This is a guest post from our friends Niko and Emma from Generation Zero

Last week we again saw that Northcote residents are still adamant that users of Skypath will be turning up to Skypath in cars, and that this supposedly will have adverse effects on parking in the Northcote neighbourhood beyond what can be mitigated with a residents parking scheme.

However this point, which we heard throughout the resource consent hearings, was a huge assumption by Northcote residents and was lacking real evidence about Aucklanders preferences when using walking and cycling infrastructure for leisure and recreational purposes. Despite this assumption, claims made about the hypothetical effect of parking was and still is a realistic threat against Skypath going ahead, and so we decided to unpack the issue for the benefit of the commissioners.

Niko-Emma - Skypath header

So rather than rely on anecdotal evidence, like the defense, to make a case as to why people would not be turning up in their cars, we went back and asked the 11,000 people who submitted in favour of Skypath in January this year, exactly how they intended to use the future pedestrian bridge.

The intention of our survey was to find out, more exactly and specifically, how people intended to use Skypath. We saw the group who submitted in favour of Skypath as the fairest and most accurate group to ask, as these 11,000 people already stated they would be likely users of the Skypath service through their submissions. And we think this is a fair subject group, as people who hadn’t submitted in support of Skypath might be less likely to use the Skypath as frequently as those who had taken the time to make a submission. This is because people are more likely to go out of their way to submit on an issue if it directly affects them, and as future users of the bridge, Skypath naturally affects this pool of Aucklanders.

We let the survey run for a day. Mostly due to timing constraints before we had to present at the hearing. We received 1113 responses, which we think is an accurate and fair sample size of our 11,000.

Firstly we asked those who submitted on Skypath “What is your main mode of transport?”
58% said Car. This shows accurately the people who filled in our form are not just the cycling community. The results were fairly representative of inner city Auckland in general.

Niko-Emma - Skypath 1

Secondly we asked “What would your main use of Skypath be?” The results showed that most people wanted to use Skypath for recreation and leisure, 886 people in total. The rest would use it to get to work or to their place of education. Overwhelming they’re not commuters or tourist, they’re leisure people. This shows that the people in this survey strongly represent the group that is the most difficult to predict how they will use Skypath, information that before this survey, had been missing from research on Skypath. Unlike tourists who are likely to bus or walk or commuters who are likely to cycle, this group of leisure users could understandably drive or bus or walk or cycle. Therefore understanding this group’s specific preferences in particular is really important for understanding the actual impact of parking and traffic rather than simply speculating “that leisure users are likely to drive”.

Niko-Emma - Skypath 2

Then we asked “If you were to use Skypath during a weekday, how would you get there?” 61% said they would bike, 13% said they would bus, 12% would walk and 11% said they would bring their car. This shows that although cars are currently the main mode of transport for those surveyed, overall they did not have the intention to arrive there by car.

Niko-Emma - Skypath 3

“If you were to use Skypath during a weekend, how would you get there?”
60% said they would bike, 14% said they would come by car. This is a broadly similar outcome to the last question.

Niko-Emma - Skypath 4

“If it was made clear, in Skypath promotional materials, that parking was extremely limited at both ends of Skypath, how would you then get there?
Only 2.2% of people said they would still try to park as close as they could to Skypath. Otherwise, on realising that there would be poor parking facilities, they preferred to take other modes to Skypath or park elsewhere.

Niko-Emma - Skypath 5

The last question we asked “If safe separated cycle lanes were constructed at each end, how would you then get there?” got a considerably different result in that the number who said they would cycle jumped from 56.5% to 76.1%.

Niko-Emma - Skypath 6

This clearly shows that amongst Skypath’s potential user group there is strong demand for high quality cycling infrastructure. It shows that Auckland Transport’s planned investment over the next 3 years is bang on, and that while Aucklanders may seem to love their cars this is only because they are waiting for better transport choices.

These results show, more conclusively than anything else we’ve seen, that most people, most of the time, intend to use Skypath in a way that will have minor effects on parking or traffic. While we think it is probably fair that Northcote residents are granted some kind of residents parking scheme (to protect against the 2% of Skypath users who intend to try and hunt for nearby parking spots) we don’t think it is reasonable or fair that a few local residents make assumptions about the next generation of transport users moving through their area.

Skypath is going to be brilliant for Auckland. Let’s base its design on evidence and the city we want to create not just the outdated conjecture of a few.

Niko-Emma - Skypath footer

Share this

114 comments

  1. Thank you for the research Matt. Hopefully it can be viewed at the time the 2 appeals are heard. Northcote Point residents are the least likely to use a car to get to the Skypath surely!

        1. The last slide is indeed “beautiful” even with the _two_ typos it contains 😉

          Great job guys.

        2. I’m guessing nonsense picked up the following two typos:
          unnescessary -> unnecessary
          “Not all Aucklanders use cars for every trip” -> “All Aucklanders use cars for every trip”

          :p

    1. Beautiful info-graphic, and it shows that there’s another solution that can come into play, which is public transport. It’s telling that only 8-18% of surveyed users plan to use buses/ferries to get to SkyPath, and I think AT could take steps to make this a more attractive option for people wanting to walk to the top of the bridge and back.

      To illustrate this, using AT’s excellent website I looked at using public transport to get to Northcote Point and back from my place in Devonport, and was surprised to find that it would cost upwards of $80 for a family of four. That is lot for a fairly short trip, so perhaps there is untapped potential there to reduce the actual need for car-parking.

  2. Anyone else spot the irony in the last question? The same vocal group of Northcote Residents that opposed the Skypath also vigorously opposed the Northcote Safe Cycling Route, watering down the protections and thereby making it *more* likely that people would drive rather than bike to the northern terminus of the Skypath.

      1. The groups seemed pretty identical, driven by their concerns about the fact that car parks were being removed (safe routes project) / taken up by non-residents (SkyPath). Many of the submissions to SkyPath cited the Safe Routes project as a sort of “conspiracy” of Council in favour of SkyPath.

        1. The Council are supporting the Skypath though and have paid all the applicants costs of the resource consent to the tune of $100,000 dollars. So it would be fair to say the council are playing a major role here.

    1. No, Northcote Point resident’s are not against a safe cycle route. We have had one of these for years. You cannot get better than 100% no accidents.
      We are against having to pay have a cycle path which is not needed and lose the car parks into the bargain. Now whether SkyPath is built or not Queen St is to have cycle paths installed and to be down to one lane of traffic plus losing some of the parks. This is going to cost the ratepayers millions and may not be needed. The hills here are steep so only the truly dedicated undertake the ride.
      It will be interesting to see just how many cyclists use it. They don’t at the moment.

      1. Of course you can do better than 100% no accidents. You can have 100% no accidents with more.people cycling

      2. Hi Janette, you mentioned in your submission that Onewa Road is one of the 15 worst bottlenecks in NZ. Can you provide a reference to back this up? What are the other 14 bottlenecks that make up the 15?

      3. ATs plan modification reduces the parking loss massively, and there was never any removal of lanes planned except at one point. This now also won’t happen. Are u happy? Most your wishes seem to have been granted, but I doubt it.

  3. And we can add Herne Bay Residents. I’m sceptical that the Northcote group in particular is really concerned about parking as the Resident parking Scheme will effectively manage the issue. I believe the residents main problem is that they don’t want a larger number of people walking or riding through “their” Street, they believe this will have a significant impact on their quiet enjoyment of their properties. All the 80+ issues raised over the years is just obfuscation for this one ugly issue. I’m looking forward to this issue being properly tested, what rights do a very small group of residents have to stop ordinary people from walking and cycling in a public space, and one that is already highly altered from a normal urban state. It is very weird when it’s ok to to tolerate cars but not people.

    1. If they want to live basically in the main city area and enjoy the property prices that come with that, they need to expect there will be people and development around there. Otherwise shift out to the quieter suburbs. One Tree Hill?

    2. We had a test run for SkyPath on Sunday 14 November 2015 with Bike the Bridge. This gives very graphic evidence of what 2500 cyclists an hour looks like. However this was on a major road which was at least 3.5 meters wide with run off and only one way. Next year perhaps Bike the Bridge could run it under SkyPath conditions of 4.meters both ways with pedestrians and only one entrance of say 5 meters with no prepayment. Should give a very good idea of what the resident can expect. No cyclist is to arrive by car and park to make live easier as cruising around looking for a park will be useless. If this is acceptable for citizens of Northcote Point it must to suitable for Bike the Bridge. I look forward to seeing how easily this can be managed.

      1. Hi Janette, I’m not sure that the Bike the Bridge event is a fair indication of the impacts of Skypath because it’s an event. It has start times and strict timetables because of road closures and infrastructure that needs to be put in place. Through a happy accident, I did it one-way this year and it was terrific. Large proportion of people were clearly beginner riders and everyone was having a great time. Proving what AT surveys have reflected that over 60% of Auckland’ers will ride bikes if there is suitable infrastructure. I live in St Marys Bay, I rode to the event and then rode home across the Upper Harbour, I met many people doing the same and there will be lots more as they build confidence. In St Marys Bay the AT Residents Parking Scheme manages Parking pressures effectively and I see no reason why it won’t be the same for Herne Bay and Northcote Point. In St Marys Bay, there were 74 submitters in favour of Skypath and none against. No way am I dismissing the impacts but they can be mitigated and managed and everyone adapts, in a similar way I guess to how residents adapted when they built the Harbour Bridge originally. Skypath will be tremendous fun and a great amenity to both our neighborhoods.

  4. It’s good to remind ourselves what’s at stake here. Should the city allow a small group of fearful and cranky misanthropes to derail a key project in the shift towards a happier, healthier, safer, and more resilient and more competitive city?

    Transformation towards this balance is happening everywhere and Auckland risks being left behind like some sullen little hick-town, for example; even hilly, frozen Montreal is ahead of our temperate harbour city:

    http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/17/people-power-montreal-north-america-cycle-city

  5. So if the figures quoted above are correct around 1200 to 1500 additional people expect to park their cars in the vicinity (11 to 14%) daily. That is a significant number of extra cars parked in the area. I suspect that would cause just the issues you are suggesting are not real? regarding the last two graphs where would the ‘safe separated cycle lines’ start from? And would those 1200 to 1500 cars not cause issues at that origination point?

    1. Yes, good to see you understand the negative effects of driving and parking Ricardo, and the need to reduce it at all times! Welcome to reality. Now just think a little; does it really make sense to object to a project that enables people using alternatives to always driving, because driving and parking create such negative effects?

      Wouldn’t it be better to reduce the problem mode, driving, through the obvious device of simply restricting parking at the point for visitor? And get on with the connecting paths for walkers and riders? Yes, of course it would.

      1. I don’t think that’s a helpful answer, Patrick. The answer to residents’ concerns to a local parking complaint is not a sweeping ideological assertion, no matter how well-intended or supported by the facts, that the real problem is that human beings in general drive too much. Those kinds of answers just make people mad, and that’s a reality, too.

        It would better to communicate things like parking issues are almost never as bad as feared, people who ride bikes are very unlikely to put the bike in the car and drive to the bridge for the thrill of riding on Skypath – it’s a link, not a stand-alone attraction (that will happen to some extent when it’s still a novelty), and it is possible to restrict parking on streets anyway. (Are there any neighbourhood permit parking programs in AKL?)

        Let’s now and then step back and look at it from their point of view, the better to craft responses that answer/nullify their concerns. Basic battlefield tactics.

        1. Well Steve, I disagree. It is frankly bewildering that the many and undoubted problems caused by our over supply and subsidy of driving amenity is being used to try to trip up a project that is, in part, a significant part of the answer to these very problems. A residents’ parking scheme is clearly an answer and an extremely generous one to the local community, as it affords property rights over public land to a privileged group.

          Parking supply is a good controller of driving. What is so hard to understand here?

        2. Northcote Point is over parked now. It is hard for SkyPath enthusiasts to grasp that there is no extra parking for them. We have a 400 seat cinemas with no parking, two 50 seat restaurants with no parking, a row of shops and a kindergarten with a few parks not nearly enough, I could go on, a Tongan Church a creche with no parking, a dairy with soon no parking and somehow SkyPath with 8000 visitor a day 37% of whom have said they want to drive near and park have to be accommodated first. It is no on. They can’t be. It will be a fight for a park. Sometimes it is already. If one is lucky enough to find one it will be a long walk. This area is zoned residential. By accident one or two industrial zones were allowed. Nobody foresaw what would happen and yet SkyPath with 8000 patrons a day thinks it’s impact is minimal. It is a fantasy. SkyPath patrons are going to have to bike or walk and it is a long walk. There are I believe just 750 parks on the whole of Northcote Point.

        3. Jeanette, your making a major flaw projecting your own values. It’s not that Skypath enthusiasts don’t realise there is no parking for them, it’s that Skypath enthusiasts are walkers and cyclists and they aren’t going to drive to Northcote point in the first place.

          Look at the response above. If it is made clear that parking is limited only 2% would try and park close to the Skypath.

          Believe it or not there are a lot of people out there who don’t automatically and only ever drive for all their transport, and there are people who don’t demand acres of parking everywhere. It’s kinda sad that you’re local dairy owner thinks they’ll close without parking. My local dairy serves locals who walk up to the corner!

          Seriously, you’re arguing against a big investment in facilities for walking and cycling in your neighbourhood by saying there isn’t enough parking for the neighbourhood folk to drive everywhere as it is. Do you not the the disconnect there? If you don’t have enough parking (and by the way, nowhere does, even Sylvia Park complains of not enough parking!) then you need ways to get around without driving.

          Another thought, have you considered what Northcote Point would look like if it did have enough parking? Would you want to go to Sausilitos if it looked like the back of Albany mall. Would you enjoy the Bridgeway if it sat in a sea of parking like the Hotys at Wairau Park? ‘Skypath people’ don’t want to destroy your area with parking either.

    2. Nice try Ric, but no. Nowhere do the 11,000 respondents say that each and every one of them will always use the skypath every day.

      I also doubt that many people will drive alone to use the path, those that drive there for recreational reasons will no doubt go in groups of two or more.

      Here is a better calculation for you. The predicted maximum number of users in one day is 8,000. If 11% of those drive that’s 880 people accessing by car. Divide that by an average of two and a half people per car, assuming a mix of couples and larger family groups, and that’s 350 vehicles per day. Let’s assume only half of the want to park at the city side, that leaves 175 vehicles each day at Northcote Point.

      175 vehicles across the day is fifteen or so an hour.

      1. 8000 a day sounds OK when the numbers are spread out but SkyPath thinks that that it is more likely to be 14,337 visits between noon and 3 pm on Saturdays and slightly less on Sundays. If you make the same calculations for that then then number of carparks needed is considerably more. Like Humpty Dumpty, it is possible to make statistics say anything.

        I live on Northcote Point near the cinema in a very over parked area so a few more cars is not going to bother me or really any of us. The truth is that Northcote Point is parked out already so the chances of driving and getting a park are virtually nil unless you want to park over a kilometer from SkyPath to get one of the few on offer. Lucky visitors will have to make their own way from there either on foot or cycle which is just as well. Getting out onto the Onewa Road after will be a nightmare. It is already in the morning, can take up to an hour.
        I was one of the people who signed your submission by mistake. I certainly have not been asked to take this survey. I am against SkyPath because I think the design is not safe. Shared paths are known to be dangerous. In Denmark cyclists had 48% more injuries when these were introduced and pedestrians 27%. The parking problem is minimal when compared to the safety aspects.

        1. If you are really worried about the safety of the path then maybe just don’t use it then? Personally I don’t see the problem, I’m a regular user of the Grafton Gully path through the university area which is likewise only 4m wide and shared with cyclists and pedestrians (It’s also longer and steeper). I ride on it, and also jog up it on foot.

          The Grafton Gully path isn’t dangerous, and it doesn’t feel dangerous. Why would the shorter and flatter Skypath of the same width be anything but ok?

        2. “In Denmark cyclists had 48% more injuries when these were introduced and pedestrians 27%.” – Citation please.

          But more injuries than what? Than when the cyclists had their own dedicated separated cycle infrastructure?

          No doubt it would be great to have a separate walking Skypath and once this one has been proven to be the success it inevitably will be (and the Council has bought it from the PPP), action can start to have another one built on the Western side.

          I look forward to seeing our support for that as you are so concerned about cyclist and pedestrian safety. Though if you are I fail to see why you would oppose separated cycling infrastructure on the Northcote Safe Routes.

        3. Shared paths “are known to be dangerous” – without any proof of that, it just sounds like you are making it up. You may be right – but without any proof, we’ll never know. But the key thing to think about is: dangerous to whom? We know that cyclists are constantly in danger from sharing the road with cars, trucks etc – many deaths per year. And yes, sometimes you can get scared if you are out walking, and a cyclist goes past and you haven’t heard them coming. But here’s the thing: I do not know if a single case in the history of the world, of a pedestrian getting killed by a cyclist.

        4. Commonsense – the same used in cycle vs car discussions – shows that cycle vs pedestrian is not clever either. And if you think for 1 second that all cyclist will traverse the bridge at walking speed?

        5. Umm no. From your link:

          “However it is important not to overstate the level of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. Just 2 per cent of pedestrian injuries on pavements involve cyclists, the other 98 per cent involve motor vehicles.
          “Pavement cyclists are involved in about 20 serious pedestrian injuries a year, whereas about three-quarters of serious pedestrian injuries involving cyclists occur on the road.”
          The data shows that drivers are five times more likely than a cyclist to kill a pedestrian. Cyclists killed 0.27 pedestrians per billion km pedalled, compared with 1.4 pedestrians killed per billion km driven in 2012, the latest year for which figures exist.”

        6. An acquaintance of mine had her neck broken , in Auckland , last year, by a cyclist , on a shared path …near enough ?

        7. I am sorry to hear that your relative was injured. Would you rather be able to walk over the bridge and have some risk of injury, or not be able to walk at all? That is the realistic choice that you are facing.

          If you aren’t comfortable with the risk of walking on a shared path you probably should never drive, have a shower, or climb a laadder either.

    3. “where would the ‘safe separated cycle lines’ start from?” Right outside my front door would be great. In my narrow, busy suburban street. Everyone welcome. In return I get a separated cycle way all the way to SkyPath. Nice.

      “would those 1200 to 1500 cars not cause issues at that origination point?” ..er, no, Mr Riacrdo, I think you are missing the point!

      1. They won’t be evenly spread across 16 hours. They will be parked for long periods at certain times of the day and weekends.

    4. Don’t forget that according to the survey if it was widely known there would be limited parking then only 2% would try and park close by.

  6. The amazing thing about bicycles is that they have wheels. If Auckland concentrated on becoming a city that provided for and respected cyclists, cars would quickly become relics of the last millenium, as they should. All we need is a cyclist involved in the planning of these bike lanes so that there is a logic to them, that goes beyond the usual bureaucratic, “panic stations everybody” that seems to be the constant state of Auckland Council. It is time that solutions became sustainable and long-sighted. Do Northcote residents own their streets? Why do they think they have the right to decide who uses public space?

  7. I’m amazed they haven’t made the logical conclusion that since there’s a ferry terminal right there, most tourists won’t use skypath as an excuse to ferry to northcote, walk back and walk along the waterfront to britomart.

    1. Exactly, and what a nice trip that would be for visitors to our city. For lucky Northcote cafe and art gallery owners it’s a potential goldmine.

    2. That option has been mentioned several times by the applicant. In fact, Fullers would probably put on extra ferries, at least on Summer weekends.

      Similarly, there will be a drive to improve bus PT at both ends. Benefits the residents too, I would argue.

    3. Er, brain fart. WILL use skypath as an excuse to do that. My boyfriend and I plan to do exactly that, make an evening out of it.

  8. I looked up the application form of the Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society at the companies office and discounting people with the same name living in other suburbs (i.e. family of residents) the initial membership of the the society consists of just seven households in Princes Street.

    Four of these households are located on the eastern side of the bridge – you have to access these places by driving under the bridge. Their houses face the ocean so presumably their houses are orientated towards the view rather than the noisy bridge behind them. If you look at these places on Google maps you can see they mostly have large decks on the seaward side https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-36.8260673,174.7494338,198m/data=!3m1!1e3 In short, I think their claims of having their peace destroyed are unreasonable.

    One household is quite a long way up Princes St and as a result is unlikely to be badly affected.

    Just two houses are on the western side of the bridge by the exit and these places are in the shadow of a huge eight lane motorway bridge. One of the houses already has a large hedge so people passing by shouldn’t affect them too badly. A front fence or hedge for the other house would probably mitigate any adverse affects for that place too.

    https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-36.825417,174.748818,3a,75y,249.38h,74.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scnvzAcmPgShkda6sWVjaJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

      1. Thank you @devonportdevo for exposing the scam. Hopefully they’ll sell their houses to people who can appreciate the amenity much better than them. There’s one guy who’s family has been there for 100 years or so… I can already visualise the real estate ad… “SkyPath at your doorstep!”…

    1. It isn’t just 7 households that are against this. There was a local petition run by the local dairy which if the new parking scheme goes ahead means that it will likely have to shut down. He collected 2,000 real signatures that when presented were counted as one whereas the Generation Zero which scammed signatures from all over the world from people who had no intention of using SkyPath but thought it was a nice idea seem to have been counted as 11,500. Aucklanders are not silly we do realise this.

      What saddens me is the lack of understanding of the problems of the area. It is just too tiny for this type of major traffic hub. The main problem is that SkyPath as designed is dangerous. This is the real worry not the parking of which there is none already.

      1. “There was a local petition run by the local dairy which if the new parking scheme goes ahead means that it will likely have to shut down.”

        Yup exposure to extra customers is known to be a real killer for business.

        “What saddens me is the lack of understanding of the problems of the area. It is just too tiny for this type of major traffic hub. The main problem is that SkyPath as designed is dangerous.”

        Really? Danger is really your main concern? Yes footpaths are known to be real death traps. I take it you oppose other pedestrian and cycle facilities with the same enthusiasm, out of a heartfelt concern for the safety of those using them.

      2. The dairy will have to close because too many people will be attracted to the area?

        I’m all for democracy, but sometimes you get to a point where peoples views should just be ignored if they are clearly irrational ravings.

        Actually I oppose Skypath because it will increase the incidence of orange custard monkeys in bowling shoes. I demand to be heard!

      3. ‘scammed’ – This really does show your knowledge of digital signatures and technology is way out. Its far easier to be scammed into signing a physical petition than a digital one!! A bit far fetched there.

      4. It would be interesting to know why the dairy believes they would need to shut down? Surely this will bring in more foot traffic, which is normally the bulk of local dairies businesses in other area’s. Evidence suggests that removing parking for improved pedestrian and cycle facilities actually increases business of this industry. On top of that the retained parking is likely to have higher turnover due to time restrictions in the area (residents exempt). I would like to see how he has worked this out, as I am doubting the figures, it just doesn’t make logical sense.

        Although I do hear some north of the bridge struggle with change, so maybe they would be unable to adapt to the newer, healthier customers?

      5. Janette, well done for engaging in the debate. Dairies all over Auckland are struggling because Service Stations and Supermarkets, which people typically drive to are choking their business. In the future I see cafes, bakeries, Delis having a resurgence as people walk or cycle and buy what they need for their meals locally. It’s a nice way of living. When Skypath goes ahead it will all be OK, it will be different but in the longer run it will be better. When the Otago Rail Trail was first proposed few of the locals wanted it but it turned out brilliantly and the majority of locals love it. There would be a massive outcry if it was shut. Don’t worry about numbers, NZTA already has Seapath underway it’s on their website. Believe me Skypath will not be dangerous.

    2. And what pray tell was the question on the ‘survey’ – you can get whatever answer you want depending on how you phrase. I’m sure if it was “Are you opposed to skypath as it means the dairy will shut”, then sure lots of people would say yes.

    3. And in the last set of filed Accounts for the NRA, I recall they had a cash balance of around $1600. Obviously the NRA and its membership base aren’t going to pay the legal costs of this Environment Court Appeal. So why doesn’t the parties that are paying for it bring the action in their own names? The answer I suppose is that the action has the appearance of being more compelling if the Cimmunity is bringing it, even though the Community isn’t.

  9. How about that? Gather some primary and see what the results show? Perhaps the opponents could have done that instead of leaning over the fence and asking their neighbour what they think of the project for their evidence.

    1. We did. We have a real petition signed by over 2,000 locals who are against SkyPath for many reason. This is conveniently forgotten. I am against SkyPath because I think it looks dangerous.

      1. Hi Janette

        Would love to know why you think Skypath is dangerous? Do you have an engineering background to back that up or any evidence?

        1. In July you asked if I had any scientific evidence that showed SkyPath was dangerous. I did not have then but today I have. If you would like me to show you then get in touch. Today traffic flows can be simulated to a high degree of accuracy. Even simple basic simulations show the problem and it is a huge problem. It is a pity no one has done these to date but they will.

        2. And I’m sure that your perceived building consent issues will come up in the building consent. Until then, go and concern troll somewhere else.

        1. Well, there hasn’t been a single pedestrian killed by a cyclist on the bridge as it is, so clearly is way safer than this death trip in the making.

  10. I am a Northcote resident, and I would like to say that there are way more Northcote and Northcote Point residents who want the Skypath to go ahead, than the bunch of very vocal people who are opposing the project who hide behind a very deceitful names “Northcote Residents Association” and “Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society”. Their agenda is clear and it’s got nothing to do with “Northcote Residents” or “Heritage Preservation”. Please do not put all of us into one box, because it’s simply an ill-advised vocal minority stirring things up.

    1. I don’t understand why these “societies” have so much weight. Don’t you have an elected local board? Can’t we just ignore them?

      1. There is a Local Board, which is in favour of SkyPath. But that doesn’t matter in a legal context, everyone has a right to submit / oppose a notified consent, and appeal it if they don’t like it. Whether they are a small group or not, or whether they represent Northcote or not, shouldn’t really even matter that much – they can bring their case forward, and the Court can decide the appeal on its merits. Reality is that even one person living next to it had appealed, the delay would have been pretty much similar, so lets not fret too much about NRA or NHPS or something.

        1. We cant ignore them, however we need to take their concerns and evaluate them against the greater good. Parking has been identified as a highly subsidised use of land that has low economic benefits compared to alternative uses, introduction of residents parking scheme actually encourages turnover of retained carparks allowing businesses to make more efficient use of the infrastructure, while places that have been made more pedestrian and cycle friendly throughout the city have seen a huge increase in hospitality and retail activity, due to increased foot traffic. However this is evidence based and may counter some of the NIMBY’s beliefs.

  11. This is absolute gold.

    Generation Zero tried to massively influence the submission process by providing a populated form so it’s members could easily make a submission.

    They then turn around and survey the submitters i.e. it’s own members and their mates about how they are going to utilise Skypath and try to represent the survey as being somewhat akin to the views of the general public.

    It’s a bit like using the monthly poll on The Daily Blog and expecting it to indicate the next General Election result!

    In short these above is an embarrassing attempt at data manipulation and should in no way be seen as indicative of how the general population will utilise Skypath.

    1. “i.e. it’s own members and their mates”

      I dont know how big the membership of Gen zero is but we are talking about 11000 people. My wife was one of the submitters – she is just a regular person who wouldnt know any of the Gen zero people from a bar of soap. I dont either, but nonetheless I didnt put her onto it, she came across it herself.

    2. Who cares who they are or what their politics might be? The salient point is Q1.. mostly they are people who usually use their cars to get around. But.. shock!! horror!! most of them would cycle to SkyPath.

      Impossible. There must be a conspiracy.

    3. I was one of the submitters who was mislead by this survey. This still sticks in my teeth especially as a survey of 2000 people collected by the local dairy and who live in the area were against it. This a real survey not one conned on FB where anyone in the world could submit and did. It is never mentioned but the sham one is. Again I was not asked to complete the above survey so who knows how accurate this is. The dangers of SkyPath of which there are many are never mentioned either. I am still waiting for someone to explain to my how this tunnel is safe.

      1. Hi Janette,

        This survey was sent out to everyone who submitted using Generation Zero’s form in January. So if you submitted using our form, then you were in fact asked.

        If you don’t support submissions organised through Facebook, why did you then submit using our form in January? You could have submitted through Council.

      2. People who use your dairy shouldn’t count more than other Aucklanders who want to submit for or against the SkyPath.

        If you are genuinely concerned about safety I’d suggest you campaign for slower speed limits in residential areas or fencing off all driveways. These address 2 proven issues killing our people today, the latter having taken 5 children in the last 6 months.

      3. Proving the tunnel is safe is entirely different than proving it is unsafe. We first need to identify the dangers. If you identify the dangers that you believe there are then we can provide you with the mitigation of these. I can explain how the skybridge is safe in many ways, starting with the fact that you are not sharing asphalt with a 2 tonne killing machine.

  12. Perhaps the Frightened Few of Prices St (much better association name I think) could look at the town of Sausalito and see how it has thrived from the pedestrian and cycling traffic across SFs Golden Gate bridge. Or perhaps the Frightened Few aren’t interested in money.

    1. Coincidentally (or maybe not) one of the most popular cafe/restaurants in Northcote Point is called Sausalito. They are probably quite interested.

      1. Pity there will be no place to park, there is very little at the moment. I am alright as I can walk there. Thinking of letting out my driveway at the same rates as Auckland Transport. Make a fortune.

        1. Cool you can walk there and you can make a fortune, only positives in those statements.

        2. The way my rates went up I might have to! Go up even more when I have to pay for SkyPath. You will too. There is no way those numbers will happen. Cyclists are not going to enjoy paying to use it and as pedestrian nothing would induce me to use that shared path with the tour de France lycra. I value my life. I shall sit at Sausalito and enjoy the scene.

        3. @ Janette. Ah, I get it. Your concern about danger is the “shared path” aspect. You are worried that there will be collisons between cyclists and pedestrians. Well you could have a point as there are idiot cyclists about, and no doubt some idiot pedestrians. However is this a reason to oppose the Skypath when considered against the benefits it will bring to many?

          Given that we tolerate an awful lot of driver-idiocy on the roads (because we deem the benefits to be worth the predictable thousands of ‘accidents’ each year), can you not extend the same principle to the Skypath, whereby a likely small number of minor mishaps (by comparison to road accidents) is actually a small price to pay for the population at last being able to travel between Auckland and the Shore by active means?

        4. Janette: They will be on bikes! Might just need a few bike racks out the front.

        5. Janette, given the number of times you have stated your concerns about parking issues in your comments on this thread I feel bound to point out one salient fact that you may be overlooking: you do not own the road.

        6. Janette, you seem to have raised two somewhat mutually exclusive objections to SkyPath:
          1. There is insufficient parking; and
          2. Too many people will use it.

          If parking is a constraint, as you suggest, then I don’t see how your second objection could hold.

  13. The problem with all these graphics and stats is that they assume the Generation Zero respondents are representative of the wider Auckland population. They patently aren’t, it’s a group of self selecting public transport enthusiasts (like me). It has as much statistical value as running a poll on driving amongst AA members.

    Skypath is a good idea, but you can’t take any value whatsoever from these numbers.

    1. I would argue that RMA processes suffer from self-selection bias to the negative?!?

      Anyway, I think you’re wrong. Given their characteristics I’d argue that members of Generation Zero are likely to be more indicative of likely SkyPath users than the wider Auckland population would be.

    2. I don’t think that assumption is made actually. But it might be fair to say that they people who responded to the Generation Zero survey are probably fans of walking and cycling, and actually more representative of the sorts of people who would actually use it, than the public in general.

  14. A letter to the editor I’ve just sent off to North Shore Times:
    The Northcote Residents Association has lodged an Environment Court appeal against the Skypath resource consent. As a current financial member, I find it concerning that I have learned of this action through media reports. As this risks the entire accumulated funds of the organisation, via award of costs for an unsuccessful appeal, I would have thought it appropriate some form of prior consultation with members was appropriate. However, I do not find this surprising, given that the Association made their original objection to the resource consent without notifying members before or after the fact – and indeed after their Chairperson specifically told members that a submission would not be made. Any pretense the Association had of actually representing the Northcote community has long disappeared.

    1. Wow they are stooping so low so as not consult their own members?!? But that would suggest thr northcote residents association is just a convenient front for a very small group of disaffected landowners rather than representatives of the wider suburb?

      1. Well they don’t actually have to, the executive committee *is* the NRA in all things it so decides it should be. they can act in any way they see fit if they decide its within the associations rules.

    2. Henry, this is sad to hear,

      A read of the societies rules (http://www.nra.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/NRA-Rules-June-2012.pdf) may be useful.

      The only real recourse that I see you have is to get yourself and another 19 other financial members of NRA to request in writing a (special) General Meeting of the Association so you can either seek to amend the rules of the Association such as to limit the power of the executive committee on certain matters or put specific motions to the meeting. The meeting for these purposes will be held 21 days at least from the request for a meeting.

      At that time you could also put other motions such as to withdraw the appeal – if you and other members table a motion to that effect and it passes.
      However the executive has no requirement to honour your motion in this regard – unless you either call a General Meeting to vote in a new executive first, or first limit their powers via rule ammendments as above.

      Such motions will be decided by a 2/3rds majority of the financial members present using a show of hands method for rule changes, and simple majority for other motions.Secret ballot is used for executive committee membership voting.

      Remembering of course that the executive committee can/will also vote on all such motions, and the chairman has a casting vote only in the event of a tied vote.
      So you would have to be well represented with many financial full members also on your cause to get the outcome desired.

      A new executive thus elected could of course decide to withdraw from the appeal, and having done so, the ability to reactivate the appeal via a later elected committee would be limited, if at all possible.

      Alternatively you could request the association wind itself up, this will require two meetings, both of which must be decided by a simple majority of members present, held at least 30 days apart.
      Note: If this did occur, the Executive would be able to gift the societies surplus funds (after winding up) to any organisation they chose for the benefit of Northcote, including but not limited to the NPHPS.

      Full (i.e. voting) members are any members who are paid up, and who are either ratepayers or live in the Northcote area as per the area of Northcote (which is not just Northcote Point), so a membership drive for similarly thinking residents and ratepayers (businesses?) would probably help to bolster your support. Should you wish to take such actions.

      Note: The Executive committee can by a 2/3rd majority decision refuse anyones membership application without any reason being given.
      A 3/4ths vote of all the members present at a general meeting can remove any current member from the NRA.

      Obviously all thats pretty extreme but if you feel you and other residents are not being listened to by the executive, then resigning from NRA is probably the last thing you or other residents should do as that really limits your recourse options.

        1. Good on you Henry we are very grateful for your courage and tenacity. I know that the experience with the NRA is extremely unpleasant and if I hadn’t witnessed it myself, would not believe it. We need you and the others to standup and continue to fight. Cycling and walking is part of the solution not the problem. It’s disingenuous of the people behind the NRA to claim they represent the communities views and best interests, they are not interested in the views of the Community and certainly not anyone with opinions different to their own.

  15. Indeed. To claim a route is safe for cycling because there have been no accidents is facile and disingenuous.

    For starters, any consideration of safety has to include analysis of near misses: “History has shown repeatedly that most loss producing events (accidents) were preceded by warnings or near accidents, sometimes also called close calls, narrow escapes or near hits” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_miss_(safety)

    And this is fundamentally the issue for cycling on roads mixing with traffic, including suburban roads like the ones in Northcote Point that Janette considers “safe”. It’s heartening to know that AT / NZTA get this and are beginning to take steps towards the provision of protected cycling infrastructure.

    This article summarises a recent excellent study into cycling near misses.. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2015/jun/11/why-cycling-in-the-uk-is-so-scary

    Look at the picture, Janette: there is no accident happening here, but would you consider that “safe”?

  16. This is great! I’m going to wait til a few Northcote residents decide its all too much and sell up to move to Devonport, then I’ll swoop in and buy their property for peanuts..,mhuahahaha.

    1. But wait, Devonport’s no good either – those refugees from Northcote would have to contend with ferry-loads of tourists clogging up the local streets, and in summer thousands of families coming over to enjoy the beaches every weekend, some of them even parking their cars on OUR streets!

      1. That’s exactly the point – NC residents do not want their suburb polluted with visitors cars like Devonport is. What wrong with a bit of carparking being built as part of the project.

        1. I agree with Robert, it’s totally unacceptable for our heritage suburb to be polluted with visitors’ vehicles – like it used to be pre-1944 when over 2,000 vehicles a day would park up waiting for the ferry. We need Auckland Transport to demolish some of the rickety old houses at the end of Princes St and replace them with a car park at least as large as Victoria St Carpark (895 car parks / twenty levels). Without this carpark, our heritage suburb will be destroyed by visitors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *