> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Letter to the Editor: Auckland Harbour Bridge Shared Path (SkyPath 2.0)
- URL: https://goodoil.news/letter-to-the-editor-auckland-harbour-bridge-shared-path-skypath-2-0/
- Published: 2020-06-18T01:30:00.000Z
- Updated: 2020-06-17T04:22:52.000Z
- Author: Letter to the Editor
- Tags: NZ, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2024-07-17 03:00

Dear Editor

I recently made a submission to NZTA (and to various government ministers) regarding the Auckland Harbour Bridge Shared Path (‘SkyPath 2.0’). The submission contains details of what I consider to be substantive and serious flaws and omissions regarding the Auckland Harbour Bridge Shared Path Single Stage Business Case methodology and the shared pathway design.

I believe that NZTA has presented a very misleading case to the public, and therefore thought that you might be interested in the contents of my submission as the project will likely result in the wastage of a large amount of taxpayer/ratepayer money. Indeed, some of the research referenced in the submission is applicable to cycle paths and related infrastructure spend in general, not just SkyPath.

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/31/f4/31f4e20a-0315-499e-83ff-139e8eab53bf/content/images/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/eight_col_10009290_570816223017747_3053687983333018743_n.jpg)

A graphic showing the entrance to the proposed path and cycleway. Photo: Copyright © 2011 – 2014 Generation Zero Incorporated.

In particular, I submitted evidence that:

- The stated problems claimed in the business case are **unquantified and unsubstantiated.**
- Projected cycle and pedestrian usage estimates and investment objectives are **based on assumptions**, flawed math, and lack sufficient statistical foundation.
- A large body of evidence from existing research into cycling behaviours and cycling infrastructure spend appears to have not been consulted or was **ignored.**
- Based on existing research, the estimated pedestrian and cyclist usage rates appear to be **unrealistic and wildly optimistic.**
- The demand forecasts provided by NZTA are erroneous and **misleading** due to major differences in gradient, distance and rainfall between the AHB shared path and the case studies/examples cited in the NZTA business case.
- The business case does not take into account research evidence regarding the effects of steep inclines, commute distance, travel time, or precipitation on usage volumes.
- While Austroads is cited as the design standards reference, there are a number of serious and **fundamental breaches** of the Austroads design specifications, specifically:
  - Pedestrian walkway design parameters relating to gradient and distance are not taken into account.
  - Cycle pathway design parameters relating to uphill cycling are not taken into account.
  - Cycle pathway design parameters relating to the hazards and safety of downhill cycling are not taken into account.
- The implications of the design modifications required to conform to the Austroads design standards I believe represent **major obstacles and cost challenges** to the successful design and construction of the Auckland Harbour Bridge Shared Path – which in turn increases the risk of another cost blowout.

Kind regards,

Concerned Aucklander

*If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.*

---

Send your letters to the Editor to sb at thebfd.co.nz

Please put **Letter to the Editor** in the subject line.