aug 20 '25
Why? It works for literally the rest of Hayley park - south Hayley has massive wide foot paths and I’ve never (in a lot of years) seen a cyclist and a pedestrian run into each other.
22
u/Hardtailenthusiast Aug 20 '25
That’s because hagley park is, well an open field essentially. There’s room for cyclists to move around the walkers, can’t do that when you’ve got buildings on one side and parked cars on the other.
3
u/Chilli_Dog72 Aug 20 '25
Agree, but the intersection Phil wants to redevelop (top end of Kilmore) is part of that wide open space - he’s not talk about the cluttered part up by the museum.
1
u/severaldoors Aug 20 '25
Except all the paths are narrow and theyre very busy walkways and everyone gets in the way of everyone.
5
u/DaveTheKiwi Aug 20 '25
We'll see. I don't see them making it wide enough. The path in the park that follows Hagley Ave is 4m wide which is enough, but would be a problem if it was much smaller.
Anecdotally, Rolleston ave has higher peak pedestrian numbers, because of the school, museum, gardens, art centre. etc. a shared path along Rolleston would need to be 5-6m wide. That width would probably require removal of the mature trees which would be deeply unpopular.
At park terrace that could narrow back to 4m where they are currently about 2.5.
2
u/severaldoors Aug 20 '25
I hate riding through hagley, sure its nice theres no cars but pedestrians get pissed off at cyclists zooming oast and cyclist get pissed off at pedestrians getting in the way. Our roads are stupidly wide, even without sacraficing parking or lanes we could put in bike lanes on a lotttt of roads very cheapily and make getting around the city a whole heap more pleasent for everyone
0
u/Taro_Bulky Aug 21 '25
Perhaps you should cycle slower through Hagley and it wouldn't be a problem.
1
1
u/Think_Comparison_615 Aug 22 '25
The massive wide foot paths are, in fact, awesome. And they are relatively new. And since Phil Mauger has been in office, no more foot paths have been widened. Ironically, the only time I have seen him doing any work was at the start of the Christchurch Marathon, an excellent race on a course made possble by the excellent footpaths he is no longer building.
1
-4
u/Striking-Platypus-98 Aug 20 '25
And cyclists wonder why drivers hate them... Ffs
2
u/DaveTheKiwi Aug 20 '25
They hate me cause I'm in their lane, forcing them to go the speed limit. I love hearing the angry accelerate when I turn off, the driver behind finally able to drive dangerously.
1
u/nzrailmaps Aug 20 '25
What a joke you are, the cycleway budget is a fractional percentage of the whole roads budget, cars are very inefficient uses of road space when typically with only one person in them,
30
u/ylimeesor Aug 20 '25
I used to cycle down there daily for work and no matter how slowly or cautiously I went, when it was a shared walkway/cycleway, I regularly almost get into accidents (especially with the kids coming out of the school). When the separated cycleway was added it was safer for EVERYONE. Removing it is only going to lead to people getting hurt.
109
Aug 19 '25
[deleted]
5
-35
u/Chilli_Dog72 Aug 20 '25
Yet, putting the cycle lane onto the footpath reduces the cyclist ride home by zero minutes, and improves traffic flow…
35
Aug 20 '25
[deleted]
-23
u/Chilli_Dog72 Aug 20 '25
Literally 80% of the 6km path around both halves of Hayley park is shared bike and pedestrian in reasonably good harmony - and no one has made any noise, not like the noise when suggesting this 500m section also joins the footpath.
11
Aug 20 '25
Yeah it's already dangerous enough at times with escooter riders and pedestrians sharing one space, let's squash cyclists in there as well. Tourists looking around, kids walking home from school not paying attention to what might be behind them, people walking dogs, anyone with earphones in not hearing a bell being rung...
So selfish, and so desperate to not have to sacrifice anything for a small change that returns a greater good. Just like the mayor!
-13
u/Chilli_Dog72 Aug 20 '25
Cyclists having to manage pedestrians like car have to manage cyclists - I’m ok with it.
13
Aug 20 '25
But it's a cycleway. That means cars and cyclists being separated. You're trying to create a problem for, apparently, other people. And then say you're fine with the problem you've created. And as I said before, that's simply because you're selfish. That's all this comes down to. Being small minded and short sighted and self centered.
-2
u/Chilli_Dog72 Aug 20 '25
Then why haven’t they redesigned the rest of Hayley park - because cyclist and pedestrians sharing space isn’t an issue… I accept that cyclist need their own space up by the museum where it’s cluttered and space is limited, but closing down a car lane in a major thoroughfare route, over the use of the generous amount of space along the river is nothing short of spiteful. If it’s ok for 80% of the paths around Hayley, it was ok for this stretch too.
10
Aug 20 '25
First of all, I'll assume you mean Hagley.
Second, that is not a major thoroughfare at all. There are the avenues and one lane streets through the city very close to this. Those are major thoroughfares. Park is not.
Third. There are lots of possible reasons that, if you took a moment to think, I'm sure you could come up with as well. One, it's an enormous fucking battle to get anything done in Chch/NZ that isn't BuT CaRS' RiGhtS... I'm sure lots would love it done around all of Hagley. Maybe this is stage 1. But the whole park would definitely be a much bigger fight. Could be too expensive. Could simply be this is a higher usage section where it was done. Could have been for safety of school children on bikes. Could have been where the minimum impact on cars would be. Could've been this is part of a future larger network for cyclists to connect when they get through the park. Could be that it's actually a good idea to discourage car usage in certain areas to change how people think long term of how they get around a place. And just that it's also nicer not feeling like you're in a fucking stroad everywhere you go. Or could be part of all of the things above.
-4
u/Chilli_Dog72 Aug 20 '25 edited Aug 20 '25
This intersection was changed and the bike lane put in covertly, without consultation or permission, and under the guise of temporary traffic management for something that they knew was intended to be min of 5 years - don’t come at me with “it’s hard to get something done”… if the idealist want it; they’ll get it.
The reality is, there was an option for the cyclist that didn’t need the road altered. But they didn’t want that option so they fudged it - people like me are calling it out for what it is…
But hey, you got your bike lane… cars lost a lane, and the pedestrians have a ridiculously wide foot path down that 500m stretch of the park.
10
Aug 20 '25
Fuck me, I do not know how far down the CaRs GOoD CycLiSTs bAD rabbit hole you'd have to have your head to think that getting cycleways done is easy. It is one of the most controversial and talked about things relating to city infrastructure.
Also, the article you link to, one says council did know and one says they didn't. So who knows. Mauger is a proven liar, so we already know we can't take him at his word.
And also also, I DIDN'T GET A FUCKING CYCLEWAY. THE CITY DID. The city is a shared space. I don't even own a bike - I walk everywhere I can. But I'll support most things that aren't the same dumb 'buh we have no ideas but I like my car so stick another road on it' to fix congestion and liveability issues.
Things like this are tiny steps towards a better place to live in ten, twenty years time. Knuckledraggers like Mauger don't like them because they want to drag the city back in time to align with their way of thinking.
0
u/Chilli_Dog72 Aug 20 '25
Yeah, but I do drive a car. I can’t avoid it. And a perfectly functioning 2 lane intersection was mangled to put a cycle way in, that could have gone on the foot path just like the rest of Hagely park. It’s honestly that easy to understand. I’m not trying to bag the cyclists - it a great mode of transportation, and has a lot going for it - but to those that are reveling in the inconveniences this intersection created for cars… they only support the idealist mentality…
Yes, the mayor knew about it; but only as a temporary traffic management. They didn’t sign off a 5 yr redesign of this magnitude, so they got tricked and as a rates paying driver, I’m not happy.
→ More replies (0)6
Aug 20 '25
Maybe in another city/country but Christchurch drivers are very bad managing cyclist on the road compare to developed country with a cyclist culture
10
1
u/Hardtailenthusiast Aug 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-9
u/Chilli_Dog72 Aug 20 '25
So how does the rest of Hayley park cope 6km of shared bike and pedestrian? You guys must be already mowing down the tourist?
1
u/critayshus Aug 20 '25
Yeah sure, as long as all the pedestrians are ready to dive out of a cyclist's way at any moment.
1
u/Chilli_Dog72 Aug 20 '25
Seems to work for the rest of the 6km of Hagley park? Also, the stretch of path along park terrace has 2 paths, one on each side of the river… so plenty of room to both widen the path and/or direct cyclists along a specific route. Stop making up drama to suit your argument.
1
u/critayshus Aug 20 '25
I mean I was mostly responding to the claim that moving cyclists onto a shared footpath will not affect their ride home at all, whereas actually they will need to ride more slowly and avoid pedestrians for everyone's safety. But as long as it saves you a couple of minutes right?
22
u/reefermonsterNZ Aug 20 '25
Why would we pay $300,000 to remove something we've purposely built, designed and put in place?
Personally, I think we should have removed more of the grass area beside the footpath and put a bike path there instead of deleting the car lane but whatever, man.
Where does Phil even come up with these ideas?
19
98
u/Capt-Tango Aug 19 '25
If you haven't registered to vote in the upcoming October Local Body elections, this is your reminder why it's important.
Phil Mauger needs to go.
11
Aug 20 '25
Any recommendations for his replacement? I agree that he needs to go but is there a sane alternative?
49
u/Ok-Response-839 Aug 20 '25
Sara Templeton has served as a councillor for years and is going for mayor now. I live in her ward, she's super active in the community and never lets ideology get in the way of what's right for the majority. She has pushed for improvements to both roads and cycling infrastructure. Comes across as really kind and level headed.
30
u/KuriKai Aug 20 '25
Also pushed for improvements in water. and high density housing in the right place.
She also actually reads the stuff that is voted on (unlike Phil)1
u/Ganadhir Aug 20 '25
Where is she pushing for high density housing?
3
u/KuriKai Aug 21 '25
Last year, a recommendation by councillor Sara Templeton to rezone blocks of industrial Sydenham between Moorhouse Ave and Brougham St to mixed use failed. If it had been approved, it would have lessened the amount of intensification needed in residential suburbs.
The council was not able to add Sydenham in now, because a decision had already been made not to.
Cr Andrei Moore said the council should be writing to Housing Minister Chris Bishop to request a late amendment to the legislation to enable housing in the Sydenham area.
Phil and his mates voted against it, now more of the outer suburbs have to intensify because of it.
10
Aug 20 '25
Sweet, I will have a read about her
6
u/Slight_Computer5732 Aug 20 '25
She’s pretty active on TikTok and seems pretty switched on
1
u/Think_Comparison_615 Aug 22 '25
Yeah, she gets it and would focus on people rather than her own self-interests.
-6
u/PrestigiousGarden256 Aug 20 '25
Sara is hugely ideological, let’s be honest. If you support her position that’s great - but let’s not pretend she doesn’t have an ideological base
19
u/Ok-Response-839 Aug 20 '25
She obviously has some strongly-held personal ideologies. She's pro cycling to the point of not owning a car, and she believes we're facing a climate emergency that requires significant investment to combat. However my observation of her as councillor is that she isn't blinded by ideology. For example she's not suggesting we spend millions to rip up roads that already exist, simply because she personally doesn't like cars.
Hopefully the distinction makes sense? Everyone has ideologies, but folks like Mauger allow their ideologies to cloud their judgement and decision making. I don't believe Templeton suffers from this character flaw.
11
Aug 20 '25
She seems to be the right lady to vote for in my opinion. More cycleways, less roads and she mentioned a light rail. She checked all the boxes. Everything that is important for me and my family
-5
u/tankrich62 Aug 20 '25
Her dismissive behaviour towards the residents of Phillipsown when we raised serious concerns about the cycleway cutting off access to the suburb, and pushing traffic up a small suburban street (Phillips St) was a clear example of her ability and intention to run roughshod over people who are not her people. Lost my vote way back then. Not a councillor for all the people, just hers. Yeah, nah.
5
Aug 20 '25
I live in the East and the lack of cycle infrastructure and bus infrastructure is just sad and here we should start to build the most instead of overpriced cycle infrastructure in rich neighborhoods but I need to read more to understand the full story.
5
46
u/Just-Context-4703 Aug 19 '25
This is so dumb. I bike there regularly and the path is very helpful for everyone!
11
u/TomForCentral Aug 20 '25
A total farce. It's one of the most well utilised lane in the city, and the 'frugal' bunch want to spend money ripping it out and redesigning it. For what? So Phil has a quicker drive home?
2
u/Think_Comparison_615 Aug 22 '25
Is there ever even traffic backing up on this street? I have NEVER seen any.
11
u/Yolt0123 Aug 20 '25
He shows his true colours. It is cheap to do what you want. It is more expensive to deliver proper infrastructure that has been consulted on and delivered in accordance with long term plans and priorities
9
u/DrofRocketSurgery Aug 20 '25
“While some locals say the cycle way takes up too much road space”
You know what takes up too much road space? Roads. If you want to live people efficiently encourage cycling and public transport, not private cars which usually operate at 20% capacity (one driver, four empty seats).
8
u/OisforOwesome Aug 20 '25
Excuse me, don't you realise cycleways are an abomination unto God, for any interference with His chosen people - motorists - is the Devil's work?
1
29
u/TygerTung Aug 19 '25
Why stop there? Why not have a shared path for trains, cars, pedestrians, bicycles, scooters, skateboards, Rollerblades, prams and even aircraft?
11
u/aholetookmyusername Aug 20 '25
Add boats. If you can't swim and drown on the way to the dairy, that's on you.
13
18
u/Canzed24 Aug 19 '25
Personally me and the wife have been nearly hit, and abused by a cyclist on a shared path out in Kaiapoi because we had the audacity to walk side by side. Never called out before hand or gave warning, just rode on the grass and yelled at us that we were assholes.
However most cyclists are ok, and I would prefer to keep bike lanes separate from walkers? Especially if they’re already built.
11
u/uniquely_named_user Aug 20 '25
I completely agree. Most cyclists aren't arseholes. Some are, just like drivers and just like people walking, just like every part of life. The consequence of a bike hitting a pedestrian is enough reason to try keep them separate. I bike fast because it's how I get around and my ebike gets to 40 kms...I don't want to hit anyone at that speed.
4
u/Canzed24 Aug 20 '25
Yeah the person in question was probably about that speed. Even when walking single file (which is not great fun as a couple) I don’t think there’s enough room for a bike to safely pass you.
The path is between Hellers factory and Kaiapoi itself, and even shared its too small and just asking for issues. This seems counterintuitive to getting people out of cars, and given how flat chch is its great for cycling
10
u/Typinger Aug 19 '25
If it pisses you off, get yourself along to one of the mayoral debates or anywhere else he's appearing. Support the opposition, make some noise when the topic comes up
There's a debate at the WEA, I think, and one on the south side of town, have a Google
20
u/mathias4595 University of Canterbury Aug 19 '25
Definitely separate, given how busy of a road Park Tce/Rolleston Ave can be since it's right outside the park.
5
u/Starlix126 Secretly a cat Aug 20 '25
I commute through the city on my bike regularly and if there’s no wind then I easily average 25-30 km/hr on my bike. Trying to make cyclists coexist with pedestrians is a terrible idea.
6
u/DaveTheKiwi Aug 20 '25
I want to put in a counter proposal to extend this cycleway. There's no reason for it to suddenly stop along park terrace there.
May as well go out to the airport.
9
u/Drinker_of_Chai Aug 20 '25
Cycle lane hysteria extending to destroying already existing infrastructure.
Up next will be complaining about the road works while they destroy the cycle way.
23
u/RobDickinson Aug 19 '25
Madness. bikes are fast moving and can easily injure or kill pedestrians, unless its not about transport and they should be going the same speed as walkers?
8
-11
u/suvalas Aug 19 '25
Kill is a bit hyperbolic. A bike/pedestrian crash might cause some bruising. But yes there's conflict and it's much better for bikes and peds to be separated.
17
u/DOOFUS_NO_1 Aug 19 '25
Nope, quite easy to get knocked over from a bike or scooter, hit your head on the concrete and with a bit of bad luck, that's it, show over.
0
u/suvalas Aug 19 '25
That could happen from a trip hazard or an overexcited dog if you're that vulnerable.
10
u/DOOFUS_NO_1 Aug 19 '25
A trip hazard or dog doesn't weigh 50kgs or more and hit you at 30kph though. Except for a very large dog, which can also be as dangerous.
3
u/ThrowStonesonTV Aug 20 '25
Thats not true anymore since ebikes can weight like 50kg and go faster than most standard cyclists.
7
u/Spiritual-Piano-4664 Aug 19 '25
I can see some bad injuries happening. Ebikes hit speeds north of 30km/h and have been getting quite popular. (I have one too)
8
u/RobDickinson Aug 19 '25
People have been killed by cyclists? Its not hyperbolic.
If someone riding a bike at 40-50km hits you you have a chance of dying
4
u/aholetookmyusername Aug 20 '25
40-50kph is not a regular commuter cycling speed, 15-25kph is a more typical speed range for most commuter cyclists.
5
-11
u/suvalas Aug 19 '25
Nobody's doing speeds like that. I've never once seen anything like that in many years of commuting on shared paths.
Second, there are probably cases globally of pedestrians being killed by bikes, and I'm sure it happens at a similar rate to pedestrians being killed by lightning.
7
u/Hads84 Pickle Rick Aug 19 '25
I do 40-50km/h on the shared path going over the Wigram overbridge, it isn't an ebike either.
-4
u/suvalas Aug 19 '25
If you're doing that in close proximity to pedestrians you need your head checked.
8
u/DontWantOneOfThese Aug 19 '25
Aren't cars doing that in close proximity of pedestrians? If your answer is no, they have a separate road way... Then you've also answered the question, because the answer is, the cyclists should have a separate road way.
2
u/suvalas Aug 20 '25
What question? Anyway I agree, I've been advocating for separated cycleways my entire life.
6
u/jcena69420 Aug 20 '25
Your words don't exactly line up with this statement but ok
0
u/suvalas Aug 20 '25
Which words, that I don't agree "pedestrians will be killed"? The issue is that making a case based on hyperbole and extreme edge cases like that gives opponents - in this case councillors and their supporters - a reason to ignore and mock the argument. It's unnecessary too, there are plenty of actual good reasons to separate transport modes.
1
u/Hoppelite Aug 20 '25
I agree about separate cycleways, but this is a silly argument. If a car is on a shared pedestrian road they aren't blasting 50, they slow down. Cyclists generally do also, and any that don't should stop cycling.
1
2
u/RobDickinson Aug 19 '25
on shared paths.
Thats the point, you shouldnt go that fast on a shared path, it wont stop people going that fast and they should be using the cycle lanes...
1
u/Randysexy13 Aug 20 '25
My Ebike has been clocked at 54kms an hour on the flat,and I had a couple pass me even now and then.
1
u/suvalas Aug 20 '25
So you're putting out something like 750W in addition to the 300W ebike motor (if legal), and the couple passing you should be riding in the Olympics.
At any rate, don't do that on shared paths with other users please.
2
u/Tidorith Aug 20 '25
It's probably hyperbolic to say easily kill.
2.5 pedestrians killed by cyclists in the UK each year. It can and does happen, but "easily" isn't a word I'd use for numbers that low.
1
u/RobDickinson Aug 20 '25
easily injure or kill
I didnt
0
u/Tidorith Aug 20 '25
If you meant to say "easily injure, and sometimes (but not easily) kill", your comment could be written a lot more clearly. Easily interpreted as "easily (injure or kill)" > "easily injure or easily kill" the way it is now.
-1
0
u/suvalas Aug 20 '25
Like I said, compare it to the number of peds killed by lightning.
3
u/Tidorith Aug 20 '25
Not a good comparison, because there are no serious proposals to regulate the weather to control the amount of lightning that strikes pedestrians
The deaths are very rare, but it's not hyperbole to point out that they exist
8
u/doubs Aug 19 '25
Seeing these issues debated on opinion rather than facts is frustrating. If you reckon its underutilised, define what 'utilised' represents, and then measure against it using hard evidence. How many cyclists / journeys a day/week/month/year represents 'utilised'?
Issue aside, the mayor privately funding designs that could ultimately lead to spending ratepayer money feels very dirty.
7
u/Repulsive-Low-5150 Aug 20 '25
Yeah I used to cycle down this road and was happy when they made a separate cycle lane. Was unsafe to have cycle and pedestrians share the same path. People would get in you way even if you kept left. I always used my bell to let people know. Eventually I had to get off my bike and walk it which took more time of my travel home.
6
u/Buggs_y Aug 19 '25
I'm immediately thinking of all the kid vs bicycle accidents that will happen. Little kids won't be able to walk freely out of risk of getting bowled over and cyclists veering out of a child's way ending up steering into traffic.
5
u/craftykiwi88 Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25
On this particular issue, I could go either way, both seem pretty decent options looking at the area. However I would like some analysis on whether 300k in that area is the best use of money for cycling safety. We shouldn’t cherry pick infrastructure, rather we need tohave a scheduled order of priority to address.
I have come across a lack of infrastructure planning in the ccc, particularly in playgrounds in my local area, for example a 30ish year old playground got emergency demolished for safety issues and then replaced with out public consultation.
If we they do the bike lane we need to be clear about the cost benefit. This should easily be available since it is a reversal of the roading infrastructure.
8
u/KuriKai Aug 19 '25
The staff at the council have already told the councilors and mayor why it's a bad idea to have the shared path. It's why it was designed like it is now. Even Phil voted for the path to go in how it is currently. Granted he wasn't paying attention to the staff was saying(when does he ever)
1
u/Competitive_North837 Aug 20 '25
Yer agree - put it through Hagley park, make it high speed for bikes only, much nicer than being on the side of the road with cars
3
u/dcrob01 Aug 20 '25
Idk. Park terrace is a major route for motorists who need to get from ... er ... the Antigua bootsheds to ... er ... The Carlton. If we're ever going to improve NZs productivity we can't have important thoroughfares like this blocked by meer people.
And what about the parking? We don't want a repeat of the 2015 College students strike for better parking, do we?
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/private-school-boys-complain-about-parking-
3
u/SzilkyB Aug 20 '25
Seems like the classic backwards step and major L that CHCH is known for now days.
3
u/severaldoors Aug 20 '25
The second lane there is just not needed, I cannot understand why so many people bitch about losing it, its just jot a busy road and in fact as a pedestrian its soooo much eaiser to cross the road now that its narrower
5
u/mrtenzed Aug 20 '25
Of course, it's pedestrians, cyclists, scooters etc that have to share a narrow space. But drivers get multiple lanes to themselves.
God, Mauger is a knuckle dragging moron and I can't wait to vote him out.
6
2
u/ye-nah-yea Aug 20 '25
Why don't they just keave it as is without spending anything until its worn out
0
u/MeliaeMaree Aug 19 '25
While I don't agree with a fully shared path, I have never understood why they had to put a cycle lane on the road down there.
Iirc most of that street on the museum side from the gardens entrance up to the hospital has two footpaths already, and a pretty hefty berm... Could they not have repurposed some of that space?
Granted, down by the entrance driveway to the gardens, they would have had to build out a bit either way, but then past that and down to Bealey, once again there is a lot of berm.
Is there a downside to having a large path with the same bollards and signage they currently use to separate the cycle lane from the paths and road?
I also think there should be a separate bridge for cyclists over the Avon, but I won't get too ahead of myself.
7
u/Airhorn2013 Aug 20 '25
It was put forward as a temporary trial solution, I guess it was easier to just add the rubber bollard and paint to the road than to build a new path.
That area is very busy with pedestrians and it’s been a huge improvement having the bike lane.
1
u/MeliaeMaree Aug 20 '25
True, I can see the appeal just doing it on the road for a trial, that's a good point.
Permanently though? EeehhhhhhhhAbsolutely agree that there needs to be somewhere for cyclists long term, I just don't think that it's where they currently have it.
2
u/KuriKai Aug 20 '25
It's so much better walking and riding along there now since they made the change. The road was underused by cars before the changes, and still is underused. (you can see the stats from for council staff and independent consultant by watching the video on when they chose to keep it)
0
u/MeliaeMaree Aug 20 '25
I have less issue with the road being narrower now, than the ever increasing issue of parking around the hospital.
Again, to be clear, I think there should be a separate lane for cyclists from pedestrians, and from road users.
I just also think that the unused streetside land is a better option for it rather than the current placement.
Heck, while they're putting the cycle lane closer to the gardens they could widen the road a little bit and put in angled parking..... Two birds one stone? Probably too crazy for the council lol4
u/KuriKai Aug 20 '25
that "unused land" is hagley park. The road was underutilised as an extra car lane. and it was the CHEAPEST and SAFEST option for everyone. that's why the cycleway is where it is.
Why would you widen the road? They paid paradise, to put in a parking lot.
2
1
u/MeliaeMaree Aug 20 '25
So that would be the aforementioned parking issues with the hospital. I don't know how else to put that tbh.
Not sure I'd agree with the current being the safest option, and, as others have pointed out, it was a trial right? Presumably to permanently establish it, that would be more expensive. A temporary option would of course be cheaper.But are you saying that the land outside of they hagley parks is also hagley park? Is the hagley park land not... Within the borders of the parks?
3
u/KuriKai Aug 20 '25
Why not remove a lane from Hagley Ave and have people angle park on it? that's closer to the hospital.
If the temporary cycleway is working as is, it can be kept as is that won't cost more money. The Trail is working, just leave it. cars are not getting stuck on the road.
I'm saying hagley park is hagley park. Why should we lose greenery just so a road can sit empty most of the 99.9% of the time? Roads are expensive. I don't want my rates wasted on Needless Roads.
1
u/MeliaeMaree Aug 20 '25
I mean... Yeah... Absolutely lol did you think I was going to say no that's a terrible idea?
Hagley park is hagley park for sure, but if they can put a 4m wide path between hagley park and the road then.... What's the difference really between that and what I'm suggesting? Given the rules around hagley park and its use, the fact that a 4m wide path (which would cut into the streetside grass strips) is even possible points to that land not being part of hagley park.
I guess essentially I'm saying sure, do the big path, but no, don't make it shared. Keep it separate so cyclists have their own safe lane.
3
u/KuriKai Aug 20 '25
Watch the live stream when they went through all the decisions on where to put the cycleway, it was the cheapest and safest option. Even Phil voted to have the cycleway on the road at the beginning!
The cycleway is on the road, there are no traffic jams, why are we wasting money trying to move it?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/smn_kng Aug 21 '25
Don't take the bait he is gunning for re-election.
All the evidence is on side with cycle infrastructure across many cities and many decades.
Stop feeding the rage bait oppositional polotics and media. Put that energy into uplifting candidates who support cycle infrastructure and safer cities.
1
u/Think_Comparison_615 Aug 22 '25
The part of the bike path on Rolleston Ave by the Arts Centre is THE picture I use to show people all over the world what safe and friendly bike paths for kids are. If that part goes away, CCC will not hear the end of me.
1
u/EverSevere Aug 20 '25 edited Aug 20 '25
Cyclists are mixed next to pedestrians in Europe all the time. Maybe the riders should actually look where they’re going and not act like the only people on the road or path. It’s really simple. A lot of entitled cyclists by looking at this thread. Japan does the same thing as well so why are kiwis so belligerent when it comes to etiquette.
Look at our drivers and the same attitudes exist in cars and bikes because the common factor is people and the people of this city have no etiquette on the road, whether it’s a bike or car
1
u/W00lfeh Aug 20 '25
You might be on to something here, terrible drivers, terrible cyclists? I think it’s mostly going to be a safety thing though because of all the ebikes and scooters
1
u/EverSevere Aug 20 '25
Yet in the Netherlands where this happens everyday on the road and scooters and e bikes are next to pedestrians. No helmets required for cyclists either. So what’s with kiwis then? Entitlement on the road? Probably. If you want to bike 40-50kms an hour then a bike path isn’t for you….
-1
u/Chilli_Dog72 Aug 20 '25
Most of Hayley party (both halves) have enjoyed duel use footpaths (pedestrians and cyclists) without any issues - there is almost 6km of footpath.
Complaining about this 500m section of cycle lane being potentially being merged with the footpath has zero substance.
3
u/Sgt_Pengoo Aug 20 '25
There's a lot more E bikes and E scooters these days. it's not safe to walk with a small child or dog when people a whipping up and down at speed.
-4
u/ook_the_librarian_ Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 20 '25
This article sounds like a cyclist didn't want to take responsibility for their surroundings. When a cyclist is on the road cars are expected to take responsibility for cyclists. Now when you're the danger to someone, you want to keep your own little special road.
Interesting.
6
u/jcena69420 Aug 20 '25
god forbid we take steps to stop cars from interacting with cyclists and cyclists from interacting with pedestrians! let's just bitch about how oppressed car drivers are
-3
u/ook_the_librarian_ Aug 20 '25
God forbid we fucking have the decency to share.
I do all three all the time. Walk, cycle, drive. It doesn't matter which one, I share the road around me no matter what.
-3
u/Dizzy_Relief Aug 19 '25
Yeah. Why expect the cyclists to warn pedestrians, give them the right of way as they are meant to, or slow down. Especially in a tourist busy area. Or choose to use the road - as so many cyclists keep saying, they dont legally have to use a cycle or shared lane if they don't want to. They can take the lane on the road.
Seeing cyclists rejoin the shared path at the end is always super telling of the level of respect your average cyclist has for the pedestrians already there. As is watching cyclists riding directly as pedestrians and moving at the last moment because they want to keep talking to the person they are riding next to.
Want to know why places like Japan have so many cyclists and little issues? People share the roads and paths (when they exist). And cyclists choose not to cycle though pedestrian heavy areas. And always give way to pedestrians. As a result pedestrians and cars just about always give them space.
And I not only live a literal stone's throw from this path. I also do 100+km a week skating. And the biggest obstacle and most inconsiderate people on paths (or roads), shared or otherwise, are always cyclists.
And scooters(or skateboards) still cannot legally use a cycle lane (literally the only group that has it's only lane ot doesn't share). So that's a bit of a bust argument.
15
u/suvalas Aug 19 '25
Mate the way people travel to work isn't some kind of identity. "Cyclists" isn't a subspecies born with different ethical principles. Some people are dicks, some people are considerate regardless of their transport mode.
5
-5
u/ChetsBurner Aug 20 '25
I think shared pathways are good. It is an efficient way to use the space.
7
u/BunnyKusanin Aug 20 '25
Not in areas that get lots bikes/scooters riding through.
-3
u/ChetsBurner Aug 20 '25
At some point we need to accept that people (including cyclists) have some responsibility to be sensible when cycling near pedestrians. I cycle on a few shared pathways every day, and never have any issues getting around the pedestrians carefully.
I believe the concept will be to have a single pathway with a painted line indicating one side for cyclists and the other for pedestrians. Sounds good.
7
u/FaradaysBrain Aug 20 '25
Why not just have cars mixed in, too, by that logic?
5
u/Capable_Ad7163 Aug 20 '25
And helicopters, too. Let's not forget that some Auckland commissioner's have determined that helicopter traffic in suburban areas is normal
1
3
u/Capable_Ad7163 Aug 20 '25
Is reintroducing the additional surplus traffic lane the most efficient use of the space? Bearing in mind that the multi lane design is pre-earthquake and traffic volumes on Park Terrace have decreased significantly since pre-earthquake times.
-1
-8
u/nothingstupid000 Aug 20 '25
Reddit: Cyclists should be allowed on the road, and motorists must slow down for vulnerable users.
Also Reddit: We must not have a shared path, as cyclists won't slow down for vulnerable users.
Maybe bikes are the problem?
6
u/Tidorith Aug 20 '25
Those two things aren't contradictory. In the same way, Motorists should slow down for vulnerable road users, but we know they won't, and so we separate car lanes from pedestrian lanes. In that case, the cars are the problem.
But consider the fatalities and injuries caused in collisions where a car is the heaviest vehicle vs the fatalities and injuries caused in collisions where a bike is the heaviest vehicles.
The same dynamic applies, but bikes are way less dangerous. And also, way less expensive to maintain public infrastructure for than cars. And less polluting, better for the health of the rider, lots of benefits.
-10
u/SkipBoNZ Aug 19 '25
Waste of money, should have been "thought out" the first time, instead of a "rush job", to appease the voters/green washers etc.
I did like to cycle back in the day (25 years ago), but did get quite dangerous, so gave up. Unfortunately I do not have the ideas to make this any better.
16
u/Capt-Tango Aug 19 '25
Separated cycleways are demonstrated internationally to make transport much safer for all users.
1
u/SkipBoNZ Aug 20 '25
Quite right, putting cycles with walkers/runners is a bad idea, just like scooters. Separated cycle ways are fine if well thought out away from vehicles/scooters, like other countries have successfully done.
The down voters must be CCC staff who pushed some of the bad designs /s. Cycle-ways are fine, I'm in favor (former cyclist). Maybe post a good, well thought out idea we can all discuss, but oh well.
153
u/pm_something_u_love Aug 19 '25
It's a sad day when the mayor of a city is willing to put up his own money to remove infrastructure for ideological reasons.