Investing for All Auckland Cyclists: Bike-Adapted-Buses, Not Bridges, Not Ferries
Currently the Government, Waka Kotahi, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council are still trying to figure out a harbour connection for cyclists.
The government would, it seems, like the Auckland Harbour Bridge to be all things for all people. However the latest structural analysis of the 1958 structure finally ruled out politicians sticking any more glittery accessories like sky paths and cycle lanes on the old thing without actually digging deep and building a new fit for purpose structure: The AHB is now performing at its heroic maximum.
Now, just a waiver here, I am strongly in favour of increased cycling and walking connections and other carless modes of moving about and commuting. But I have practical concerns about cycling being fixated on as the silver bullet for Auckland’s congestion woes. My thinking is that Auckland’s geography and climate mean we will see a majority of cyclists retreat to cars through at least half of the year: Unlike Amsterdam or a host of other cycle friendly cities that AT are trying to draw modelling from, Auckland is very spread out, rather hilly and is subject to wet and gusty oceanic weather conditions; not the continental weather patterns which tend to be drier and less changeable that favour cycling. So investing heavily in cycle connections seems potentially unlikely to pay off financially or in terms of reduced congestion.
However we also now live in a ‘thought climate’ where a new type of intolerance and dogmatism is thriving: Bikes are good. Buses are good. EVs are good. Petrol cars are bad; and those who use them ignorant and selfish. It’s a very easy way to think as we watch climate change wreak so much havoc around the world but like all hyperbole, it lacks awareness of real world complexities, draws simple and intellectually inexcusable distinctions between ‘bad’ fossil fuelled technology and ‘good’ non-fossil fuel tech and the people associated with those, and still manages to continue favouring the already wealthy and privileged; funny that.
The multiple initiatives we have seen over recent years to create cycle connections across the harbour, as well as the protest action and lobbying for that have to my mind been led by this type of thinking, rather than the careful analysis that should lead investment. However the ‘nice ideas’ have led and the analysis has been subverted to serving those ideas rather than providing the full and honest picture that we need to tailor network solutions for Auckland. This seems to be why AT, rather surprisingly, does not actually gather information about private vehicle movements as we on the Kaipatiki Local Board have requested on more than one occasion; despite the fact that Google already collects similar data to support its navigation apps.
With any further AHB appendages being ruled out what is currently being demanded by a cycling lobby whose thinking on this matter seems to be simply: ‘bikes=good, cars=bad’ , is the allocation of two lanes of the AHB’s 8 lanes for walking and cycling: So, a 25% reduction in traffic and freight capacity for the single piece of infrastructure that is approaching max capacity to move Auckland’s already beleaguered traffic. We saw the freight hold ups and grocery shortages that occurred when the AHB was damaged on September 18 2020; is this problem not occurring to the cycle lobby? As for the people in cars who will experience much more significant congestion: serves them right? Really? That isn’t just a nice vision for cyclists, it’s also giving the finger to people who find themselves having to use cars; but blame and dismissal are a terrible basis for informing constructive solutions.
Now that “Eco-think” has dominated the conversation about options for a second harbour crossing we are seeing plans being drawn up between Waka Kotahi and Auckland Council for some type of second harbour crossing that will only carry public transport and possibly cyclists. It stuns me to think that we may spend billions on such a connection but let reigning hyperbole and ideology that is rooted in wealth and privilege rather than real world analysis constrain its fundamental function? It seems the error of those who built the AHB with only four lanes is about to be repeated; although clip-ons have never worked that well on undersea tunnels.
In all the shouting about cyclists getting across the harbour, the bridge seems to have been conflated with cycling and all the thinking is now largely focused on just that: getting cyclists across the harbour. The latest notion is multiple bike adapted ferries. Ferries are the most expensive component of the PT sector; their infrastructure and running costs are far greater than buses and trains. But whilst thinking is going on about how to fairly charge for bike customised ferry trips that will either be too expensive to be viable or will be heavily subsidised by other PT users, the big picture has been entirely overlooked. Even more than a second harbour crossing, ferries will be an investment that predominantly serves North Shore cyclists. The North Shore has its fair share of low socio-economic communities, but I am fairly confident that those are, in the main, not the people who wish to be cycling to the CBD. So the appropriate discussion: how to serve and invest wisely for all Auckland cyclists has been utterly omitted for the sake of a glittery harbour transit solution that only serves North Shore and CBD cycling communities.
There seems to be another possibility that our existing road network, including the AHB would already support: Bike Adapted Buses.
Not a rack for four or five bikes on the back of a bus as pictured above but a properly modified bus, perhaps with a large trailer or better yet, modify the back end of an articulated bus to carry 40+ bikes: cyclists can enter it en-masse from the side, place their bikes in a quick lock, activated by their Hop card naturally, and move up to the front to take a seat.
The beauty of this type of solution is that truly bike adapted buses overcome the single greatest obstacle to cycling any significant distance, or work commuting in Auckland: the evil axis of distance/the motorway/the Harbour Bridge. Bike-Adapted-Buses (BABs?) capable of taking 40+ cyclists would transform this barrier into a solution. They would be able to do a North-South leg of SH1 from say Orewa to Mangere. Another route could be a loop on the NW motorway, Auckland CBD and North Shore.
Such adapted buses should hardly be a technological stretch, and they would be far less expensive or disruptive than the options currently being discussed around ferries, lanes on the AHB or second harbour crossings. What they would do is work well within the geography of Auckland where it is relatively easy from almost anywhere to cycle to a motorway — but impossible to cycle on one. This solution would enable bike-bus-bike commutes between say Glenfield and Ellerslie or Birkenhead and Henderson. Cycle to work commutes across all of Auckland would become feasible. Weekend recreational rides with the family could see bikes take people from the North Shore to Otara. And then, if our councillors and transport bureaucrats were really serious about getting people on bikes, we would consider the next natural step; a bulk purchase arrangement that allows people to buy e-bikes through their rates.
Bike-adapted Buses, BABs! Not as sexy as dedicated harbour crossings, but a hell of a lot more affordable, immediately compatible with our existing infrastructure, vastly greater service distribution, far more reliability than ferries and most of all, simply fairer — to all Auckland cyclists. Can we please start thinking for ourselves?
