Skip to Main Content
Auckland Transport

Region-wide pedestrian crossing improvements - feedback results Region-wide pedestrian crossing improvements - feedback results

In 2018, we consulted with the public on region-wide pedestrian crossing improvements for 49 selected sites in Auckland.


Feedback

Community feedback closed 14 December 2018. Thank you for your feedback. We have received over 416 individual submissions and as a result some of the proposals have now seen minor changes.

Below is a summary of all the submissions we received and answers to questions and concerns.

We are aiming to construct the projects between March and June 2019. Our contractors will do their best to minimise any inconvenience this may cause. Contractors will notify affected residents if any changes in the construction date occur.

Central proposals

273 Ponsonby Road (Central 1)

Proposal outcome

Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. In order to incorporate your feedback in the design, we would like to take some extra time to redesign this project. The new proposal will also include the upgrade of the crossing near Cowan Street as a part of the proposal. Once we confirm our new design, we will reach out to locals for their feedback. It is our goal to construct this project before July 2020.

St Lukes Road (Central 2)

Proposal outcome

As a result of consultation feedback and engineering requirements, we will be redesigning this upgrade and consult with you again in the new financial year. 

104 Richardson Road (Central 3)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Several concerns raised about the side islands and these causing an issue or pinch point for cyclists, specifically because Richardson Road is near the Waterview shared path, making it more probable that conflicts between cars and cyclists will occur. Please do not install any islands and signalise the crossing if it is not safe for pedestrians.
    The side islands are intended to minimise the distance that pedestrians need to cross and provide adequate visibility between pedestrians and approaching drivers. No central island has been included, so vehicles can drive around people on bikes at the crossing point if it is safe to do so, should they want to overtake.
  • Suggestion to install a concrete bike lane separator or a partially bike-mountable island, so that cyclists would also be able to travel through without being forced into conflict with traffic.
    This option has been reviewed, but unfortunately there is insufficient space within the road reserve to accommodate for this design.
  • Suggestion to move the crossing nearer to the Richardson/Owairaka intersection, as pedestrians are unlikely to use the crossing if they're coming from, or going to, Owairaka Avenue.
    Due to the crest and geometry of Richardson Road, it is unsafe to move the crossing towards the intersection as the visibility is restricted at that location.
  • Request that AT also upgrade the other nearby crossing at 48 Richardson Road as the respondent notes that there is a speeding issue in that area. The crossing is on the main route to the kindergarten & school and few cars stop. Related request for more crossings along Richardson Road and Stoddard Road. Another suggestion to include a pedestrian crossing where the existing pedestrian island is halfway along Owairaka Avenue - as lots of kids cross to go to the park but there are often limited breaks in the traffic and speeds can be an issue.
    Thank you for the feedback, this will be programmed for our upcoming investigation programme.
  • Suggestion that we build out the kerb from this pedestrian crossing to the existing pedestrian island 30m down the road and remove the carparks between the pedestrian crossing and pedestrian island. Reasoning that this would pinch the road down for longer and make drivers aware that they are outside of a school as well as reduce the parking issues at school pick/drop offs around the crossing point that cause sight issues.
    This has been investigated but has not been included in the final design. The aim of this project is to make the existing zebra crossing safer, which has been accomplished by providing it with new safety elements such as a speed table.
  • Request to remove the two defunct islands 10 metres from this crossing. It invites people to cross there instead of at the new safer crossing. It also causes drainage issues.
    This has been investigated previously by AT, it was recommended that the existing pedestrian refuge island is to be retained to provide an informal crossing facility for the pedestrians near the Owairaka intersection, while providing a zebra crossing outside the school. 
  • View original proposal details.

169 Sandringham Road (Central 4)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed with minor changes to the next stage of detailed planning. As a result of community feedback, side-islands have been widened to improve visibility for pedestrians trying to cross. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Concern over cyclist safety, specifically issues with the bottleneck currently created by the parking and side and central islands. Additional concern regarding visibility of pedestrians when cycling.
    There are existing side islands and a median island at this site which will both be replaced as part of the project. The replacement side islands are intended to minimise the distance that pedestrians need to cross and provide adequate visibility between pedestrians and approaching drivers. The central island is proposed to further reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians. In response to consultation feedback, we have re-checked visibility between pedestrians and approaching drivers. In order to ensure that there is sufficient visibility to comply with standards, we have decided to widen the side islands by 300 mm. This will allow pedestrians waiting to cross to stand in a location where they are better able to see past parked cars. Once this change has been made, the distance between the side islands and the median island will be 4.2 m on both sides. This width is considered sufficient for cyclists to safely share space with motorised traffic.
  • Request that we minimise or remove the side islands.
    Side islands allow a pedestrian to see past parked cars and buses stopped at bus stops. It shortens the crossing distance and minimises parking loss in the area.
  • Concern that side islands create a pinch point which forces bikes into the centre lane, which creates conflict with traffic.
    Even with side islands, the traffic lanes in each direction are 4.5 m wide. This lane width is considered sufficient for cyclists to safely share space with motorised traffic.
  • Suggestion for a concrete bike lane separator (or a partially bike-mountable island), so cyclists would also be able to travel through without being forced into conflict with traffic. Request for more safe cycling infrastructure. Reduce parking and move on street parking to side streets.
    These requests will be investigated as part of our Integrated Corridor Delivery Programme of improvements. We will let you know about any changes that might happen as part of this programme, including your chance to give feedback on these improvements in the future.
  • Concern that the bus stop in front of Ward Terrace is quite dangerous also and request that we move the bus lane.
    We have passed your concerns on to the AT Metro team for their investigation.
  • Suggestion to make the bus lane continuous in peak hours and not having side islands as buses get held up here in both directions, they often have to wait for other drivers to let them into the centre lane. Request that the crossing is closer to the intersection to reduce detour for pedestrians and a request for more pedestrian crossings along Sandringham Road.
    These requests will be investigated as part of our Integrated Corridor Delivery Programme of improvements. We will let you know about any changes that might happen as part of this programme, including your chance to give feedback on these improvements in the future.
  • View original proposal details.

98 Mount Eden Road (Central 5)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed with minor changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Based on community feedback, we will further mitigate the loss of short term parking. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Queries for need for upgrade as they have never had any safety issues themselves. Concern that this proposal damages the village feel/lifestyle. Concerns about the safety of this existing zebra crossing have been raised by road users with incidents of crashes that occurred at this intersection. Site observations have confirmed that traffic speed approaching the intersection tends to be high.
    In order to enhance the safety of the road users using this zebra crossing, a speed table is being proposed at the existing zebra crossing to encourage drivers to drive at a safer speed towards the crossing, allowing for safer walking journeys.
  • Concern over the loss of parking and effect on small businesses due to lack of short term parking. Specific concern about parking near 161 Sandringham Road. Many customers park here short-term when popping into the shops/restaurants in the area. 
    Parking restrictions are required to ensure proper visibility between cars, bicycles and pedestrians at the crossing. AT acknowledges that parking is a valuable community asset, and as such we have ensured the design meets required and safety standard with minimal parking loss. To further mitigate the loss of short term parking, we will be reassigning some unrestricted car parks near shops to P30 only parking, so there will be no loss in short term parking.
  • Suggestion for us to consider changing the street parking for the strips 104-110 and 161-183 Mt Eden Road from no restrictions to P60 or P120 for business hours. Request for residential parking permits for the space to the right of the white Hockey Stick limit line.
    Thank you for the feedback, this will be forwarded to parking services for them to investigate.
  • Disappointed that the drawing doesn’t specify the amount of car parks that will disappear. 
    AT acknowledges that parking is a valuable community asset and has ensured the design meets the required safety standard with minimal parking loss. AT is working on the final design to endeavour to further reduce the loss of parking.
  • Suggestion to extend the broken yellow lines to Normandy Road due to concerns over reduced visibility & crash risks for residents on Edwin Street when cars are parked along this. Request for central islands to prevent vehicles from crossing the zebra crossing by/through the median. 
    These requests will be investigated as part of our Integrated Corridor Delivery Programme of improvements. We will let you know about any changes that might happen as part of this programme, including your chance to give feedback on these improvements in the future.
  • Concern over the side islands creating a pinch point forcing cyclists into the centre lane, creating conflict with car traffic.
    With the high parking demand along this section of Mt Eden Road, the proposed side island helps to maintain the required visibility as well as minimise the loss of parking. We have taken the existing median island out in our proposal, providing cyclists and cars with wider lanes. The current side island design is within the parking shoulder and does not intrude into the carriageway.
  • Suggestion that the same pedestrian benefits could be achieved with a narrower concrete separator (like those used for protected cycle paths) or a partially mountable island, while still allowing cyclists to pass so that they're not endangered by being forced into conflict with car traffic.
    The current zebra crossing is considered to be the most appropriate form of crossing facilities. Therefore, there will be no changes to the layout of the current crossing facility. However, the cycle facility for Mt Eden Road Corridor will be investigated as part of our Integrated Corridor Delivery Programme of improvements. We will let you know about any changes that might happen as part of this programme, including your chance to give feedback on these improvements in the future.
  • Request that we reassess all designs in the region-wide pedestrian improvements programme to remove pinch points for people on bikes. 
    We are installing raised tables at existing zebra crossings throughout Auckland which have been identified as having a high crash risk, in order to reduce vehicle speeds and enhance the safety of pedestrians and other road users. Because longer crossing distances are associated with a higher risk of a crash involving a pedestrian, at each crossing where we install a raised table we also try to reduce the maximum crossing distance to below 10 meters. Almost all arterial roads are more than 10 m wide, so we need to reduce the crossing distance on these roads by using either side islands or median islands.
    Each crossing site is different, and we carefully consider the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users when choosing which type of island, if any, is most appropriate at each site. Side islands allow pedestrians who are waiting to cross to stand in a position where they can see past parked cars and are more likely to be noticed by approaching drivers. Median islands allow the crossing to be divided into two parts, halving the maximum crossing distance for a pedestrian.
    In order to ensure that any new traffic islands do not create a pinch point on arterial roads we try to ensure that there will be a 4.2 m clearance between the kerbs, which is considered sufficient width to allow cyclists room to safely ride next to motorised traffic. For sites where this width cannot be provided due the road being too narrow or because of other site constraints, we have reduced the width of the lane to 3.2 m or less in order to encourage cyclists to take the lane and ride in front of or behind other traffic. Drivers are less likely to try to overtake a cyclist where the lane is this narrow, as it is clear that there is not sufficient space to pass.
    We have avoided lane widths between 3.2 and 4.2 m wide because some drivers might think that there is sufficient space to squeeze past a cyclist and may attempt an unsafe overtaking manoeuvre.
    For sites on non-arterial routes which carry less traffic, drivers can use the flush median or the opposing traffic lane to overtake people on bicycles when it is safe to do so.
  • Concern that Mt Eden Road is a particularly busy road with both cyclists and cars making this design potentially very dangerous for them. Suggestion for flashing yellow lights installed into the road surface (as seen at Sandringham shops).
    These requests will be investigated as part of our Integrated Corridor Delivery Programme of improvements. We will let you know about any changes that might happen as part of this programme, including your chance to give feedback on these improvements in the future.
  • Respondent would like to report the continued use of Mt Eden Road for large, oversize loads (machinery equipment etc) requiring a pilot, despite new motorway links to the port.
    Mount Eden Road is still designated as an over-dimension route for oversized vehicles. The design of the new speed table facility has taken these vehicles into account.
  • Request that the table is steep enough to be effective in slowing vehicles down.
    The table design has been optimised to maximise the speed reduction effect while still being suitable for use on a busy bus route.
  • Suggestion that the whole section of road between Boston Road (including the train station and bus stop) in the north to the intersection with Normandy Road and Mt Eden Road in the south should be a 40kmh zone. Support for the crossing and comment that currently "Mt Eden Road is seen as a racetrack and you do not enter that crossing without caution". Suggestion to reduce the speed limit on the approach to the crossing. Suggestion to install these changes at the same time as the upgrades to the pedestrian crossing outside the Mt Eden train station. Comment that there are some new residential apartments opening in the area soon and pedestrian volumes will rise, ask that we take extra measures to ensure the safety of those using the crossing/walking in the area.
    These requests will be investigated as part of our Integrated Corridor Delivery Programme of improvements. We will let you know about any changes that might happen as part of this programme, including your chance to give feedback on these improvements in the future.

119 Parnell Road (Central 6)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Request for improved lights and not reflectors, as the crossing is dark in winter or early morning.
    A lighting upgrade will be part of the zebra crossing upgrade.
  • Suggestion to investigate making this crossing signalised as to ensure pedestrian priority.
    Based on the road environment, traffic volume and crossing demand, a zebra crossing with speed table is considered to be the most appropriate crossing facility for this location.
  • Concern that pedestrian visibility has been overlooked and a suggestion to install flashing smart studs on the road level, illuminating when a pedestrian steps onto a sensor embedded in the roadside tactile pavers. Respondents witness and experience near-misses at all 3 of the Parnell crossings. They further comment that as a driver they understand the issue not to be speed-related but one of visibility. It can be hard to distinguish which pedestrian wants to cross.
    It is expected that the proposed zebra crossing upgrade with the speed table will help to reduce the speed of traffic approaching the zebra crossing, allowing for better response times when sudden breaking has to occur. Forward visibility has been checked and verified as part of the detailed design. Flashing in ground studs have not been proposed on Parnell Road as this stage as we expect the current upgrade will help to address the safety concerns raised. Further monitoring will be undertaken to determine if flashing in ground studs are required for these crossings on Parnell Road.
  • Suggestion to reduce the speed zone limit up Parnell Rise as respondent comments many cars go through at too high a speed or ignore pedestrians who have just stepped onto the crossing. 
    The speed limit for Parnell Road/Rise is currently under review at this stage.
  • Comment that more warning is required to make drivers aware that pedestrians are about to walk out - especially with the bus stop so close, obstructing visibility.
    It is expected that the proposed zebra crossing upgrade with the speed table will help to reduce the speed of traffic approaching the zebra crossing. Forward visibility has been checked and verified as part of the detailed design.
  • Comment that traffic speeds up to get through the crossing before pedestrians multiple times per week, and pass by when a pedestrian is on the other side of the crossing or otherwise pull up close to the crossing and edge forward, indicating pedestrians should hurry up.
    It is expected that the proposed zebra crossing upgrade with the speed table will help to reduce the speed of traffic approaching the zebra crossing. Forward visibility has been checked and verified as part of the detailed design.
  • Suggestion to install a small roundabout here as the crossing from Heather Street to Garfield Street gets very busy with traffic as well and it would ensure cars slow down when coming up the hill before the pedestrian crossing.
    This feedback has been forwarded to our traffic engineering team for them to investigate.

215 Parnell Road (Central 7)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Request that signage and lighting are fully addressed.
    Signage and lighting will be part of the proposed upgrade work at the zebra crossing.
  • Request that the crossing needs lights, not reflectors – crossing is poorly lit in the early morning or later afternoon in winter, as it gets too dark.
    A lighting upgrade will be part of the proposed upgrade work at the zebra crossing.
  • Request that the speed bump is strong enough to force all vehicles to slow to 20km/h or so, which the respondent feels will make crossing for pedestrians much safer on this busy street.
    The proposed speed table will help to slow down traffic speed. The current speed table profile has been refined to enhance the effectiveness of the speed table. Furthermore, the speed limit on Parnell Road is being reviewed at this stage.
  • Suggestion that more knowledge and understanding of the road code is needed for pedestrians and cyclists in the area due to observations of people cycling over the crossing whilst people are crossing, or pedestrians crossing haphazardly.
    Our walking and cycling teams are running campaigns and courses to promote safe cycling in Auckland. You can find and share some of these on our website.
  • Requests came in for safety upgrades to St Georges Bay Road including a new crossing – due to concerns over increased pedestrian volumes from new apartments, electric scooters, school children walking in the area and dangers in crossing the road. As well as speeding cars along the road.
    Some safety improvement work is currently being investigated on St Georges Bay Road, including the possibility of crossing facilities.
  • Suggestion to consider better bike infrastructure that encourages people to leave cars behind.
    To read about how AT aims to encourage active modes, please have a look at the Regional Land Transport Plan on our website
  • View original proposal details.

167 Parnell Road (Central 8)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed with minor changes to the next stage of detailed planning. As a result of feedback, high friction surfacing will no longer be installed. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Pedestrian mentions often being scared to walk and cross Parnell Road due to the amount of near-misses they have had or seen. Related comment that there is also quite a bit of vehicle movement in and out of Ruskin which can present some dangerous moves.
    It is expected that the proposed upgrade of the zebra crossing and associated lighting will help to reduce the speed of traffic, improve visibility towards the zebra crossing and heighten awareness around the crossing.
  • Respondent doesn’t feel that the crossing needs much improvement as they use it each day and find drivers to be courteous.
    Safety concerns have been raised by the community and through this consultation. There were a lot of safety concerns raised that we are addressing in this scheduled upgrade.
  • Concerns raised about tourist buses parking and waiting for long times, blocking visibility for all road users. Suggestion to not allow buses to park in a way that block the view of oncoming traffic along Parnell Rise.
    We have passed these concerns on to the AT Metro team for them to liaise with bus operators.
  • Respondent thinks high friction surfacing is unnecessary on the Northern side of crossing as the traffic is already braking in an uphill direction.
    Following the consultation process, we have decided not to install high friction surfacing at the crossing.
  • Suggestion to improve pedestrian safety by only repainting the crossing and reduce the amount of ‘clutter’ around the crossing.
    Safety concerns have been raised, including speed of traffic, restricted visibility, cluttering and lighting level. It is considered that a repaint and reduction of clutter will not be sufficient to slow down the vehicle speed along Parnell Road.
  • Suggestion for a pedestrian crossing at St Georges Bay Road (Strand end).
    An investigation on St Georges Bay is already in progress.
  • View original proposal details.

133 Market Road (Central 9)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed with minor changes to the next stage of detailed planning. As a result of your feedback, the central island has been removed from this proposal. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Concerns regarding the crossing being a cyclist pinch-point.
    This crossing is outside a school and retirement village, where young and elderly pedestrians are likely to be the users of this crossing. Side islands are intended to minimise the distance that pedestrians need to cross and provide adequate visibility between pedestrians and approaching drivers. As a result of your feedback, we have removed the central island from this crossing. The traffic lanes in each direction are now wide enough for cyclists to safely share space with motorised traffic.
  • Suggestion that we either use narrower concrete separators, which cyclists could go behind but would still provide the same benefits for pedestrians or make the island partially mountable so that cyclists are not forced into traffic in the centre lane.
    Unfortunately, there is insufficient room within the carriageway to accommodate the suggested design.
  • Would like to see safe cycling infrastructure included.
    Unfortunately there is insufficient room within the carriageway to accommodate this suggestion.
  • Enquiry regarding the use of this upgrade, respondent has never seen any issues at this crossing and there is a patrol at school times.
    Safety concerns have been raised by the school communities and road users regarding the safety of this zebra crossing. It was reported that vehicles are approaching the zebra crossing at high speeds and fail to give way to pedestrians. This is a particularly serious issue as this crossing is outside a school and retirement village, where young and elderly pedestrians are likely to be the users of this crossing.
  • View original proposal details.

8 Portland Road (Central 10)

Proposal outcome

As a result of consultation feedback and engineering requirements, we will be redesigning this upgrade and consult with you again in the new financial year. 

72 Shore Road (Central 11)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Respondent doesn't like raised crossings, please do not install a raised crossing.
    Auckland has seen an increase in pedestrian deaths and injuries over the past several years. Recent investigations have determined that 20% of all pedestrian crashes occurred at existing zebra crossings. As a result, we are proposing to target existing zebra crossings at high risk locations with this improvement programme. Raising the zebra is an important safety feature of the upgraded crossings, as the speed calming effects of the table will greatly improve the outcome for pedestrians if an incident with a car does occur.
  • Request for an upgrade of the Shore/Victoria roundabout nearby.
    The intersection of Shore Road and Victoria was upgraded from a standard 4-way intersection to a roundabout in 2008. Since then, this intersection has operated well. There are no plans in the immediate future to upgrade this intersection.
  • View original proposal details.

58 Main Highway (Central 12)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed with minor changes to the next stage of detailed planning. As a result of community feedback, side islands have been removed from the design. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Concern that the side islands will create pinch points.
    As a result of this feedback, we have removed the side islands from the design. Only a median island will be constructed.
  • Concern that this proposal does not provide any cycle protection on Main Highway.
    We have passed this on to the Active Modes team to investigate and consider.
  • Request for AT to consider separate cycle lanes in Ellerslie.
    We have passed this on to the Active Modes team to investigate and consider.
  • Comment that additional crossings and intersections in Ellerslie need urgent attention. Examples are Main Highway/Kalmia Street, Main Highway/Robert Street, Ladies Mile/Morrin Street/Pukerangi Crescent and Main Highway/Michaels Avenue.
    Further investigation into these issues has been scheduled for April and May 2019.
  • View original proposal details.

40 Kelvin Road (Central 13)

Proposal outcome

As a result of community feedback we will not proceed with this proposal. 

107 Kohimarama Road (Central 14)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Slowing south-bound traffic all the time will make it difficult for vehicles turning left out of Rawhitiroa Road to merge due to backed up traffic.
    The aim of this project is to reduce the speed of traffic when approaching the crossing facility. This is to enhance the safety of the crossing especially, as the crossing is frequently used by school children. Whilst the speed table may slow down traffic speed, we do not expect that this will create significant delays for traffic.
  • We are concerned that the speed calming followed by acceleration will lead to an increase in road noise. We think simply adding warning signage should be sufficient.
    The profile of the speed table has been optimised in such a way that we do not expect a significant increase in the level of road noise. Simply adding additional signage and road markings would not address the speeding issues along this section of road.
  • Respondent doesn't like raised crossings, please do not install a raised crossing.
    Auckland has seen an increase in pedestrian deaths and injuries over the past several years. Recent investigations have determined that 20% of all pedestrian crashes occurred at existing zebra crossings. As a result, we are proposing to target existing zebra crossing at high risk locations with this improvement programme. Raising the zebra is an important safety feature of the upgraded crossings, as the speed calming effects of the table will greatly improve the outcome for pedestrians if an incident with a car does occur.
  • There is a real issue with the crossing on Rawhitiaroa Road (Kea crossing). This should be changed to a pedestrian crossing. Speed, congestion and parking on this road is a real issue for the safety of the children attending the school.
    After considering this point, we have decided to carry out further investigations at this location in May when the school term starts.
  • View original proposal details.

237 Tamaki Drive (Central 15)

Proposal outcome

AT is currently working on a larger safety study of Tamaki Drive. We will not be proceeding with this upgrade, but instead evaluate this crossing as part of this overarching plan at a later stage. 

217 Riddell Road (Central 16)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Request to retain the parking bay as it currently is. The carpark is usually occupied by 7.45 if not earlier by one of the teaching staff so it does not pose a problem for traffic at busy times. 
    The ramp of the table will terminate near where the proposed 'NP' marked parking area is. The parking is being removed as a safety requirement for pedestrians, because cars reversing out of the spot might back up into the crossing.
  • Concern that the design of the crossing will require cyclists to merge with traffic in a dangerous fashion.
    Riddell Road is a bus route and has an existing median island. In order to provide for the safety and comfort of bus passengers, the design proposes a special type of speed table which has a more gradual descent than ascent. These types of table can only be built if a median island is present, and therefore it is necessary to retain and upgrade the existing islands. The median island will also help reduce the distance pedestrians must cross, which will also help improve safety at this crossing.
  • The main issue is with parents double parking, limiting visibility. I do not see the benefit of raising this crossing and removing parking. 
    Safety Concerns have been raised regarding vehicles approaching the zebra crossing at speed. The aim of the project is to reduce the speed of traffic as well as to heighten the awareness of the crossing.
  • There are 2 carparks by the bus stop which appear to have gone in the diagram. Visibility from the park side of the crossing can be limited by vehicles parked further up the road as well. Perhaps these 2 carparks could be moved to the North end of the bus stop, while moving the bus stop slightly further towards the crossing.
    We have assessed the parking situation near the bus stops. Our updated design for the pedestrian crossing now includes additional parking restrictions (broken yellow lines) extending from the bus stop markings. These parking restrictions are needed to ensure adequate visibility for crossing pedestrians and ensure parked vehicles do not impede buses entering or leaving the bus stop.
  • View original proposal details.

203 West Tamaki Road (Central 17)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed with minor changes to the next stage of detailed planning. As a result of community feedback, the central island has been removed from this proposal. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Concern this will increase road noise.
    The installation of the zebra crossing will not increase road noise, because vehicles will be travelling at slower speeds through this section of road.
  • The crossing should be continuous from one side to the other without a break. It is currently designed to become a cycling pinch point. Please do not include side-islands. 
    The kerb to kerb width of the road is over 11.5 m here. Wherever possible we try to keep crossing distances for pedestrians at zebra crossings below 10 m, and lower where possible. At this location either side islands or median islands would be needed to keep crossing distances below 10 m. The side islands are also intended to provide adequate visibility between pedestrians and approaching drivers. Based on your comment, we have decided to remove the median island from this proposal.
    The proposed raised table will reduce vehicle operating speeds and improve safety for all road users, in particular the table will help reduce the speed differential between cyclists and motorised traffic and the likelihood that a driver will try to pass a cyclist at the crossing. At the crossing the traffic lanes are approximately 4.0 m wide in each direction, allowing space for a driver to pass a cyclist if they are determined to do so. 
  • View original proposal details.

99 Point England Road (Central 18)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Request for safe cycling infrastructure.
    As Point England is not currently identified as the priority area for cycle infrastructure improvement, there will be no cycle infrastructure proposed as part of this project.
  • Concern over pinch points caused by design.
    There are existing side islands at this location and the design proposes to replace them. Side islands at this location are necessary so that when the school patrol is operating the patrol team has good sight lines along Point England Road and they are visible to drivers. Close to the crossing is a mature tree on the south side of the road and a power pole on the north side, which would restrict visibility if side islands were not provided. Because there are no median islands here, and traffic volumes are relatively low, drivers can overtake cyclists using the other lane if they need to do so.
  • Suggestion that the crossing is continuous from one side to the other without a break.
    This is already proposed, this site will not have a median island.
  • Concern that space between the kerb & the side island will become a channel of broken glass and other rubbish, as a result if bikes are expected to pass through that gap they will get punctured tyres.
    It is not intended that cyclists will ride through the gap between the side island and the kerb. In regard to any debris which might become trapped in the channel, we will pass this comment on to our road maintenance team for them to action.
  • Concern that the changes do not cater for the proposed cycle network that will extend past this crossing - as such, cyclists will be required to merge into the traffic at this point, potentially putting them at risk, or the crossing will need to be redesigned again to cater for this.
    There are existing side islands at this location and the design proposes to replace them. Side islands at this are necessary so that when the school patrol is operating the patrol team has good sight lines along Point England Road and they are visible to drivers. Close to the crossing is a mature tree on the south side of the road and a power pole on the north side which would restrict visibility if side islands were not provided. Because there are no median islands here, and traffic volumes are relatively low, drivers can overtake cyclists using the other lane if they need to do so. Therefore, there is no pinch point.
  • Request to move the crossing a least 10 metres away from driveways as respondent feels that the driver blind spots when reversing are the cause of the accidents.
    There are multiple driveways on this road and shifting the crossing 10 m away will not change the situation. Furthermore, there is a large tree that would need to be removed should the crossing move 10 m away.
  • Comment that raising the crossing will not improve safety because it is already a sealed road.
    Safety concerns have been received from the school communities and residents regarding vehicles failing to give way to pedestrians. It is a serious concern as this crossing is right outside Point England School and Kindergarten and frequently used by school students. Therefore safety improvement is being proposed at this location to reduce the speed of approaching traffic.
  • Concern that the existing side islands and the power pole will force a car backing out further to the centre of the road, interrupting road traffic and may cause vehicles to crash.
    This has been checked against engineering standards, and no significant issues have been identified.
  • Suggestion to install speed bumps further down the road to slow traffic down to a safe speed along the rest of the road.
    Thanks for your feedback. AT will continue to monitor this situation.
  • View original proposal details.

3 Kings Road (Central 19)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • This proposal doesn't feels safe to the respondent as a cyclist. The crossing should be continuous from one side to the other without a break.
    Given that this is close to a roundabout, a median island is being proposed to keep the lane narrow (3.2m) and to encourage cyclists to take the lane at the roundabout, which is safer than riding at the edge where a driver is less likely to see a cyclist. The roundabout and speed table combined will reduce the speed differential between a cyclist and a car or truck and reduce the chance that an impatient driver may try to overtake a cyclist near the crossing. On the departure side of the roundabout, the traffic lane is the same width between the crossing and the roundabout and there is no sudden narrowing in the lane which would create a pinch point. Hence no changes will be made to the design.
  • These improvements ignore the fact that AMETI is going to force more rat-running traffic into this area. This will be a direct result of the blocking of southbound traffic from Jellicoe Road and the permanent diversion of much of that traffic into, and through the Panmure Town Centre and the pedestrian crossings on Kings, Church and Domain Roads. This will seriously undermine any improvements to the safety of these crossings. Auckland Transport must acknowledge this problem and change the design of the new AMETI Eastern Busway intersection before it is too late.
    The crossing is necessary for the safety of pedestrians including both children from the school next to the crossing and people walking to and from the Panmure Town Centre. This site crossing has been prioritised as part of a region wide programme of improvements to pedestrian crossings aimed at reducing death and serious injury crashes involving pedestrians. It is separate to the AMETI project and the need for the proposed improvements has not been created by AMETI.
    However, if traffic volumes increase because of the AMETI works, then this only further increases the need to improve the crossing.
  • There is nothing wrong with the Kings Road pedestrian crossing as it is now, and there is little foot traffic there. Please leave it as it is.
    The proposed improvements are part of a region wide programme of works aimed at reducing death and serious injuries at zebra crossings. This crossing is outside a school and near a town centre and is considered to be a high risk location where safety improvements are warranted.
  • A drain is situated (on the school side) between the corner and the pedestrian crossing. This is often flooding. Please address this in the design.
    Thank you for the feedback. This will be addressed in the construction of the crossing before July.
  • View original proposal details.

5 Church Crescent (Central 20)

Project update

We are no longer raising the crossing at 5 Church Crescent. While we have moved forward with improvements to most of the crossings mentioned on this page, this location is affected by our AMETI Eastern busway project. The Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) is creating a dedicated, congestion-free busway between Panmure, Pakuranga, and Botany town centres, including new walking and bike connections.

We will continue to monitor pedestrian safety at this location alongside the AMETI developments and will keep you updated with our future plans.  

1 Domain Road (Central 21)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Respondent would like to see safe cycling infrastructure included. Putting in pinch points makes it unsafe for cyclists.
    This project seeks to improve the pedestrian crossings near the roundabout. There are no changes proposed to the roundabout which could affect cycling safety.
    Wherever possible, we try to keep the distance pedestrians need to cross in one movement at a pedestrian crossing to less than 10 m. Research shows that as crossing distance increases the risk of a crash involving a pedestrian also increases. At this site the kerb to kerb distance exceeds 11 m, so a median island was included in the design for safety reasons to break up the crossing distance.
    The lane on the departure side of the roundabout is 5.5 m wide, which is wide enough to accommodate cyclists and motorised traffic at the same time.
    The lane on the approach side is 4.0 m. This is slightly less than the 4.2 m that is desirable for shared use by cyclists and other traffic, however the proposed table will slow traffic down at this location reducing the risk of a crash involving a cyclist or other type of road user. For confident cyclists, it is often best to take the lane ahead of a roundabout and enter it ahead of, rather than beside, motorised traffic. For those cyclists who choose to do this, the lane width is not an issue.
  • Crossing needs to be moved further to the left. Cars driving on to Domain Road have too little space to wait for crossing pedestrians, in turn blocking traffic from Church Crescent. AMETI will only make this worse.
    There is a driveway on the south side of Domain Road near the crossing and if we were to move the crossing any further west toward the driveway, the median island would get in the way of the vehicles turning out of the driveway.
    The closest place to the west of the existing location which would not clash with driveways or vehicles turning out of driveways is on the west side of the driveway for number 6 Domain Road. This would place the crossing too far from the roundabout and many pedestrians would not use it, and instead cross near the roundabout. This would defeat the purpose of upgrading the crossing.
    The median island is needed in order to keep the distance pedestrians need to cross in one movement to less than 10 m. Research shows that as the crossing distance increases the risk of a crash involving a pedestrian also increases. At this site, the kerb to kerb distance exceeds 11 m, so a median island was included in the design for safety reasons to break up the crossing distance.
  • These improvements ignore the fact that AMETI is going to force more rat-running traffic into this area. This will be a direct result of the blocking of southbound traffic from Jellicoe Road and the permanent diversion of much of that traffic into, and through the Panmure Town Centre and the pedestrian crossings on Kings, Church and Domain Road. This will undermine any improvements to the safety of these crossings. Auckland Transport must acknowledge this and change the design of the AMETI Busway intersection before it is too late.
    The crossing is necessary for the safety of pedestrians including both children from the school next to the crossing and people walking to and from the Panmure Town Centre. This site crossing has been prioritised as part of a region wide programme of improvements to pedestrian crossings aimed at reducing death and serious injury crashes involving pedestrians. It is separate to the AMETI project and the need for the proposed improvements has not been created by AMETI. However, if traffic volumes increase because of the AMETI works, then this only further increases the need to improve the crossing.
  • AT have also stopped many bus services in local streets and respondent doesn't know how the elderly are expected to get around.
    This project seeks to improve pedestrian safety at the existing crossing facility on Domain Road. The shorter crossing distances that are a result of the median islands will make crossing here safer and easier, especially for the elderly, and enable safer walking journeys for them. Your comments regarding the bus routes have been passed on to the AT Metro team. 
  • View original proposal details.

North & West proposals

42 School Road (North 1)

Proposal outcome

As a result of consultation feedback and engineering requirements, we will be redesigning this upgrade and consult with you again in the new financial year. 

138 Parkhurst Road (North 2)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • The road is very wide and vehicles could still travel at unsafe speeds approaching the crossing then slam on brakes late. Please revise the design to further slow traffic approaching the crossing and consider the safety of cyclists.
    The proposed speed table profile has been refined to ensure the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures. This is to encourage a slower speed environment at the crossing point and improve safety for all road users. Warning signs are also included in the design to mitigate the risk of late stopping before the crossing. Furthermore, high friction surfacing is proposed at this site which will help vehicles decelerate rapidly without skidding if a driver breaks suddenly.

41 Centreway Road (North 3)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed with minor changes to the next stage of detailed planning. As a result of your feedback, we will retain the post-box and make changes to signage. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • The post-box is still operational, question about why there is a suggestion to remove this.
    Thank you for your feedback, we will keep the post-box where it is.
  • Suggestion to move mailbox away from the bus stop to a location with adequate parking, as currently people stop their cars anywhere to post mail.
    The post box will be retained in its current location and will not be removed. Your concerns about illegal stopping will be forwarded to the AT parking enforcement team.
  • Give-way sign needs to be a stop sign, as cars turning into Centreway Road run into vehicles reversing out of driveways.
    We have done further investigations and, as a result of your feedback, we will be changing these give way signs into stop signs.
  • Concern the changes will make it difficult for cars exiting the child care centre turning right.
    The design of the side islands and crossing have been carefully selected to ensure that they will not interfere with turning vehicles.
  • Concern that there are lots of pedestrians living in Weiti Road who cross the street corner of Centreway Road, and that if the crossing is moved further away they will just walk out onto the road to cross.
    New side islands are proposed to minimise the distance that pedestrians need to cross and provide adequate visibility between pedestrians and approaching drivers. The crossing needs to be moved away from the bus stop slightly because otherwise the side islands would interfere with buses entering the bus stop.
  • Concern that when backing out of the driveway at my property, tenants will have to back out of the driveway onto the crossing site. Concern that this side will become congested as a result of the new crossing/the many facilities around it. 
    The proposed design will provide a safety benefit for drivers using the driveway of this property because it will slow traffic in the general vicinity. The crossing will not increase vehicular traffic or congestion in the vicinity. The new side islands are designed not to interfere with vehicles reversing out.
  • Suggestion to move the crossing to Weiti Road – allowing the existing, new, bus stops and shelters to remain where they are. Request to apply West Lynn type treatments to Weiti Road junctions with Centreway Road (raised crossings). 
    If the crossing were to be moved to near Weiti Road and the existing bus stops kept in their current location, then buses stopping at the east side stop would block sight lines between pedestrians crossing from the east side and southbound drivers, resulting in a safety problem. The West Lynn type treatments are part of our programme of new cycling route projects. We have passed your request on to the active modes team within Auckland Transport for investigation.
  • Allow for bicycle traffic on Centreway Road. Centreway Road needs an upgrade to remove the dangerous flush medians and to make it safer and more convenient for bicycle traffic and pedestrians.
    We have passed your request on to the active modes team within Auckland Transport for investigation.
  • Request for additional crossing near Pine Road. Request for upgrade of crossings at Centreway - Riverside Road junction.
    Thank you for the feedback, we will schedule an investigation into these possibilities.
  • Centreway Road needs an entire rethink on its function within Orewa. It is a widely used cross town link for students (Orewa College), workers etc. At the moment it really only functions for motorists.
    We have passed your concerns on to the active modes team within Auckland Transport for investigation.
  • Concern the changes will make this road more dangerous to cyclists, as the changes create a dangerous pinch point for cyclists.
    This road is approximately 11.1 m wide. As crossings wider than 10 meters are not desirable for pedestrians, either a central or side island had to be put in place. Nearby driveways would make a configuration containing a median island undesirable, as it obstructs people from getting in and out of their property.
    There are no alternative nearby locations where a median island wouldn’t interfere with either driveways or bus stops. Therefore, side islands have been proposed instead. The new table will slow down traffic, further decreasing the speed differential between bikes and cars, thereby reducing the need for cars to overtake bicycles at this crossing.
  • Request that we do not remove any more car parks. There is already a high parking demand, which often leads to people parking on berms and close to driveways.
    When completing the design, options were explored to minimise any loss of parking. The removal of parking as currently proposed is necessary to achieve the required visibility and standard requirement. Side islands are proposed at the crossing because it creates better visibility without the need to remove too much parking. 
  • View original proposal details.

88 Matipo Road (North 4)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Concern regarding justification for a general public crossing at this location as respondent believes the current kea crossing has been operating without issues.
    Safety concerns were raised by the school community and site observations have confirmed that the approaching speed towards the kea crossing is relatively high, therefore creating an unsafe situation for the school children using the kea crossing.
  • More and more cars are parking here. Please do not remove any parking, nor the concrete path close to the crossing.
    When completing the design, options were explored to minimise any loss of parking. The removal of parking is necessary to ensure required visibility standards are met. Side islands are proposed in order to minimise the parking loss. They increase visibility between cars and pedestrians without the need to remove parking along large sections of the road.
  • Please add more broken yellow lines, there are so many cars parked at this location it is getting out of hand.
    We will continue to monitor the situation, however we currently have no immediate plans to remove any additional parking other than the spaces included in the proposal.
  • There should be another crossing installed across East Coast Road in the vicinity of Galaxy Drive.
    Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will investigate this crossing and determine if it meets our prioritisation criteria.
  • Concern that the new lights and signs might obstruct visibility when entering/exiting driveways.
    We will review the placement of the streetlight pole in the detailed design stage to ensure the streetlight will not obstruct visibility of the driveway.
  • View original proposal details.

208 East Coast Road (North 5)

Proposal outcome

As a result of consultation feedback and engineering requirements, we will be redesigning this upgrade and consult with you again in the new financial year. 

58 East Coast Road (North 6)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Support for the proposal and comments that the current flashing light crossing is malfunctioning, it flashes when there are no pedestrians.
    Thanks for the feedback. This will be fixed as part of the upgrade.
  • Comment that East Coast Road is quite a high speed environment, suggestion for further calming measures to slow cars down around this crossing.
    The proposed speed table will help to reduce the speed of the approaching traffic and encourage drivers to drive at a safer and appropriate speed. We will monitor this crossing/speed table after its construction and implement changes should any further improvements be required.
  • Suggestion to investigate turning this into a signalised crossing.
    Based on the current road environment, pedestrian demand and traffic volume, it is considered that a zebra crossing is the most appropriate crossing facility for this location.
  • Suggestion to improve driver knowledge of stopping at zebra crossings.
    Our campaigns team is delivering road safety education campaigns on an ongoing basis. We will pass your feedback on to this team.
  • Request for us to consider options to slow traffic further before the crossing to avoid unsafe passing of cyclists.
    The profile of the speed table has been refined to ensure it will help reduce speeds and encourage drivers to drive at a safer and appropriate speed. Lane widths are larger than 4.2 meters. This lane width is considered sufficient for cyclists to safely share space with motorised traffic.
  • Request for us to consider revising the design so that cyclists can pass on the inside of the kerb build outs avoiding dangerous close passes by motor vehicles on the crossing.
    This option has been considered, unfortunately there is insufficient room to accommodate for this design option. 
  • View original proposal details.

12 Compton Street (North 7)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Concern that this is not addressing people performing dangerous U-Turns. Suggestion that the way to do so would be to make the street one-way.
    Thank you for the feedback. In order to maintain accessibility, there is no plan to change the network to a one way system at this stage.
  • Request for AT to investigate installing more judder bars in the flat section of Moore Street.
    The current project aims to raise the existing zebra crossings to encourage safe and appropriate speed at the crossing. Your request will be forwarded to the relevant team within AT for further investigation.
  • Concern that there are no signs 40-50 m away warning drivers of a raised crossing ahead and concern that the signage on the road is not enough, especially in bad weather and lots of traffic.
    Speed hump signs will be installed to provide warning to approaching traffic.
  • Comment that current No Parking signs are ineffective and they need to clearly say "NO PARKING". Concern over pedestrian visibility as these cars who currently park illegally will most likely continue to do so.
    Thanks you for the feedback. Broken yellow lines will be marked as part of this project. If this issue persists despite these new markings, please let us know by contacting parking enforcement on 09 355 3553.
  • Suggest that broken yellow lines are extended on the motorist departure side of the crossing to match the approach side to improve visibility and reduce congestion in the vicinity of the crossing.
    The extent of the broken yellow lines will be reviewed and assessed as part of the detailed design to ensure the design to be meet the required safety standards.
  • Query regarding the reason behind installing a kerb buildout on the one side and not the other.
    The kerb build out is required on the Northern side to achieve better sight distance for pedestrians crossing as there is a bend in the road.
  • Requests that we re-investigate turning Compton Street one-way again, possibly with parking allowed on the left so children are dropped off on the same side as the school and don’t need to cross the road. The 2 minute parking zone should also stay where it currently is on the left to allow pick-ups/drop-offs.
    Thank you for the feedback. In order to maintain the accessibility there is no plan to change the network to a one way system at this stage.
  • Concern that whilst the crossing improves walking for the school children, there is not enough being done to encourage them to cycle to school. Please investigate shared paths and slower speeds.
    Further investigations will be undertaken to reduce speed in the area. These investigations will take place in the new financial year.
  • Concern that the proposed design will create a pinch point for cyclists and traffic.
    The side island is required to ensure there is adequate visibility for pedestrians crossing the road in one continuous motion, specifically since this crossing lies near a bend. This plan does not contain a central island, so a single, wide lane is available at the crossing site.

5 Sylvia Road (North 8)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Request to signalise these crossings to ensure that drivers come to a stop, and related request for pedestrian crossing lights that operate only at school drop-off and pick-up times.
    Based on the road environment, traffic conditions and pedestrian demand, our engineers have deemed a raised zebra to be the most appropriate crossing facility for this location.
  • Request for the Ocean View Road crossing to be improved too.
    AT will undertake investigation at this location. If it meets our prioritisation criteria, we will upgrade this crossing in the next financial year.
  • Various requests for extending broken yellow lines further to mitigate visibility issues during school pick-up/drop-off hours.
    We have noted your recommendations and will investigate this when the new school term starts. If required, the design will be adjusted.
  • Willow Park School parents use the Northcote Baptist Church carpark for drop off and pick up, for which they have given permission. Removing the on street parks will increase demand on this car park, specifically causing issues for the Church Pre-School’s parents.
    The design proposes to extend the existing restrictions on the east side of Sylvia Road, opposite the Church, to cover the space between the vehicle crossings of numbers 7 and 9. There are just under 14 metres of kerb between the two crossings and would be able to accommodate 2 to 3 parking spaces depending on the size of the vehicles. It is important to note that the parking is removed to ensure the crossing design meets the required safety standards.
    Different options have been investigated to reduce the potential loss of parking. Installing side islands was considered as an alternative, but due to the road width of 8 metres, installing these would create pinch point for cyclists. Therefore this solution was not recommended, and the current proposal has been adopted. This enables safer walking journeys, which also reduces the need for parents to park directly next to the school/church.
  • Request that the Sunday restriction is lifted because of the restrictions on the other side of the road.
    This restriction runs along the west side of Sylvia Road from the end of the existing broken yellow lines near the crossing to the intersection with Lynden Avenue a distance of about 160 m. The parking restriction sign at the south end is missing. Sylvia Road is 8 m wide so if vehicles are parked both sides it becomes one lane road in effect. It is a bus route, and this restriction has been installed allow 2 way traffic flow when church services are underway. Therefore, there will be no changes to the Sunday parking restriction at this stage.

58 Eban Avenue (North 9)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed to the next stage of detailed planning with minor changes to the Broken Yellow Lines as a result of community feedback. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Request for high friction surfacing on Sylvia Avenue as drivers frequently use Sylvia and Eban as a rat run to the motorway, often travelling over 100 km/hr.
    This will be installed as part of the design.
  • Concerns over speeding when children are being dropped off and picked up around school start/end times, many of whom get out of the car into the roadway.
    AT will investigate this route in the next financial year and if warranted, will implement changes subject to priority and funding.
  • Suggestions for additional speed calming measures (judder bars, islands, lights, cameras, speed bumps) to be installed in other locations around Eban Avenue.
    The current proposal for the zebra crossing upgrade consist of installation of a speed table at each of the existing zebra crossing. This will help to help to create a slower speed environment and enhance safety for people on foot and on bike. Moore Street will be investigated next for speed calming in the next financial year. We have noted your other suggestions for future consideration.
  • Various requests for extending broken yellow lines or other parking restrictions along specific parts of the road due to heavy traffic, pick-up/drop-off traffic, parking on/over driveways.
    The current project is to enhance the safety of the two existing crossing facilities. The proposed changes to the parking restriction are to ensure that the visibility requirements and required safety and design standards are met. The suggestions for extra broken yellow lines have been noted, and will be programmed for investigation at a later stage. AT will also ensure that more safety education is undertaken with the school.
  • Comment against suggestions to extend broken yellow lines down Sylvia Road, Compton Street and Eban Avenue, respondent notes that the amount of parking in the area is already minimal and finds parking in the afternoon (pick up time) is extremely difficult.
    These parking restrictions are required in order to meet our road safety standards, by providing sufficient sight distance for pedestrians.
  • Respondent raised concerns that there were too many drivers who do not look or give way to pedestrians at this crossing.
    We will pass this request onto the Police for enforcement.
  • Comment that the bus stop (outside the school gate) markings are not shown in the plan, and a suggestion that we install broken yellow lines behind the bus stop and extended to the edge to the first driveway (50 Eban Avenue).
    Markings will be installed behind the bus stop as requested. The design will be updated to reflect this.
  • Concern that the changes don’t improve car parking, suggestion that we install No Parking signs along Sylvia Road coming towards Eban Avenue from (opposite) Lyndon Avenue from 8:30am until 9am. Then again on the opposite side of Sylvia Road going away from Eban Avenue (Baptist Church side) to Lyndon Avenue from 2:30pm to 3pm. Comment that this would enable 2 lanes of traffic and improve traffic flow for cars & buses and ultimately pedestrian safety.
    AT will monitor the traffic and pedestrian movements post implementation and implement any changes required to address safety or operational issues.
  • Respondent notes that the speeds of vehicles and driver unawareness to the crossing is an issue here, and comments that many cars do not stop for pedestrians including school children. 
    Additional warning signs will be put in place.
  • Requests that both the crossings are well lit.
    Lighting upgrade will be part of the zebra crossing upgrade.
  • Concern that there doesn't appear to be any warning signs 40-50m beforehand to make drivers aware what is ahead and concern that the markings on the road aren't enough.
    Additional warning signs will be put in place.
  • Query regarding the height of new raised crossing.
    It will be 100 mm high.
  • Suggestion that a long-term solution would be to signalise the intersection as pedestrian and traffic levels are high here.
    When we receive a request of this type we need to complete an assessment to determine if the signalisation of an intersection is required and appropriate. Several factors are carefully considered such as traffic volume and flows, the general road environment and police reported crashes. It is important we undertake this type of assessment because installing traffic signals where unnecessary may cause excessive delays, driver frustration and non-compliance of the signals, 'rat-running' in an attempt to avoid the signals, and an increased crash frequency, especially rear-end type crashes. Overall, we need to ensure traffic and pedestrian safety are not negatively impacted by the implementation of any changes to road design. This will be forwarded to the appropriate team to investigate. 
  • Suggestion that the crossing does not need to be raised but instead just repainted brightly or be better patrolled by the school.
    Installing the raised crossings enhances safety by forcing vehicles to slow down at the crossing, not just during school times. The raising of the crossings is a region wide initiative to enhance safety for pedestrians in all of Auckland.
  • Concern that doing roadworks at this location will have a big impact on peoples commutes etc, request that road works are done out of peak times and not at night.
    AT will endeavour to minimise the disruption to traffic during construction.
  • Request for more regular police enforcement in the area.
    This will be passed on to the Police for enforcement.

207 Edmonton Road (North 10)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed to the next stage of detailed planning with minor changes to signage and markings as a result of your feedback. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Concern about the safety of pedestrians at this zebra crossing as respondent frequently sees drivers ignoring zebra crossings nearby. Request to make the zebra stand out.
    Thank you for your feedback. Following your suggestion, additional signage and road markings will be added to the design.
  • Concern about the design creating pinch points for cyclists.
    The side islands are intended to minimise the distance that pedestrians need to cross and provide adequate visibility between pedestrians and approaching drivers. Even with side islands the traffic lanes in each direction are 4.4 meters wide. This lane width is considered sufficient for cyclists to safely share space with motorised traffic.
  • Suggestion to consider a design that allows cyclists to cycle on the inside of kerb buildouts.
    This option has been reviewed but there is insufficient room within the road reserve to accommodate this design.
  • Request that works are not carried out during the morning or are carried out during school holidays instead, as the area gets congested in school drop off mornings.
    A temporary traffic management plan will be prepared to minimise disruption to traffic, keeping in mind your feedback.
  • View original proposal details.

8 Edmonton Road (North 11)

Proposal outcome

AT and Panuku are working together to redesign this intersection in order to achieve better safety and traffic flow for all road users. 

15a Edmonton Road (North 12)

Proposal outcome

AT and Panuku are working together to redesign this intersection in order to achieve better safety and traffic flow for all road users. 

44 Sel Peacock Drive (North 13)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Concerns were raised about the side-islands included in the design which would force a cyclist into the car lane and create a pinch point.
    Sel Peacock Drive is a designated over-dimension route. Median islands cannot be used in combination with a speed table on these routes because the combined height of the speed table and island would mean that some over-sized loads would be unable to get through. The design therefore proposes to remove the existing median islands and enlarge the existing side islands. Side islands help keep pedestrians safe by reducing the crossing distance and allowing pedestrians who are waiting to cross to stand in a location where they are more visible to approaching drivers.
    The proposed raised table will reduce vehicle operating speeds and improve safety for all road users, in particular the table will help reduce both the speed differential between cyclists and motorised traffic and the likelihood that a driver will try to pass a cyclist at the crossing. However, if a driver is determined to pass here then the distance between the side islands is 9 m and the driver will be able to go partially onto the median when passing.
  • Suggestion to install a central refuge island instead as this still improves pedestrian safety, slows traffic (road narrows) and stops people using the centre strip to overtake on the crossing.
    Sel Peacock Drive is a designated over-dimension route. Median islands cannot be used in combination with a speed table on these routes because the combined height of the speed table and island would mean that some over-sized loads would be unable to get through. The design therefore proposes to remove the existing median islands and enlarge the existing side islands.
    Side islands help keep pedestrians safe by reducing the crossing distance and allowing pedestrians who are waiting to cross to stand in a location where they are more visible to approaching drivers.
  • Request that we consider a design that allows cyclists to go on the inside of the kerb build outs to avoid close dangerous passes by vehicles.
    There is insufficient road width to accommodate for a design which allows cyclists to go onto the inside of the kerb built out.
  • View original proposal details.

14 Railside Avenue (North 14)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Suggestion that the upgrade should be to a controlled pedestrian crossings as to improve traffic flow.
    We have reviewed the operation of this crossing facility and based on the land use and the road environment, it is considered that a raised zebra crossing would be the most suitable for this environment.
  • Concern regarding the visibility of pedestrians coming down the elevator near this crossing.
    We have investigated and explored the options to improve the visibility of pedestrians coming down the elevator. One thing we have done to improve this is removing some of the cluttering on the street. We have also made some minor changes to the crossing alignment. The site has a lot of restrictions, hence no further significant changes are being proposed at this crossing, other than raising this crossing on a table.
  • Request that we take away the existing advertising boards as they obscure pedestrian views of vehicles and vice versa. Suggestion to replace them with concrete block boards or some nicer planter boxes.
    We will forward this issue to Auckland Council for them to monitor and discuss with the surrounding businesses.
  • Comment that we need to think more about cyclists in that area due to concern over narrow pinch points.
    This crossing is located within a slow speed environment and highly pedestrianised area. Therefore, we have retained the existing arrangement, which enables a reduced crossing distance for pedestrians, and encourages cyclists to take the lane.
  • Request that we make sure the design slows traffic effectively and encourages cyclists to take the lane to avoid dangerous close pass overtaking of cyclists.
    It is expected that the speed table will help to slow down the speed of traffic. Suitable delineation will be provided on the approach of the crossing to encourage cyclists to take the lane. 
  • View original proposal details.

South & East proposals

13 Wycherley Drive (South 1)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • The side island is a pinch point, as when cars aren’t parked here cyclists would automatically seek refuge in the parking bay. Please provide a cycling bypass.
    A side island has been proposed on the western side of the crossing. These islands are intended to minimise the distance that pedestrians need to cross, and to provide adequate visibility between pedestrians and approaching drivers.
    Due to the proximity to a school and the high parking demand in this area, this is considered the safest option. Due to site constraints, a cycle bypass can’t be achieved. The size of the side island has been made very similar to the size of a parked vehicle.
  • View original proposal details.

11 Fordyce Avenue (South 2)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Please make the side-islands out of bollards with enough spacing and visibility for cyclists to go through safely or introduce a centre island instead.
    The side islands are intended to minimise the distance that pedestrians need to cross and provide adequate visibility between pedestrians and approaching drivers. The latter is specifically important, due to the location close to a school, and near a bend in the road. Other site constraints, including trees, do not allow for cycling provisions on this low-volume road. 
  • View original proposal details.

132 Gossamer Drive (South 3)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Please use a middle island only, as that would be safer for cyclists and would cut the crossing-distance in half, or just remove the side islands altogether.
    The side islands are intended to minimise the distance that pedestrians need to cross and provide adequate visibility between pedestrians and approaching drivers. Even with side islands the traffic lanes in each direction are 4.2 m or more wide. This lane width is considered sufficient for cyclists to safely share space with motorised traffic.
  • View original proposal details.

60 Idlewild Avenue (South 4)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed with minor changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Based on your feedback, we are adding SLOW road markings to the design. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • The crossing is fine where it is right next to the Viscount School gate and Mangere West Kindergarten as the children use it daily. Moving it means the access flow will change. Please relocate the bus stop only.
    Thank you for the feedback, the slight relocation of the design is needed to ensure that the upgraded zebra crossing meets all the required design and safety standards. The relocation of the bus stop is to ensure that the mutual visibility between pedestrians and approaching traffic is maintained at all times.
  • We need more speed humps along this road to slow the traffic down before they reach this crossing. We can hear motorists speeding down the street and it is very dangerous for residents and pedestrians.
    We are not planning to install speed humps along this road as part of this project to raise the pedestrian crossing at number 60 Idlewild Avenue. However, as part of this project we will add additional 'SLOW' road markings with red patches to warning drivers to reduce their speeds before approaching the crossing. We will also investigate the possibility of installing additional speed humps along this street in the future.
  • View original proposal details.

79 Raglan Street (South 5)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. The proposal received positive feedback and no concerns have been raised by community members and stakeholders.

25 Graeme Avenue (South 6)

Proposal outcome

As a result of consultation feedback and engineering requirements, we will be redesigning this upgrade and consult with you again in the new financial year. 

81 Gray Avenue (South 7)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Suggestion that we install thin "rumble strips" on the road approaches to the crossing to warn drivers to slow down. 
    A Speed Table is considered to be the most effective traffic calming device and it is the most suitable and effective device for this type of corridor and zebra crossing.
  • The sign proposed to be outside 2 Orakau Road needs to be moved forward in front of the Pohutukawa tree instead of behind it.
    Thank you for this comment. This will be reviewed during the detailed design stage.
  • Suggestion that due to the broken yellow lines, AT are creating a de-facto bike path and the side islands here would create a pinch point. If AT can add in a middle-island without forcing drivers to turn into cyclists, it will cut the safe distance in half and allow pedestrians to look both ways independently.
    The side islands are replacements for existing side islands already located at this crossing. A visibility check carried out during design of the proposed improvements shows that these islands are required, in combination with the parking restriction markings, to provide adequate sight distances between pedestrians waiting to cross and approaching drivers. The side islands contribute to making the crossing safer for pedestrians as they reduce the total distance pedestrians will need to cross and allow pedestrians waiting to cross to stand in a location where they are more likely to be seen by drivers. As no median island is proposed, no pinch point is being created as drivers will be able to use the other lane if they want to pass a cyclist.
  • A traffic island should be placed at the intersection of Gray Avenue and Orakau Road to slow all traffic in the vicinity of the pedestrian crossing. 
    It is expected that the proposed speed table will help to reduce the traffic speed, including traffic turning right from Orakau Road onto Gray Avenue, because advance warning signage has been proposed on Orakau Road near the intersection. As a result, there is no plan for the installation of a traffic island at the intersection at this stage.
  • Parents and school buses are stopping on the broken yellow lines in front of 83 Gray Avenue. This has to stop as it limits visibility. 
    Enforcement will be undertaken post construction. This will be coordinated with the Parking Enforcement team.
  • Concern that high friction surface proposed on Gray Ave could increase noise levels.
    From past experience, we know that there will be no significant increase in noise level due to the high friction surface. 
  • View original proposal details.

60 Mirrabooka Avenue (South 8)

Proposal outcome

This project received positive feedback only, and will proceed to the next stage of detailed planning without changes to the design. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback.

126 Wellington Street (South 9)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed with minor changes to the next stage of detailed planning. As a result of community feedback, changes to lighting and road markings have been made. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of the changes, feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • The lights are already so bright, please dim them.
    The required lighting level has been checked and revised accordingly.
  • The lollipop sign near our house is 4m high, as opposed to 2 meters on the opposite side. Please lower it if possible.
    This will be incorporated into the design accordingly.
  • New World opened a new Supermarket and large vans now use Wellington Street to access it. Our street is not wide enough to take this type of traffic. Please add further measures to deter trucks.
    Further monitoring will be undertaken to assess the situation.
  • Trucks shake our house when braking to slow down for the roundabout all night long. Putting in a raised crossing will cause them to brake and take off right outside our house too. Respondent is worried about the extra noise.
    We will install 'SLOW' markings on red surfacing on all approaches of the roundabout to provide advance warning.
  • Please make this a signalized crossing, this is safer and will deter the trucks.
    Based on the road environment, traffic condition and pedestrian demand, a zebra crossing is considered to be the most appropriate crossing facility for this location.
  • The small gap in the broken yellow lines south of the crossing should be totally closed.
    Thank you for your feedback, this will be incorporated into the design.
  • Consideration should be given to re-opening the drop zone in front of Owairoa School. This is now used as a car park for staff members.
    No changes have been proposed for the parking arrangement outside the school, as the car park is on school property.
  • Concern the crossing will make it harder to back up out of driveway. 
    The proposed new zebra crossing is not closer to the driveway than the existing crossing, but the table ramp is. The new table will slow down vehicles approaching the crossing and make it safer for vehicles reversing out of the driveway.
  • Pedestrians crossing from Nelson Street will cross in front of the roundabout rather than walk the extra distance to the crossing. 
    The pedestrian crossing is located near to the Wellington Street entrance to Owairoa Primary School. The position of the crossing has been selected to maximise the number of school children using it. Moving the crossing away from the entrance and closer to the roundabout would mean that children walking to the school from the south would be less likely to use the crossing.
  • View original proposal details.

103 Jeffs Road (South 10)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Concern that this will create a cycling pinch point.
    As part of the project, we will be removing the side islands that are already in place. The existing median island will be reconstructed as part of the works. The traffic lanes in each direction are 4.2 m or wider. This lane width is considered sufficient for cyclists to safely share space with motorised traffic.
  • We also need a zebra crossing around the corner at Valderama Road as this also has high traffic volume and the current road patrol in use struggles with speeding traffic.
    We will undertake investigation at this location. If it meets our prioritisation criteria, we will upgrade this crossing in the next financial year.
  • View original proposal details.

28 Helianthus Avenue (South 11)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed with minor changes to the next stage of detailed planning. As a result of your feedback, side islands have been removed for the design. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • The side islands are reducing the distance to safety marginally for pedestrians, but create a pinch point for cyclists. Please do not implement these or create a median island instead.
    We agree and have removed these islands from the final design.
  • View original proposal details.

102 Dawson Road (South 12)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Concern that this will create a cycling pinch point.
    The side islands are intended to minimise the distance that pedestrians need to cross and provide adequate visibility between pedestrians and approaching drivers. Even with side islands, the traffic lanes in each direction are 4.2 m or wider. This lane width is considered sufficient for cyclists to safely share space with motorised traffic.
  • View original proposal details.

261 Great South Road (South 13)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. We have only received messages in support of the proposal, with no concerns being raised by respondents.

47 Patumahoe Road (South 14)

Proposal outcome

This project will proceed without changes to the next stage of detailed planning. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. A summary of this feedback and answers to community questions and concerns is below.

Feedback received

  • Concerns around the design of this proposal interfering with the moving of agricultural equipment at this location.
    The current kea crossing arrangement consists of a pair of side islands on each side of the road. Our proposal consists of a speed table with zebra crossing road markings, as well as a pair of side islands on each side of the road. As the current proposed side islands are slightly wider than the existing side islands, 2 x 3.35 lanes will be achieved. The speed table profile has been tested extensively and is confirmed to be suitable and effective for speed calming on arterial roads and routes that carry over dimensional loads. Consultation with National Road Carriers Association and other key stakeholders have confirmed that they have no issues with the proposal.
  • Concern this crossing is in the wrong place and strong suggestion to retain the kea crossing as it is, but to install a zebra crossing closer within the village, as the school is located on the outskirts of the village.
    Concerns have been raised by the school and community regarding the operation and safety of the existing kea crossing. Based on our investigation and site observations, we have confirmed that there is indeed a need to upgrade the existing kea crossing to a zebra crossing, in order to provide better and safer crossing facilities for school children. This raised table encourages drivers to slow down when approaching the crossing facility and make it safer for people on foot. Given your feedback, AT will undertake further investigation to identify crossing facilities required for the village.
  • Issues raised that side islands cause pinch point and conflict of cyclists in the area. 
    The side islands are intended to minimise the distance that pedestrians need to cross and provide adequate visibility between pedestrians and approaching drivers. Drivers are able to pass a cyclist if they wish to do so by using the other lane when it is safe to do so. There are no significant changes to the lane width being made as a part of this proposal.
  • Request to put in put in a middle-island. This will cut the distance to safety in half and make it safer for cyclists.
    The existing side islands need to be retained to ensure there is adequate visibility for pedestrians crossing the road in one continuous motion.
    There are two driveways located either side of the zebra crossing. A median island cannot be installed at this location because it would interfere with vehicle tracking into and out of these driveways. The new speed table will reduce vehicle operating speeds near the zebra crossing, which will result in a reduced crash risk for all road users including cyclists.
  • Request that we lower the speed limit at the crossings in Paerata from 70km/h to 30km/h.
    This is a 50 km/h zone with a 40 km/h school zone in the vicinity of the school.
  • Comment that the crossing at Great South Road/Rosehill Drive has side island conflicts and is a collection point for broken glass.
    We have passed this on to the maintenance team for them to investigate.
  • View original proposal details.