This guest post by Councillor Pippa Coom is republished with permission from her Facebook page. It’s written in response to an article in the NZ Herald on Friday 10 June, reporting on recent work in West Lynn village to remedy a project begun in 2017 and stalled since 2018. 

The paywalled article describes the resulting stranded short stretch of bike path in the village as “controversial and little-used”, saying that it has “caused a furore” and “business owners were outraged.” A business owner is interviewed in the article about issues to do with footpath dining. 

Work on completing the wider local cycleway network is set to recommence in the second half of this year. Originally planned for delivery in 2018, when complete the network will provide safe arterial routes from Point Chevalier, through Westmere and Grey Lynn, linking to schools, shops, sports fields and other destinations, and connecting with the Great North Road and Karangahape Road cycleways into the central city.


Here we go again. Another cycleway beat-up.

Some of the criticism of the West Lynn project is valid (more of that later) but a great deal of the “outrage” on social media is misdirected and the reporting deliberately misleading.

It is worth going back to the beginnings of the project on Richmond Road, West Lynn (officially called the Waitemata Safer Route 2).

This was originally a safety project, responding to complaints from locals. The intersection of Richmond Road and Warnock Ave was particularly problematic because of the sweeping corner and the angle parking outside Harvest making it difficult to cross. There were calls for traffic calming due to the speeds and volume of cars. I wrote about this in 2013, and the new safety improvements that had been implemented around Richmond Road School after years of advocacy.

Designs for a cycleway on Richmond Road through West Lynn Village were first drawn up in 2012/2013, but went on hold until funding became available through the government’s Urban Cycleways Investment Fund.

When it did go out for consultation in 2016, the design wasn’t particularly controversial because it re-configured the parking rather than removed it. It also had some great features, like two new raised pedestrian crossings. The cycleway was a compromise, due to retaining all the parking, but it was there (and mainly protected on the eastern side of the road) which felt like a win. AT tried to stretch the modest budget to include low-level planting and pedestrian buildouts.

However, what came to be known as the “fiasco” of West Lynn happened for a number of reasons. I wrote about this here, including the mistakes made with the plans and construction that resulted in a non-compliant crossing and ponding in heavy rain.

This is what has now been fixed. There’s a new raised speed table on Hakanoa Street, the footpath alongside the kerb between 428 and 440 Richmond Road has been lifted to create new pedestrian ramps and a set of steps between the zebra crossing and the shops. The landscaping and lighting has been improved.

Remedial works under way in West Lynn village. Image: Pippa Coom
The approach to the new ramp, and new raised crossing at the top of Hakanoa Street. Image: Pippa Coom.
The newly relaid footpath and steps to the crossing (waiting for the handrail to be completed). Image: Pippa Coom.

This has all been done in consultation with the businesses and the business association. It looks a whole lot better and is importantly safer. It adds to the already vibrant “Village” where new businesses have arrived since the original project was completed. For example, Honeybones is a super popular café making use of the extended footpath for outside dining and has a crossing right to the door.

Al fresco dining at Honeybones cafe on the corner of Tutanekai Street in West Lynn village. Image: Pippa Coom.

Unfortunately, the remedial work has impacted on the outdoor space used by the bar on the corner, Freida Margolis. I can understand why Mike the owner is feeling grumpy and took his complaints to the media. It should have been sorted by now. (I am working to resolve this issue and hope to have an update soon). The construction was also disruptive all over again for the shops in the block opposite Harvest.

A few final thoughts on the “beat up” . At the moment, the cycleway doesn’t connect anywhere. The Waitemata Safe Routes were originally meant to have been completed and connected all the way to Karangahape Road by 2018. Despite this, there are lots of signs the route through West Lynn is actually being used by locals especially the less confident. Recently the Grey Lynn Farmers’ Market offered valet bike parking, and over 40 people arrived by bike. Once connected, the numbers on the path will rapidly rise to the benefit of all West Lynn businesses.

Bikes at the Grey Lynn Farmers’ Market in October 2018. A taste of the potential of a fully connected network. Image: Bike AKL.

The way the cost has been reported is deceptive. It isn’t nearly $10m for one “cycleway” (as stated in the heading). The costs associated with two routes – Richmond Road, and the Grey Lynn Greenway which was completed in 2017 – have been lumped together. Of course the mistakes shouldn’t have happened and with them the additional expenditure. But it needed to be fixed, and I think West Lynn has ended up with a much more attractive and useful landscaped area. The majority of the money hasn’t gone on just a “cycleway”.

And finally, the criticism that the West Lynn is an example of a “gold-plated” cycleway. In fact, it started out as the opposite, and that was part of the disappointment in the design expressed by people like Simon Wilson (I wrote more about this in the link above). Along the way, the costs escalated with the expectation that the project should be a design-led town centre upgrade and far more than just a cycleway (or safety improvements.

If the outraged reporting on Auckland cycleways is going to continue, it really should be about the insufficient funding, underspent budget, slow delivery, the people who pretend to care but are actually fighting against climate action, and the people dying for the lack (or delay) of safe infrastructure. Investment in safe, connected cycleways and improved pedestrian safety benefits everyone – it is good for business, good for drivers, good for children and improves health, wellbeing and the environment.

— Pippa Coom, Auckland Councillor for Waitematā and Gulf


Header image: Bike Auckland. Video below from 27 February 2018, when several hundred Aucklanders cycled the planned route to West Lynn to show their support and enthusiasm for completing the Waitematā Safe Routes.

Share this

80 comments

  1. They should have asked Waka Kotahi to do it. They are paying $20,000,000 per km for a cycleway in Lower Hutt.

    1. Miffy – does that cost include extending a sea wall and improvements to a heavily used railway line as well? Not quite the same methinks

      1. The interesting thing is they have spent some $40million and are arguing they need to spend another $20 million or they will have spent $40million for nothing. That is the sunk cost fallacy being used as justification.

        1. Sure sunk cost fallacy is a thing and bad, but the opposite is also true, if we let total cost (including sunk costs) cancel a project that is already significantly underway.

          If I’m a dollar short on completing a civil project , and the extra dollar puts it under a 1.0BCR and should never have been started (we should be so lucky), then obviously we should spend the extra dollar. At that point it’s getting a whole project for a dollar. Total cost is irrelevant for a decision to cancel a project, on a project already underway. The only relevant metric is how much left there is to spend to finish.

        2. Yes except here they are arguing they must throw good money after bad. It isn’t even clear you can get above 1.0 bcr from a $20 million project.

          Worst of all is other cycle projects will now be delayed or cancelled as a result or there being no more money.

          https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=145219

        3. The thing that everyone is watching is the start of the next phase from Petone to Ngauranga.
          It was priced at up to ~$197 million in July 2021, but that seems like forever ago, and I’m expecting that this will be over $200m, potentially North of $250m… and I’m not sure NZTA budget will stretch for it…
          It would be a huge disappointment and there would be major political blowback if it were delayed or cutback….

        4. If the Ngauranga-Petone cycleway doesn’t go ahead, will the much-needed new sea wall which is the bulk of the cost still proceed? Remember that this project is really about a more resilient fortification for the railway and road, with a cycleway woven into the design.

  2. What we are seeing with all these projects be they cycleways or roads are massive ad ons which are really separate projects being added to the price of the original project and suddenly what was a straight forward affordable job becomes a gold plated monolith.

    1. No the Petone to Melling blowout is because they didn’t collect any ground data so they didn’t allow for removal of contaminated soil or allow for the services they encountered. Both issues were there before they started. The current cost is a true cost they should have budgeted for.

      1. They keep talking toll roads for the over taxed motorists while the cyclists pay nothing so why not a toll on the cycleways

        1. Because you have to move cyclists off the existing expressway. Something needs to be done, just maybe not this project and certainly not in this manner.

          I drove a rental truck from Upper Hutt to Wellington in the morning peak hour and having cyclists heads less than a meter from your mirror is simply unsafe.

          The problem is the usual wishful thinking that seems to be unique to Wellington where substandard lanes are marked. There are narrow lanes on the expressway and a cycle lane on the shoulder that simply doesn’t work.

        2. Because we* need incentives to use the bicycle more often and the wear of a ~150kg cyclist (heavy guy on very heavy ebike) on a cycleway is quasi nonexistent compared to that of 2t car.
          Tolls are raised usually using traffic cams. No way to identify bikes using those or at huge costs (camera + legislation for plates on bikes + plates) for very little income (if tolls are loosely according to wear and comparable to current NZ tolls + less incentive to ride the bike if more expensive -> less users).
          There are rather few hardcore cyclists who will take the bike no matter what. The majority of people riding bikes do it because it is cheaper, faster door-to-door, easier (parking, maintenance) and approximately as safe as driving.

          Finally: More people cycling (safely) also benefits those who do actually need a car, e.g. ambulances, tradies carrying large equipment et cetera by reducing traffic, freeing parking lots, reducing (noise) pollution, reducing stress on public health, …

          So, all in all: Tolls on everyday cycleways are a horrible idea.

  3. Well done Pippa, tirelessly advocating for change and front footing comms that AT really should be doing …

    Does any1 have updates on the construction dates for Great North Road cycle/bus/safety project? Re-consultation (really, again?) mid 2022???

    1. Thank you. Update from AT on GNR project start date (as of 9 June)
      -The exact start date is not confirmed yet but the plan is that ‘enabling works’ (minor work like moving drains or lights done before the main project work ) start later this month. The main contract is currently out for tender and will be awarded in mid-late July. After details are confirmed a start date will be set.

  4. I have to admit I am right over business whining and if I ever hear from Michael Barnet again it will be to soon. But here is a suggestion for you cyclists support the business along the cycleways and demonstrate it by wearing your cycling helmets into the shops. If shop owners can see a significant volume of trade coming from cyclists then they might change their attitudes. Walkers too if you have a back pack or a trolly this separates you from the average punter who has just parked in a no parking, zone with his or her hazard lights on and raced into pick up a pie and a can of coke. Visibility commands respect if you just sail on by you are nothing to them.

    1. It’s not really ‘whining’ when their livelihoods are being destroyed in the middle of a cost of living crisis and mortgage interest spike, is it? If the comfortable, salaried cycling classes suddenly had their rather generous salaries cut by 50%, would they ‘whine’ too? This is why cycling advocates are so hated, they are blind and uncaring about the very real peoples’ lives they destroy along the way.

      1. Except it turns out every single time that those “very real people” are a myth. They do not exist. In general businesses fare better with bike lanes on their street than without. More generally they fare better on streets that have less cars.

        1. That is totally untrue. Just go and talk to people that run the shops. You seem to forget that passing trade can make up a large percentage of trade for many. Whinging cyclists show true colours when fabricating falsities

        2. “You seem to forget that passing trade can make up a large percentage”

          Geez, in that case we’d better optimise for transport modes where; its extremely easy to stop and pop in, there is better connection with surroundings to notice these businesses, and where we can cater to far more people with higher density parking with our limited street space. What mode would best serve that?

          Also really need to get onto making sure there is more housing round these businesses so there is plenty of people around.

        3. Well well well, “optimise for transport modes where its extremely easy to stop and pop in” seems the correct answer when motor vehicles/ EVs are the only form of transport that ticks the boxes. Unless of course if one is within walking distance.

        4. It is quite a PITA to stop at a local shop when driving. People who drive and who want to go shopping are going to drive to the mall anyway.

          Stopping at these shops is much easier on a bicycle or on foot. On buses it would depend on the frequency, if your bus line runs every 10 minutes you get off, do your shopping and just get on the next bus.

          It also just so happens that Grey Lynn is in this small central area in Auckland where a significant amount of people walks to work.

        5. ‘ Unless of course if one is within walking distance.’

          Out of interest, who is visiting businesses in West Lynn that isn’t local? What’s the share of people shopping and eating there that are out of town, so to speak.

          Roj, you talk nonsense, change the record.

        6. I was a retail analyst from 2008 until late last year; typically a bit over 50% of spending for a small centre like West Lynn comes from people living within 2 km (as the crow flies). Plenty in walking distance, or potential cycling distance.

        7. Call B.S. on that. I’m forced to drive to somewhere I can park. Shop keeper loses out.

        8. Bus Driver, have you followed the links from. That stuff article, they DON’T prove that cycleways are a boom for business. Is lazy journalism/fake news

      2. “comfortable, salaried cycling classes”

        Shows you how powerful the tabloid talking points are when people believe something not only without evidence, but with strong evidence that the opposite is true.

        1. Gosh. What a strange world you live in, stating that support of cycling is like supporting the tobacco industry. How many car sales yards do you own?

        2. ah that reply went to the wrong comment.

          It was to the idea of supporting local shop owners. If they think all their customers come by car, well let it be a self fulfilling prophecy. Good riddance.

    2. This is the foundation of the Buy-Cycle activations run by Bike Auckland’s bike burbs – they give out modest prizes for people who shop by bike at local retailers and take & share pics of their trip. Encourages custom by bike and helps to show shopowners that they have more customers arriving by bike than they realise.

    3. “the average punter who has just parked in a no parking, zone with his or her hazard lights”

      Apparently the demand for parking is greater than the current supply. Pippa please help us drivers not break the road rules and get AT to do something about meeting the demand for more parking!

      If car parks are removed for cycle lanes then you need to build a car park or car park building near by. Why should car driving rate payers going about their everyday activities be inconvenienced by the Saturday lycra set?

  5. Pippa, the main reason I’m grumpy is that after 10 years of trading, because of AT encroaching into my out door-dining area, after I begged them to check, Auckland Council’s outdoor dining inspectors are now wanting to cut back my area and wind protection… things granted me 10 years ago…it’s like dealing with jackboots… they can’t admit fault so I, a small business owner pays.

    1. AT pretend to listen to people and then carry on regardless with no thought for what the masses want left alone. Instead pandering to a small group of extremists. AT call their mess ups “improvements” waste huge amounts of money and usually ignore public backlash. Yes, small business really suffer. As do customers who are not pushbikers because of parking removal. Oh, the cyclists mostly seem to ride straight past, not that there are many.

      1. such a shame that corroborated data shows, time and time again, that this is patently false. Creating better public spaces, including bike lines, typically increase foot traffic in shops and increase turnover. This data comes from both NZ and overseas.

        1. That’s only really telling half a story. That doesn’t speak to the number of people who wanted to go there but didn’t because their preferred mode of transport wasn’t available. The unanswered question is which mode do they need to better support to attract higher spend.

        2. We should have air strip(s) on K-road

          There are a significant number of people with private plane licenses that would want to call in on the way past. We should demolish blocks of K-road buildings in order to build a strip.

          aside from your abstraction including all kinds of modes that are more obviously impractical (which private cars are swiftly coming to be included in):

          You’re correct, but it’s not really that relevant. In the case of K-road for example it makes far more sense to expand modes that buy far more capacity per m of space. Given the fixed amount of land constraint, we should maximise for long term “customer delivery” by choosing higher density modes, and building a lot more housing for that transport to serve.

          Regardless, trying to maximise for private cars is a dead end for these business areas. Firstly, there is no room for substantial growth, there’s a max capacity with constrained land, and max capacity has been realised for some of these high streets / local centers, and will inevitably be met for almost all.
          Without improvements in PT, traffic will continue to spiral. People that spend an hour and a half + each way commuting, with brutal traffic outside the shops, don’t tend want to pop in or do more driving. The only way is down long term for the car centric local shops / services model, let alone dream of achieving any substantial growth.

        3. “people who wanted to go there but didn’t because their preferred mode of transport wasn’t available”

          Sure, there was no way to get there by car. That must be why the cycling numbers were so high before the cycleway was built.

        4. The demand is for free parking boyo and parking ain’t free. Pay your way and you’ll get a car park bulding. At Grey Lynn land prices you’ll only have to pay around 75K per space, so start lobbying AT to bring in the paid parking and ramping up prices pronto so they can raise the necessary funds for your car park. Pick out a couple of businesses or houses to demolish for the new car park building and let the lucky buggers know, I suggest you do it in person. In the meantime just park on the side street and walk you lazy sod

        5. @woke
          You’re right it only tells half the story. After the parking was reduced in K Road they had their best year ever

  6. Thanks for the post rebalancing discussion. Don’t forget that cost-cutting on the streetscape improvement originally left a crossing that was impossible to use in a wheelchair. The current improvement not only makes a pleasant outdoor space improved for everyone except a couple of square meters of (whose?) footpath needed for people to pass through. An incredibly difficult 3D design of the footpath to be wheelchair accessible, including a novel speed table in Hakanoa St that doesn’t send wheelchair using hurtling down the middle of the steep side road, has also managed to deal with footpath ponding. Yes, it does affect a windscreen, but everything else works now.

  7. Thanks Pippa – keep up the essential work.
    I would love to be one of the generations ahead who can take this cycling infrastructure for granted. My generation should have been in that situation. Instead, keep fighting for a share of our public spaces for mobility for our kids and non-car owners or those who soon wont be able to afford private car travel.

    On BCR’s and Petone. Maybe we should BCR the BCR. There is a $4M charge incurred on the ($63M) 3km cycleway – just waiting for a BCR to be recalculated, which in turn dropped its own BCR below 1. While its an important metric – its meaningless if basic project management processes are not employed. If cycleways are getting the B or C teams for implementation, then NZTA are not the team for the job.

  8. Our world has become very one sided. Discussion and decisions have turned into Cars OR Bikes, where it should be about enabling both Cars & Bikes to build healthy thriving communities.

    I’m sure the surrounding streets may relish the idea of more safe bike lanes etc, but unless cars are also catered for in some way, us who live further away will indeed rather frequent a mall where parking is plentiful. And I’d much rather support these smaller businesses, joining friends who do decide to cycle if that’s their thing.

    1. “but unless cars are also catered for in some way,”

      They already are, in every single street in the country, we’re trying to get bikes catered for in say 1% of them and it’s a battle for some reason

    2. Your idea of “car-bike equality” is unfortunately not accurate. Cars have hogged far too much of the transport priority pie for far too long, and squealing over the slightest

      The car is not suited for urban transportation, and thus its use in urban contexts should be greatly reduced; reserved for when strictly necessary. There should be no need for gaping multi-lane traffic sewers in central cities and residential areas. Ideally most urban roads should only need 1 general traffic lane in each direction.

      There should be much more catering for carless lifestyles. Greater urban density. Walkable mixed use neighbourhoods. High frequency public transport. More space dedicated to safe walking and safe cycling.

      Cars work best when there’s fewer of them. That’s what the evidence says.

  9. Well Pippa, how much extra business has the Northcote Safe Cycle route delivered for the businesses on Northcote Point? You remember those right, the ones that suffered months and months of lost business while the seldom used cycle path was put in.
    Yes we should invest in cycle infrastructure, but a lot of the stuff that has been built while you have been in council is rubbish.
    You removed parking on Queen Street, you made it much more likely that any cyclist actually using the cycle lane could get ‘doored’ and the raised tables have significantly added to noise pollution and Nox emissions. All at the same time as not actually addressing the only dangerous part of the route, the crossing between Lake Road, Onewa Road and Queen Street, where you have left the children of Northcote Primary and the elderly of the Regency care home to chance it on the traffic lights.
    Not exactly your finest hour Pippa!

    1. Ah, you mean the cycleway that was designed and built while Pippa Coom was a LOCAL BOARD member on the OTHER SIDE OF the harbour?

      The cycleway that has since seen limited use because agencies all over have dragged their feet on providing a cycling crossing over the harbour?

      And as for bad crossings over Onewa Road… mmmh, might Auckland Transport’s reluctance to improve them have anything to do with the fact that whenever anything is proposed that would come at any cost to cars, the local MP – or the latest transport spokesperson of a certain party – cries out how AT clearly hates cars?

      I really don’t get your comments.

    2. “Not exactly your finest hour Pippa”

      Not even Pippa’s hour, let alone her finest lol. The cycle lanes on Queen Street are a massive safety improvement on what was there before!

      1. The entire area south of Stafford Road is like the most obvious candidate for a Low Traffic Area ever, and should just be limited to 30 km/h at most. In an area like that you don’t really need separated bike lanes, and this thing with the chokers and speed cushions would make a lot more sense.

        AT originally planned to do a full-on bike lane there but they would have been crucified if they tried that (it would probably involve removing parking from one side of the street). The reason for that proposal was, I think, that there was some possibility back then for Skypath actually getting built.

  10. Yikes, you can borrow a post off Facebook but the Facebook follows it wherever it goes, by the looks of things.

  11. The Case Against Bikes and Cycle Lanes

    It rains 186 days per year in Auckland. No one rides their bike in the rain.

    Cycling is not a commuting option if 50% of the commutes are in the rain.

    Cycling is not a scalable commuting option as time is wasted when the commute time is twice as long.

    You cant pick up the week’s groceries at Pak n Save on a bike.

    You cant be a soccer mum and take your kids to sport on Sat on a bike

    You cant take your trade tools to work on bike.

    You cant move deliver materials on a bike.

    Cyclists are a danger to pedestrians when they ride on the footpaths and don’t get fined.

    Cyclists expect huge sums of money to be spent on them but they don’t pay any road user ACC and they don’t pay any rego or special petrol taxes to pay for their infrastructure. They just want a ‘Free Ride’.

    Cycle lanes disrupt business and people’s livelihoods.

    Auckland does not have cycle-appropriate geography. It’s not a flat or condensed city.

    For every cyclist, there are at least 500 car drivers and passengers. Why would car parks be removed for a minuscule but loud minority?

    No cyclist has ever used the cycleway in Grosvenor St.

    Cyclists don’t have number plates so they can’t be tracked down for their illegal activities on the roads.

    Third-world countries like China as they climb out of poverty move away from human-powered transport because it’s inefficient. Why would Auckland go backward?

    The future will be people driving, warm, dry, Tesla cars and Rivian utes powered by safe Thorium Nuclear Reactors.

    1. There are more rainy days in Amsterdam than Auckland.

      The average speed at peak on major Auckland arterials is already often under 20km/hr, eg: Tristram Ave 13km/hr, Onewa road 16km/hr. Notably slower than a child on an analogue bike. Let alone an adult on a ebike. And seeing as there is no space to expand these roadways, will only get worse from here without a shift to a more dense mode.

      With bike centric infrastructure and urban design, popping into the shops is dramatically easier than in Auckland currently. The need for a weekly shop is dramatically reduced. But regardless you can still go through that suboptimal process if you desire with a cargo bike.

      You were literally arguing above that you want more free car parks because you’re a ratepayer, are people on bikes not ratepayers?

      Kids ride their own bikes to sport, or if they’re too young ride in a cargo bike or on in any other myraid of solutions for taking kids on bikes.

      Bikes on footpaths indicates a lack of supply of safe cycling infrastructure. AT needs to meet that demand and provide more supply (you make this argument for car parking)

      Auckland is rapidly densifying. Projections post NPS-UD set a very negative view on the viability of Aucklands future ring suburbs. The inner suburbs are going to be renewed significantly. Popular tides are turning against low zoning the world over.

      ….. and I have other things to do with my sunday. But the rest of your points are also factually incorrect, emotive, or misleading as well.

    2. 1. Raincoats exist. People cycle in rain overseas.
      2. By that logic we shouldn’t drive on rainy days either
      3. Cycling at peak traffic congestion is often quicker than driving. Also this reflects on NZ’s rubbish low-density suburban sprawl more than it does cycling
      4. Yes you can. Small shops more frequently. Cargo bikes or adult trikes with a rear flatbed.
      5. Your kids can cycle to soccer themselves! Safely and without fear of being run over, if the infrastructure is good enough
      6. Yes you can. There are stories of inner city tradies switching the ute for a bike, leaving the heaviest tools on site.
      7. Cargo bikes.
      8. That reflects on AT’s reluctance to provide separation of pedestrians and cyclists, which is a result of car addiction and a refusal to reallocate road space. Also, pretty sure more pedestrians and cyclists are hit and killed by cars and trucks each year.
      9. False. You’re describing car drivers. Cyclists pay for the infrastructure they ride on through taxes and rates. Driving is more heavily subsidized.
      10. International evidence shows local business actually improves with cycle lanes.
      11. E-bikes exist
      12. Have you ever considered that the lack of safe cycle infrastructure detracts people from cycling?
      13. Are you Mike Hosking?
      14. Oh don’t worry, cars don’t often enough get penalized for dangerous driving.
      15. That is an extremely Western-centric and provably false point of view. Look to countries like Japan and the Netherlands, not the traffic-choked USA.

      The future will not be driving, unless you want to live in Elon’s dystopia of unsafe underground motorways and EVs that catch fire. The future should be be mass transit and accessible active mode travel in green, friendly cities, with autonomous taxis as a minor component for those who really need it.

      1. Sure rain coats exist but people but people dont want to arrive at school with a wet arse so choose cars buses trains and taxis on wet days.

        50% of the days are rain days people wont ride bikes in the rain and instead use their cars their cars to commute when its raining.

        I’ve cycled in London because the traffic could be gridlocked moving at one mile an hour. Auckland doesn’t have that kind of issue. The traffic is generally pretty free flowing. Say you have a 20 km commute, its an around and hour on a bike, may be an hour (likely less) in a car at rush hour but only 10 minutes outside of rush hour. Who has time to waste on inefficient cycling?

        Really cargo bikes! Adult trikes! When you can just use a more convenient car!

        Your kids can’t cycle to soccer. The home grounds are all over Auckland what parent is going to encourage their kid to bike 15km and wear themselves out before the game.

        “There are stories of inner city tradies switching the ute for a bike”. Yes sounds like a story. There’s definately tradies who will never leave their tools on site to be stolen. Never-the-less, next time you meet a Tradie show him a photo of a Rivian ute and a photo of a cargo bike and ask in his professional opinion which vehicle is more convenient, useful, timely and fun and which would he buy and use.

        Carrying material on a cargo bike. LOL. Have you seen a Tradie carrying a 2.4 metre sheet of gib on on a bike or van size amount of electrical gear on a cargo bike. Get out here!

        “That reflects on AT’s reluctance to provide separation of pedestrians and cyclists”. No it just evidence that cyclists believe they are a law unto themselves and don’t have to abide by the the road code.

        Your wrong, cyclists dont “pay for their infrastructure through taxes and rates”. Cyclists do not pay a cyclist ACC levy unlike car drivers, truck drivers and motor bike riders, so cyclists get a Free Ride on ACC. Cyclists do not pay a rego tax which covers road safety, another Free Ride. Cyclist do not contribute to cycling infrastructure via the special infrastructure petrol tax, yet another Free Ride. Cyclists are simply “USERS” who do not pay.

        Lack of cycling infrastructure. The roads used by cyclists for free have been paid for by car drivers. There needs to be a targeted tax on cyclists to pay for their specialised cycling infrastrucure. When the parking infrastructure paid for by car users is removed for cyclists benefit then cyclists need too compensate car drivers at the minimum by providing local car parking buildings.

        Mike Hosking is an idiot.

        Actually car drivers are penalised for driving infringements all the time. I have never heard of a cyclist being fined, for riding on the footpath, holding up traffic or anything else. Perfect road users 🙂

        Western centric? I think you’ll find Japan and the Netherlands are considered part of ‘The West’. There is nothing western centric about using cars or nuclear.

        I have cycled in Amsterdam and Beijing. Using a ‘pink’ bike in Amsterdam was a pleasant convenient experience, cycling a couple of blocks to the bar but most people used trams.

        Cycling in Beijing where everyone except cadres used bikes (the cycle lobby scheme for Auckland) was no fun. Biking is all good until you are in bike traffic jambs and bike grid lock. If you are going to be in a traffic jamb its more pleasant to be in warm or air conditioned car listening to your car stereo or talking to your kids than being out in the cold or heat or rain on a bike.

        Also in China ordinary people were prohibited from owning cars. Cadres and commune leaders who illegally reserved CCP cars for their own use received death penalties. That’s the kind of scenario you would have to implement to get Aucklander’s to give up cars.

        1. 99% sure the admin will delete your comment because you ignore ignore factual evidence and re-state your earlier wrong point. But anyway on the off chance that you actually are capable of reading and processing information rather than just typing, “biKe bAD” when your brain shorts out.

          I’ve cycled in London because the traffic could be gridlocked moving at one mile an hour. Auckland doesn’t have that kind of issue.
          objectively false. Have personally seen it plenty, used to sit in it.

          Your kids can’t cycle to soccer. The home grounds are all over Auckland what parent is going to encourage their kid to bike 15km and wear themselves out before the game.
          Timmy cant bike for half an hour to get to a game? how little credit do you give kids. Tired out, cmon where do you come up with this crap??

          Your wrong, cyclists dont “pay for their infrastructure through taxes and rates”.
          AT is funded through rates, same as any other council, and handles build and maintenance of local roads. Road user charges / fuel tax / acc levy do not cover all of the costs of maintaining the roads. Someone who does not own or use a car still contributes to roading. We also cant ignore the elephant in the room of how valuable the land that roads exist on is. And that was almost all purchased through rates, gifted, or forms a part of development which the purchasers of homes pay for. In a true user pays world then that land would be bid on and rented out at the market rate and the roading authority would have to pay to use that land. That is not the case today however and land that would cost millions a year to rent / service debt on is given away in a subsidy to car parking. This overall subsidy is calculated to be around a billion dollars a year in Auckland alone. Then there is that over half the deaths from road transport are from air pollution. This is completely uncharged and falls on the taxpayer to fund.

          cbf replying to the rest of your points, but they are all factually incorrect.

          Also notably nowadays the CCP bans ebikes. That is the scenario that they have to implement to get people to give them up to try get them to use cars or buses.

  12. You talk about valueable roads. Roading is what makes the adjoining urban land valuable (otherwise it is just rural cow land) not the other way around.

    “Road user charges / fuel tax / acc levy do not cover all of the costs of maintaining the roads.” Even if that is semi-correct it does not change the FACT cyclists are being allowed to Free Ride on the other taxpayers who do pay all the road user charges / cycling infrastructure fuel tax / acc levy? Cyclists need to voluntarily put their money where their mouths are if they want any respect from other citizens and road users.

    Now I’m all for a good protest but think about the harbour bridge protest. If the harbour bridge had been blocked by a motorbike protest (not a gang, just motorbikers) they would have all had their number plates photographed, identified and fined. The unidentifiable cycle lobby on the other hand rubbing their freedom in the face of other road users got off scot-free! Dangerous Ebikes riders need to be registered taxed and number plated like everyone else and then be user pays taxed for their cycleways.

    1. Hi Joe,
      You’re just wrong on so many of these points but just on the cost point.
      I cycle. I subsidise car drivers through my rates and also general taxation which goes towards building new roading infrastructure. I am not allowed to ride on some of this infrastructure as it is motorway. The local roads that I pay for are not designed to allow me to ride safely on them. So I’m not getting a great deal. I would 100% support car drivers paying their fair share and me not having to cough up my money to pay for their indulgence.
      On another note My son and daughter are 8 and 10 and are not old enough to pay taxes yet so I assume you think they shouldn’t be allowed to leave the house as that would involve using a road? Should people walking also wear license plates so we can charge them for using roads?

    2. Transport is what makes the land valuable. Transport which bikes and buses can provide as well as cars.

      Even if that is semi-correct it does not change the FACT cyclists are being allowed to Free Ride on the other taxpayers who do pay all the road user charges / cycling infrastructure fuel tax / acc levy?
      I don’t want to insult and turn you away, but genuinely how do you function day to day in this world with this level of critical thinking?

      Every city dweller pays for roading infra through rates, if they don’t own or use a car or bike then they are still subsidising roading. If they bike they are using what they paid for. The space requirements are far far less, the marginal costs of a bike trip are far less than a car trip. They are using what they paid for.

      I dont think you’ve processed the cost of providing car infra (particularly at peak). Just because the person using a bike is only contributing through one funding mechanism that does not mean they are not contributing (more than) enough to cover their costs.

  13. Oh and Timmy is just not going to cycle from Grey Lynn to Howick or Beachlands or Manurewa for his 9am Sat soccer game. What city do you live in?

      1. Yes, he could take the Grey Lynn to Beachlands direct bus! Or he could get up at 5am and go somewhere into the central city to find a Beachlands bus if there’s one that can get him there on time and find he has a 2 km walk once he gets to Beachlands. Or his parents drive him in a car which has been the obvious solution for the last fifty years and most likely will be for the next 50 years. Anti-car bike clowns need to read the room.

        1. This isn’t about making every kid bike themselves to soccer, it’s that it should be an option.

          And not just for the kid soccer example. My flatmate often takes well over an hour to get home (mt roskill) from his work in Highbrook. His average speed in the afternoon coming home is 12-15km/hr. There is no cycle option for this route, yet he goes slower than someone on a bike. The two areas are only 12km away as the crow flies, it’s only due to unmitigated severance of motorways and highways that the driven route is 18km. My flatmates mobility is made worse, not better by the premier driving routes of the city, and yet he is forced to use the car infrastructure because of its inherent design, desperately wanting the option to bike, but is not able to.

          You need to learn to read the room. People are sick of having worse mobility than biking. The city has tried the car-only experiment over the last 50 years, building motorways as fast as it could afford, doing super cheap and dirty designs with zero attention to externalities, imposing strict zoning to try keep away the natural progression of cities, and it is an unmitigated failure in every measurable way today, and only getting worse.

    1. A 20k bike ride, on a weak e-bike would be there in under an hour.

      And if timmy so desired, bike down to britomart (20min), take the eastern line with the bike, hop off at panmure (15min), and bike to howick (25min). Only have to bike 10km

      If timmy is incapable of that, but is capable of playing soccer then it would look very much like a failure of parenting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.