Wellington Scoop

Council approves compromise layout for cycleway on the Parade in Island Bay


The Wellington City Council today approved the “compromise solution” for a new cycleway layout on The Parade in Island Bay.

Thirteen councillors voted for the plan, and one (Simon Woolf) voted against it.

News from WCC – September 25
A compromise solution for the layout of The Parade will be proposed by Wellington City Councillors this week. The proposed new layout will have a dedicated cycleway between the footpath and the kerb at the same height, with cars once again parking up against the kerb.

The lanes on the road will be widened to 3.5 metres in each direction, and unmarked car parking will be restored along the length of The Parade.

“This is a common-sense solution that will improve the Parade for everyone,” Mayor Justin Lester said. “It will mean the lanes on The Parade will be widened, the cycleway comes off the road, drivers will park against a fixed kerb and car parks will be saved.

“The outcome is a safer, separated cycleway, wider lanes on the road, and car parking available for residents and shoppers.”

The Council’s Walking, Cycling and Public Transport Portfolio Leader, Councillor Sarah Free, said the solution was informed by more than 3700 public submissions and discussions Councillors had at the drop-in sessions held in Island Bay earlier this year.

“There was a real diversity of opinion from the public – it was clear people weren’t anti-cycling but for a lot of people the current design simply wasn’t working. People wanted something that was safer, that gave drivers and buses more room to manoeuvre and that protected car parking, especially for local businesses. This solution achieves all of those goals.

“We will also make further safety improvements to reduce the cycling speed on the cycleway, be removing speed humps that were scraping against buses, and restoring angled car parking by the medical centre.

The new option would cost $4.1 million and be paid for out of existing council budgets, meaning no new rates money would be needed. A further $2 million will be set aside to reseal the road once the project is completed, and for contingencies.

Deputy Mayor Paul Eagle said the solution would make the Parade much better.

“People in Island Bay absolutely love their suburb, and they’re proud of The Parade. This solution sees the beautiful wide lanes restored, and the cycleway off the road. As an Island Bay resident, I’m thrilled. This has been a very long saga and it’s great we’ve got something that will work and that finds a good balance for most people. Not everyone will be happy, but I think most people will see we’ve done the best job possible of coming up with something that works.”

The option will be proposed as an amendment at Wednesday’s Council Meeting. If adopted, installation of the new layout will begin in early 2018.

With this solution, the new design will include:

· Widening the residential carriageway to 3.5m in each direction

· A 500mm median strip in the middle of the road in the residential section

· The cycleway comes off the road, and cars will again park against the hard kerb

· Retention of the existing planted berm width on the western side of the residential area

· Maintaining both car parks and outdoor dining space through the shopping centre

· Traffic lanes increased to 3.2m width in the shopping centre

· The cycleway will be painted a different colour so as to be visually distinct and will include safety measures to reduce cycling speeds. This could include rumble strips to reduce speed, as well as suggested speed limit for cyclists communicated through signage to keep speeds down

· An education campaign will be launched to encourage cyclists to reduce their speed, and to be courteous of other users

· Unmarked car parking restored across the residential areas

· Car parks to be restored by dairys

· Raised platforms to improve safety at intersections on side streets

· Angle parking restored by the Island Bay Medical Centre

· Removal of speed cushions and lowering pedestrian crossing in shopping centre.

· A full reseal of The Parade to remove ghost markings

· The City Council to work with Greater Wellington Regional Council to relocate the following bus stops: Relocating the current stop from 88 The Parade to 64 The Parade near Tamar St. Relocating the current stop from 101 The Parade to 73 The Parade near Tamar St. Relocating the current stop on the west side of The Parade at Humber Street across to the departure side (north side) of the intersection

· The pedestrian crossing by The Empire Theatre retained in its current location. The safe walk to school crossing has been moved south, with a relocation of the bus stop and kerbside parking. The pedestrian crossing at Humber Street and Dee Street will be reviewed during detailed design

Separated kerbside cycleway recommended


  1. IBCycleWay, 25. September 2017, 10:20

    As an Island Bay resident and member of the residents association I’d like to say I think this is a good compromise. Well done all involved![via twitter]

  2. John Geary, 25. September 2017, 11:30

    What would the difference in total cost be if this had been done in the first place?

  3. Simon, 25. September 2017, 11:35

    A sorry end to a shambles of council decision making. The original cycleway reportedly cost $3.7M, fixing it will cost $4.1M plus $2M. That’s a total of $9.8M for 1.7 km. That’s $6,000 per metre! Or $98,000 per person who apparently use the cycleway every day.

  4. Simon, 25. September 2017, 13:39

    31 out of 34 Island Bays residents’ bottom-lines met. I don’t think anyone can say now that the residents haven’t been listened to. Great that the WCC has stuck to curbside. Gives hope for the rest of the network being done properly.

  5. Patrick Morgan, Cycling Action Network, 26. September 2017, 17:31

    The proposal is a sensible step forward.
    I’m pleased to see the cycleway extended through the shopping area, a new kerb to make parking easier, and wider door buffer zones to reduce risk to cyclists and pedestrians.
    It’s a better design than the current one, and is closer to what we call a triple-A design, suitable for all ages and abilities.
    As a bonus, The Parade will receive a reseal, and $1m for landscaping. That should make everyone happy.
    Am not keen on the angle parking, which can be difficult to safely reverse out from.

  6. Durden, 26. September 2017, 17:57

    Lobbyists (IBcycleway and Patrick Morgan)are trying to build a narrative. But an alternate view seems to say otherwise.
    Visibility issues for pedestrians and drivers not being able see cars on the road while driving out, and fast moving cyclists on cycleway when driving in, remain big risks as before. Visibility issues are what caused the recent accident where a pedestrian and cyclist were seriously hurt.

  7. Glen Smith, 26. September 2017, 17:57

    Sorry to harp on but let’s briefly objectively compare the proposed design with a dual cycleway. With advancing technology, electric bikes that can transport people rapidly are becoming more sophisticated, common and cheap. This is good since it allows people who are less fit or time pressured to be active cyclists. The same thing happened with cars (the first cars mixed with pedestrians and had a man walking with a flag in front) and the response was to engineer roadways for higher speeds and increasing segregation for safety. We should be planning the same for cycles.
    The current design fails to do this. The cycleway is on what is effectively a wide footpath and relies on paint on the ground for mode separation. My experience of this is pedestrians ignore the segregation, children and dogs wander across the cycleway and drivers happily cross it from their parked cars without looking. This is already an issue where the cycleway goes on the footpath on the outer side of the bus stops – I have had several close misses where bus passengers ignore the bike lane. I’ve gone back to using the road. This isn’t really the bus passengers’/ pedestrians’/ childrens’/ dogs’ fault – (the public in my experience have been very courteous) but a design flaw with inadequate mode segregation. Unfortunately more effective mode segregation is impossible with the current design because the single cycleways are only 1.5 m wide and rely on the pedestrian space or buffer zone for overtaking, bringing cyclists into conflict with pedestrians and car doors. The plan to include ‘safety’ measures to reduce cycists speed is an admission of this basic design fault.
    The logical solution is to combine the two cycle lanes into one single wider corridor- ie a dual cycleway. This can then be more effectvely segregated by a curb or some other form of minor physical barrier that allows better corridor recognition.
    The current design also allocates more corridor width to cyclists than is necessary (yes I’m a cyclist recommending less space for cyclists!) due to inefficient use of space (2 buffers and wider total corridor space than necessary). The combined width is 1.5m x 2 + 0.9m x 2 (buffers) = 4.8m. A dual cycleway could get by with 2.5 + 0.9= 3.4m ( or perhaps more reasonably 2.8 + 0.9 = 3.7). The 1.1 m difference could be allocated back to cars allowing the central car median to go to 1.6m which would allow other cars to pass cars turning into driveways.
    Of course the current design also doubles the number of interactions of cyclists with shops, sideroads, driveways, bus stops and parked cars.
    As a cyclist I will be faced with having to chose between running the gauntlet of pedestrians on what is effectively a wide footpath, or the guantlet of a narrower than previous roadspace. I give it two decades before the number of cyclists (who are back on the road because they don’t want to endure the ‘safety measures to reduce cycling speeds’) forces a revisit of the whole design. Why not do it right the first time. Give cyclists a true dedicated/ segregated corridor and all the problems will go away.

  8. wednesdaynight, 26. September 2017, 18:44

    A quick summary of where people don’t want you to ride bikes:
    1. streets
    2. sidewalks
    3. bike lanes that reduce parking or traffic lanes.

  9. Pablo, 26. September 2017, 19:51

    I’d like to give my 👍 for the proposed solution for the IBCycleWay. Keeping my fingers crossed for unanimous approval! [via twitter]

  10. glenn, 27. September 2017, 6:58

    So let me get this straight: the council will widen the footpath, paint a lane etc and call it done. It has taken millions of dollars to get to this stage, when this should have been what was done originally.
    @glensmith – you want two lanes and buffers? Sorry to inform you, but that is called a road, and you already have one. I also think an electric cycle that can do 40km’s isn’t really a bike at all, it’s more a scooter, and as such should be on the road, (and while we are at it, rego’d and warranted). And by the way, I could be wrong, but isn’t the speed limit through the shops 30 k??

  11. IBCycleWay, 27. September 2017, 9:18

    The thing about compromise is it means not getting every single thing you want. If you get everything you want then it’s not a compromise. [via twitter]

  12. Joel Miller, 27. September 2017, 9:23

    Can’t make the Council meeting but I support the compromise option. Request grade separation between footpath and bike lane. [via twitter]

  13. Glen Smith, 27. September 2017, 9:51

    No Glenn, the logical is a dual cycleway- see https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2014/09/03/beach-road-cycleway-completed/ for an example. I am happy on the road (I keep up with traffic) but other cyclists more commonly go around 25-30km/hr which frustrates cars (they have to pass) but on a single cycleway still struggle to pass slower cyclists. I slow down through shops etc (just as cars do).

  14. Michael, 27. September 2017, 21:08

    So how many more cycleways will be have to redone before the council recognises there are sensible solutions to providing them.

    I note that there will be a 1.6m cycleway in the middle of two lanes of traffic in Featherston Street – why not just widen the footpath there = far safer than cycling along between 2 lanes of cars.

  15. Maggie, 27. September 2017, 23:28

    God help Miramar! The council has now turned its cycle-mad eyes to our already under siege suburb. If the Shelly Bay disaster isn’t bad enough, now we are going to lose car parks, add traffic lights and put a cycleway into the mix of thousands of extra cars that Shelly Bay is going to add. Has anyone tried cycling down Miramar Avenue in a howling southerly or northerly – wind tunnel extraordinaire. Shakes head in disbelief.

  16. Michael, 28. September 2017, 7:48

    I had hoped for a council that was going to listen – unlike the previous council. But it seems like nothing has changed. In fact it has got worse. Now we are going to have multiple high rise apartment buildings built all over the city that will be non-notifiable – in other words we cannot have any say at all.

  17. Patrick Morgan, 28. September 2017, 8:01

    Congratulations to Justin Lester and the WCC for your leadership. You are getting the job done. [via twitter]

  18. Brevet Specific, 28. September 2017, 9:00

    IBRA demands (still not sated!) show they’re still fighting what many want: safe, inclusive infrastructure. [via twitter]