C&R Support T2 Bus Lanes


Two C&R Auckland city council candidates for the Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward today supported council proposals that favour a T2 transit lane over a full bus lane on Dominion Road.

Paul Goldsmith and Chris Fletcher said they support an extension to the peak hour bus lanes that currently run the length of Dominion Road, such as 6.30-9am and 4-6.30pm, and they agree with the council proposals that favour a T2 transit lane over a full bus lane.

They say this would retain on-street parking most of the day on both sides of the road and at all times on at least one side of the road.
They want cycle lanes to be accommodated alongside the T2 transit lanes, which will be wider in the sections of the road between the shopping centres.

Ms Fletcher (left)  who is a former mayor credited with getting Britomart transport centre happening and Cr Goldsmith,in a joint statement,  said a “more balanced and less disruptive solution” was needed for local businesses in the area.

This was because the current council proposals, which are now out for consultation, would see the removal of all on-street parking along Dominion Road, between Valley Road and Denbigh Ave, at all times to allow for a cycle lane and a T2 transit lane.

“Our community have expressed legitimate concerns. We agree that the proposals go too far. We will be supporting business associations and residents who want to see Eden Quarter and the Balmoral shops get a better deal.

“Dominion Road is an important transport route, but it also contains a series of vibrant shopping communities. They are worried they could be seriously weakened by the removal of all on-street parking. We need to address their concerns.”

Public submissions on the plans close with council on August 29 and the issue will be re-visited by the council’s transport committee in September.




  1. joust says:


  2. Mark Donnelly says:

    This is just dumb - or dumb and dumber!
    T2 is wrong here - far too many buses and bus stops. This isn’t Tanaki drive. With so many schools on the route, also open to abuse.

    And they need to think this through - a cycle lane beside the T2 lane - but they still want parking????? so when cars park in the T2 lane, they open their doors into a cycle lane?!!!

  3. Harry says:

    DUmber I say

  4. karl says:

    And what does the T2 / bus lane issue even have to do with parking in the same lane during the off-peak hours?

    A has nothing to do with B.

    At least they don’t disagree with the cycle lanes - though I wonder whether they have grasped the main issue there, which is that to do ANYTHING for cycling, some road widening will be required in the town centre sections.

  5. Nick R says:


    Good point Karl, they are trying to sneak the downgrade to T2 in with separate issues over timing, parking, cycle lanes etc.

  6. Mark Donnelly says:

    My view is cycle lane can remain as part of bus lane. This is also another reason against T2. I spoke to a daily commuter cyclist on this road - and they’re ok with current set up, and find buses ok. They really,really oppose having T2, and saw the current cycle lane proposal as potentially more dangerous than sharing the bus lane.

    The planned cycle lanes were very tricky - they stopped for large sections, and also went behind bus stops in others, where bus pasengers would be walking/waiting. Also being beside footpaths that were only 1.5 m wide, people would be stepping into the cycle lane all the time.

    And as mentioned you can’t have parking if you do the cycle lane, as a parked car passenger door will open straight into the cycle lane!

  7. joust says:

    bait ‘n’ switch, like National on ACC, mining, labour laws etc.

  8. karl says:

    Mark - the concern I have with your summary is that you were only talking with existing cyclists. You want to attract new ones, mums and kids and older people who would never go onto a shared bus lane unless the shared sections are short.

    I don’t think sharing a bus lane for 30% of the length of Dominion Road is a bad compromise - much much better than at the moment. For the rest, one would have a good breather on separated cycle lanes which I quite support.

    Also, regarding the “1.5m footpaths” - the cross sections show that there is another 1m strip of landscaping or further footpath between that footpath and the cycle lane. That should be enough to ensure conflict between pedestrians and cyclists is avoided in the midblock sections (see link below).


    By the way, cycle lanes have consistently been shown to improve PEDESTRIAN safety even more than cyclist safety, by providing additional separation from motor vehicle traffic (research quoted, amongst others, in the Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide, NZTA 2008). So this will actually make walking safer and more pleasant than having a footpath right up to the traffic lane.

    On the parking in the transit/bus lane - well, I support all parking to be removed from the road, but I am aware that you don’t. So one has to look into how that would be managed. I can tell you that despite what some people may have said for their own views, cyclists in general are not okay with the status quo in Auckland, so they should too, be incorporated in the upgrade, not just dropped by the wayside. The cycle lanes have to stay.

  9. Nick R says:

    I can see a couple of issues with the cross section.
    Firstly the cycle lanes will conflict with the bus stop every 400m or so, cyclists will have to detour around the shelter and potentially throngs of waiting people.
    Secondly in my experience with similar bike lanes in Melbourne (i.e. ones that are extensions of the footpath rather than the main roadway) is that both sides end up being used by pedestrains, dog walkers, mums with prams etc. You end up constantly dinging indignant people to get out of the cycle lane, people that don’t even realise they are in it, or ones that have just stopped to get their pram out of the boot or whatever (yes this is despite regular stencils, signage, cyclist light phase etc). One of the worst things in young kinds that run out onto the cyclway because they think it is part of the footpath and aren’t expecting fast moving traffic.

    Another issue is drivers pulling out or into driveways, they just don’t seem to think about cyclists on the ‘footpath’ and they’ll pull right across in front of you and wait for a gap to pull onto the ‘road’.

    My ideal would be to remove all parking, have centre bus lanes with bus stops on ‘superstop’ style platforms accessed by signallised crossings, then a general traffic and a cycle lane that is part of the ‘road’ (not the footpath) but separated from the general traffic lane by a raised curb/island.

  10. Mark Donnelly says:

    karl - I think you’ll find that extra 1m is an “average”, and won’t be achieved over the length. Mid block shops etc.

    Also we’re not given teh full details but most bus stops will force cyclists off into a bus lane anyway

    here is the layout for behind bus stop


    I don’t think many will go behind the bus lanes - and when they do, they will be very dangerous.

    I accept your point that there may be more cyclists (currently 38 over 2 hr peak), I’m not convinced you can take a road and try and fit every option in. Given only 10% of people work in the CBD, we may do better to connect cycle lanes to rail stations with lockers etc. The kids in the area, can get to local schoold largely off Dominion Rd, and again some local road improvements can be made.

    I’m not sure re pedestrian saftey benefit of cyclists. In my mind I seperate commuter cyclists from recreational. And people coming home from work at 6pm, are more likely to be fast proficent commuter cyclists, who in my view will have more problems on a 1.8m strip next to trees and pedestrians, and going both in front of bus stops and behind.

    At the moment they can travel pretty quickly down there in the bus lane. I’m not convinced having to share for 600m through the town centre - then into a raised cycle lane, to then go out into shared bus / cycle at the next stop, then back into seperate cycle lane, and then either behind bus stop at the next one - or back out into shared bus lane is going to work.

    To me to do this all the way down Dominion Rd, just doesn’t seem practical!

    enjoy the debate though:)

    Given staff must have the information, it’s a shame they

  11. karl says:

    “Also we’re not given teh full details”

    “Given staff must have the information, it’s a shame they”

    Mark, I have talked to the Council staff on this project in the past - they can’t always give you details because this isn’t detailed design! This will be planned for another 1-2 years before the workers come along. So lack of detail on some elements is not a failing - simply a fact of life and an opportunity to discuss things before they are made hard and fast.

    I agree with your comments re commuter cyclists - but those who currently commute, and who will “road warrior” commute in the future are NOT the cyclists we should be targeting. We should be looking out for those who currently do NOT cycle, who have been scared away from our roads by decades of faster & more cars & less consideration to them. Protected, separate cycle lanes are the way to get them back on the road.

    And cyclists want to go to the same places where everyone else goes (including shops and locations ON Dominion Road - they aren’t just passing through to the CBD!) so the “they can go along other quieter back routes”) does not work for many of them.

    “I’m not sure re pedestrian saftey benefit of cyclists.”

    The benefit of the cycle lane is that when you step out suddenly, you are not hit by a car (hopefully you won’t be hit by a cyclist either) and once you actually step out onto the lanes, your sightlines are a lot better. It is a buffer zone.

    “not convinced you can take a road and try and fit every option in.”

    Exactly - Dominion Road should cater much less for the motorist, and that is how we get the ability to cater for the remaining groups. Auckland has priorised the motorist on ALL of its roads for decades, right from when they took out the trams with the triumphant shout that “now traffic will flow unimpeded” (almost literally the words of those times) - so now we have to upgrade some roads for other modes.

  12. Mark Donnelly says:

    apologies for my typing!
    - re details - they’ve designated the land they know every width. All you need is to look at each bus stop, and say whether lane is behind or shared. that tells you whether it is practical or not.

    Re pedestrians - cyclists are largely silent, and of course can be fast moving. The cycle lane doesn’t form a complete buffer - not for noise etc from buses/cars etc. And as I say, when you look at some sites, I don’t think the 1m applies anyway.

    I agree that there is also weekend shopper cycling, but that will tend to me more local roads into the centres.

    I also agree with turning the dial down on cars, but not sure this is the right location for major cyclist changes.

    As we’ve discussed before these town centres are under enormous pressure from St Lukes etc - and pedestrians are crucial. Parked cars help that environement.

    I supported the cycle rack trial (although got hijacked for advertising), and in areas where they fit, that will encourage local shoppers to cycle.

    But I struggle to see the coherent commuter cycle plan. where are the destinations, and where are the priority routes. for example, I would see Sandringham rd as a far higher priority for cycling lanes. It is largely resdiential / fewer pedestians re space sharing etc, and it feeds kingsland station / shopping centre and eden park, and also leads as a route to CBD / University. And can also feed St Lukes. It could also join into North western cycleway extension as well.

    It probably also has similar numbers of people living near it, who could get access. And in fact some of the catchement crosses over with Dominion rd anyway. So rather than $50m on Dominion, a cycle lane would be much easier and cheaper, and would have a consistent lane on Sandringham, and then money could go to secure locker areas at the rail station, and on Ian McKinnon into town / or to NW extension.

  13. karl says:

    Mark, I have a couple problems with your comments - bear with me if I focus on cyclists first, but I believe that not only does a cycling renaissance (which we have in Auckland - but only where we have provided facilities!) help things like traffic congestion, it also does a lot to revitalise the city.

    Adressing some of your comments:

    Yes, they know the whole layout of the road - but from some of the public responses, I see that the people do not even look at the standard cross-sections. Do you think Council would improve the response by providing ten different ones?

    Regarding the comment that cyclists can use Sandringham Road, I disagree - that is almost a kilometer away! So if I want to go north-south, you are proposing I go west for one km, then east for one km again! That isn’t going to attract cyclists - like pedestrians and car drivers, they don’t like detours, and we should not force them to do them so.

    Also, the “why not provide for them on Sandringham Road” gives me echoes of every other cycling project in town! “Why not somewhere else?”. Well, because when we go to Sandringham Road, not only will there be no project to do anything there, the locals will tell you “Why not go somewhere else?” with your cycle lanes. Any major road upgrade needs to include cycling provision, and Dominion Road is a major upgrade. Dropping out cycling here would be more than a loss, it would be a capitulation.

    Regarding the wider connectivity, Sandringham Road also does NOT link well into the Northwestern Cycleway at all. You first have to go up over the Kingsland Ridge, fight your way across New North Road, and then find your way down one side of Bond Street down to the cycleway. Not good. On the opposite side, Dominion Road is a much more direct route to the city, and NZTA and Council are (in two different projects) currently preparing to improve the cycling environment on IanMcKinnon Drive (north end of Dom Road) and extend the Northwestern Cycleway through the CMJ. I have it on good authority that both these projects are going ahead within the next 1-2 years. Of course I can’t promise that - there’s always vagaries, especially with the super city, but they are actually more imminent than Dom Road.

    So in short, the cycling connectivity at the northern end of Dom Road will significantly improve in the near future, whereas no such thing can be said for Sandringham Road (in addition to my other concerns).

    In summary - good quality cycle lanes on Dom Road have the possibility to really revitalise this part of town for something else except motor vehicles (that counts buses AND cars). People will be able to ride in much greater safety to and from the town centres for example, to shop or use cafes.

    Not trying to “gotcha” you - but do you cycle? Ocasionally?

  14. Justine Tringham says:

    http://www.caa.org.nz/calming.htm this was my favourite thing i have seen today. obviously the C&R idea of transit lanes goes completely against this. fast traffic = scary experience for cyclists.

    so on the cycling thing… i am a commuting cyclist. i am also a non commuting cyclist. i rant (and believe me i do) at all my friends about getting out of cars and on to bikes. they say - ohhhh i’ll get sweaty or i don’t like biking or i need the car for something (anything). the problem with encouraging cycling is that so many people like to have an excuse not to.

    however as a plus, if you can get people young then hopefully they can acquire the habit.

    i personally prefer being on a cycle lane (went to adelaide and enjoyed mincing around there a lot) but i also live on Dominion Rd and like a thriving community. my gut feeling without being a traffic engineer is wider roads = faster cars. i experience that at the top of dominion rd when it goes mental.

    i would rather have them fix the top of dominion rd and ian mckinnon drive first.

    finally, just to prove my cycling fascist credentials, it seems to me from my observations that you have to make driving so unpleasant that people beg for public transport options. slow down dominion rd, encourage long queues, pedestrian boulevards and maybe bus lanes in the centre if everything goes really slowly but don’t widen it and take away all the parking.

  15. Mark Donnelly says:

    Karl - no not a commuter cyclist - just a bit with the kids.
    I realsie we’ll have to agree to disagree - and I guess I do come from a background of seeing millions wasted on transport projects that don’t work, and haven’t been thought through. Or that have no cost benefit done.

    This is why I think the 10 cross sections are important - maybe not for top level consultation, but shoudl be available to Councillors, and others that have a direct interest. If you owned or leased a shop beside a current bus stop, you’d want to know what footpath wdith and environemnt will be in 2016.

    As a local I rasied concerns on the original light rail option 1A - whcih could never physically work….and was fobbed with exactly the “we’ll sort that out in the detailed design”. Then as expected ARC/Regional Land transport proved it couldn’t work - and it was canned. But the blight of the designations remained - again they obviously wouldn’t work for buses - as we poinetd out, and then predictably ARTA confirmed they didn’t want to use them last year.

    So, so far commonesense has been right - and it’s that which worries me about this design.

    Other example of waste, have been some of the intersection upgrades (St Lukes, Mt Eden/Balmoral) - $9-12m per intersection with no real improvements, no benchmarking before and after, and no cost benefit. Council can build a major indoor community swimming pool for that cost…..

    I accept and recognise your priority on cyclying, but I still think it needs to be practical. While at Balmoral it may be 1km to Sandringham, further up it is closer. And people in the block between are 500m to either. I’m not saying remove cycles from Dominion Rd, I was saying current shared lane can work there, and in fact may be better. Not every arterial will support the same type of cycling.

    And of course other options of extending bus lanes to intersections, would also benefit cyclists.

    I’m not sure about Ian McKinnon plans, now that ARTA have confirmed NW into town. The ones I saw were not joining into NW cycleway. What is the most direct route depends though on where you start. And Bond st could feed in reasonably well to NW - and would benefit New North area.
    But that doesn’t mean you don’t do Ian Mckinnon - again that benefits a pocket east along view road as well.

    I realise there’s probably nothing planned for Bond St, but that’s part of my concern - this is $50m for Dominion Rd, but apart from Council legally having to use deviations by 2016, how does it fit into priorities. If you extended bus lanes to intersections as shared bus/cycle - you could do that for minimal costs, later this year - not 2016. Then is Ian McKinnon top cycle lane priority? A seperate lane there may work well ie no bus lane, and could join to NW - and then would doing a cycle link from New North/Bond to NW be next priority?

    I just think there are better overall options here for all users.

    Anyway - I appreciate the constructive comments and tone, and while we won’t convince each other - it’s good to have the debate

  16. jarbury says:

    Heh, I bet Auckland City Council just wish they’d left this issue up to the Transport CCO and not bothered with it.

    Mark, as you’re a councillor please make damn sure that the officials do an analysis of how many vehicles would use the T2 lane if it was changed from a bus lane. North Shore City did something very similar for Onewa Road, which has a similarly large number of buses and they worked out that going from T3 to T2 would mean that actually at peak times there were as many or more vehicles in the T2 lane than in the general lane, which of course means that both lanes would now be congested.

    Here’s my blog post on the Onewa Road issue: http://transportblog.co.nz/2010/07/09/why-t2-lanes-can-be-stupid/

    Here’s the relevant pages of the North Shore City meeting - including the analysis of what going to T2 would do: http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/t2-lane-july2010.pdf

  17. Matthew says:

    Nick R,

    I completely agree.

    I am currently a cycle commuter in Manchester (UK) which has a mix of different types of cycle lanes. I will use the ones that are part of the road, but the ones that are contiguous with the footpath are in my opinion worse than useless. If you use them you run into all the problems you mentioned, and if you use the traffic/ bus lane, you experience (more) hostile drivers as they think you should be using the cycle lane.

    Cycle lanes have to be continuous (especially through intersections)and exclusive with physical demarcation such as a kerb. They also have proper horizontal curves, not sharp 45 degrees changes in direction as I bet this will have around the back of bus stops, signs etc. I can understand there might be tight curves in say the cbd, but not down an arterial like dominion road. Just imagine how unsafe it would be for a cyclist going at 30km/h to swerve round the back of a bus shelter.

  18. Matthew says:


    I didn’t realise you had posted those concept drawings for bus-stops, but that is exactly what I am talking about. Not quite 45 degrees but I can assure you very dangerous.

  19. Justine Tringham says:

    look all i want is a sensible spend of the money. i believe as the proposal currently stands that the cycleway is a sop, a sneaky backdoor way to get support for something that will ultimately be a main highway.

  20. Matt says:

    The arguments about taking away too many parking spaces are nonsense. Ignoring Mt Albert Rd and Balmoral Rd, and treating Donald Cres as a single road, there are 47 side streets between Valley Rd and Denbeigh Ave. That’s also ignoring Valley Rd, Walters Rd (the road on the opposite side of Dominion Rd from Valley Rd) and Denbeigh Ave, and all of the streets parallel to Dominion that are 100-200 metres distant.

    If people really cannot walk that far, we’re a much sorrier nation of lardarses than previously thought. Accessibility parking could be a tricky situation, but probably surmountable with indented parks on Dominion Rd or reclassification of the first couple of parks on every other side street.

  21. Mark Donnelly says:

    - yes there are plenty of side streets, but Valley road is the fare stage, and has the first block back from Dominion rd fully parked by 8-9am. Also the ASB call centre parks 400-500 cars in the area of prospect/Burnley /grange and beyond mon-Fri 8-6. On Prospect and Grange parking by ASB staff goes at least 600m away from Dominion everyday.

    And in the evenings the area has a reasonably large number of off-street residents parking - often due to the villa style of section (narrow driveway beside the house).

    But as I’ve said before - parked cars also help pedestrians feel safer from the vehicles going past, and act as a buffer.

  22. Matt L says:

    Mark - Some simple solutions to some of those problems.

    “yes there are plenty of side streets, but Valley road is the fare stage, and has the first block back from Dominion rd fully parked by 8-9am”
    Change the fare stage, we all know the stages are to short to begin with, yes it just shifts the problem but if it shifts it out of the town centre that has to be positive.

    “Also the ASB call centre parks 400-500 cars in the area of prospect/Burnley /grange and beyond mon-Fri 8-6. On Prospect and Grange parking by ASB staff goes at least 600m away from Dominion everyday”
    Work with ASB to get more of their staff using buses to get to work. Put limits on how long people can be parked etc. If a particular business is causing problems then work with them to sort the issues out.

  23. Justine Tringham says:

    on the side streets - in Balmoral the side streets are already fully parked to the point where people would not be able to ark on the side streets because there are already so many people parking to use the facilities.

    there are gaps on dom rd where there are lots of parks both on dom rd and in the side streets but they are in there areas where not much happens. come to balmoral on a monday night. the warehouse carpark is pretty full, rocklands is full, wiremu is full and the others are parked up by people who live there cos they’re small streets.

    when i used to catch a lift to work king edward was fully parked out by people using it for work, so from my very small anecdotal experience parking is well used in the local streets.

    but to labour a point… i like my community. i like my shops. i like being able to walk to the shops in a traffic environment that’s not a balmoral rd wasteland where there’s a chance where even if you’re crossing at a light controlled crossing someone thinks their need for speed is worth more than your life.

    i don’t want that for Dom Rd.

  24. karl says:

    Hi again Mark,

    Some more food for mutual thought - I think a lot of things CAN be sorted in detailed design, and we haven’t moved to detailed design yet, so I think there is little problem with discussing the broad matters now. As long as they don’t realise it won’t work when the workers are out on the street, or after they have left, changing one’s mind on a design is not a failure, it is just good practice (I can’t talk too much about the diversions behind the shops as I know too little about them - but they sound like an exact example of such a process at work. An idea pushed, but eventually abandoned. That’s the way things work).

    “While at Balmoral it may be 1km to Sandringham, further up it is closer. And people in the block between are 500m to either.”

    Yes, but I can turn around and argue “what about those on the eastern side of Dom Road”? ;-) I guess it comes back to us both accepting that some cycle provision is needed, and disagreeing what is best.

    I do agree that a well thought out on-street cycle lane will make more sense that a badly thought-out separated lane. But even if done generously, an on-road lane is less likely to attract new people, I believe.

    Passing behind bus stops? Yeah, potentially dangerous, I agree. In front is probably better. Another issue that however could be resolved fully by centre-lane bus lanes, as discussed on the Auckland Transport blog. But that’s diverging from the subject…

    As for the IanMcKinnon Drive and Northwestern Cycleway extension projects, those are two unrelated (though close-by) projects. The first is from Council, the second from NZTA. Both will happen (eventually).

    The problem with Bond Street is (amongst other issues) that there is a link down to the NW cycleway only on one side - if you are coming or going from the wrong side of the road, you have to cross a pretty speedy road. Again, not a nice thing for novices.

    “Then is Ian McKinnon top cycle lane priority?”

    The works will be BOTH for cyclists and pedestrians, and will be (in terms of $$$) much smaller than Dom Road. Hundreds of thousands, rather than millions. It’s not decided yet how they will look exactly, I understand.

    I also understand that quite a lot of cyclists already use Ian McKinnon, despite its pretty bad environment, because it is the primary link from Dom Road areas to the CBD. So certainly worth improving a little - after all, it was built as a motorway, and still has 70km/h speed environment. Nothing you want to send your kids through…



Leave a Comment


XHTML: You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>