Follow us on Twitter

Wynyard Cycling Complaints

The new Waterfront Promenade linking the Harbour Bridge to Wynyard Quarter will be fantastic when finished later this year however its completion will leave a gap in the network through Wynyard Quarter itself. Auckland Transport and Waterfront Auckland are going to be fixing that gap through the addition of some separated cycleways and shared paths through the area.

Increasingly, more people are choosing to cycle to work or for fun. The creation of cycle paths through Wynyard Quarter supports this and makes it easier to get around.

The vision is to provide a world-class facility connecting the North Shore (via SkyPath), Herne Bay, and Ponsonby, with the CBD and Tamaki Drive.

Separated cycle paths will go along Beaumont Street and Madden Street.

A shared pedestrian and cycle path will go along Westhaven Drive and the western end of Gaunt Street to Daldy Street, where it will connect with the Daldy Street Linear Park.

Wynyard Quarter Cycling Routes

More separated cycleways as well as filling in holes in the network are obviously a good thing but as you can expect not everyone is happy about it.

The prospect of a cycleway in Auckland’s Wynyard Quarter has fired up members of the marine industry.

The plan would mean reducing the number of parking spaces in the area and that’s got some business people worrying about their futures.

Marine Industry Association executive director Peter Busfield supports the idea of a cycleway linking up the waterfront but not if it keeps customers away.

If customers can’t park nearby they won’t come and businesses will close, he said.

“When someone comes to get a propeller repaired they need to put it in their car and drive to the shop. You can’t put it on a bus or take it on a bicycle.”

[...]

Stephen Harris is the owner of Auckland Engineering Supplies and said the proposal to replace parking spaces on the west side of Beaumont St with a dedicated cycleway would “absolutely kill the business”.

It’s not surprising to see a business complaining about the loss of parking as it seems to happen everywhere cycling infrastructure is proposed however if a simple cycle lane is going to kill his business then I’d suggest the business isn’t that going that well in the first place. The talk of lost carparks is even odder for two reasons. First of all the building in the photo with the article its own customer parking on the roof.

Wynyard Quarter Marine Industry Cycling complaint

And secondly there is still proposed to be parking on the eastern side of the street according to this map from Auckland Transport.

Wynyard Quarter Parking

Perhaps the one thing that could be questioned is whether the western side of Beaumount is the right place for a separated cycleway.

Harkin New Zealand managing director Gary Lock said there are several other routes where a cycleway could go. It’s unsafe to mix heavy vehicles and cyclists, he said.

“It’s an industrial marine zone. You’ve got to protect the cyclists, especially if you’ve got kids and parents cycling.

“Most of the people who turn into the driveways are trade-related or driving heavy vehicles and they will have to turn across the cycleway.”

Ovlov Marine co-owner Lachlan Trembath agrees safety and customer access should come first.

I can only assume the western side was chosen to allow for access from Silo Park to the promenade without having to cross roads.

Like many other businesses in New Zealand when it comes to cycling, I suspect that the marine industry can’t see past the status quo.

Cycling and public transport are good activities but you’ve got to have time, he said. No-one’s going to cycle to Beaumont St to pick up a pail of oil or an outboard, he said.

Large heavy and bulky items might not be ideal to transport on a bike but I would bet there are a huge number of other products sold by the businesses along Beaumont St that would be easily transportable by bike back to the marina once the promenade if complete.

I’m going to predict that at worst these cycleways aren’t going to do anything to harm the local businesses and if anything might even gain them some new customers from people riding past.

50 comments to Wynyard Cycling Complaints

  • Make It Go

    According to the plan, these cycle paths get installed over a 4-year period! Why??

    • DamianS

      Because money is tight and design takes time?

      However, several will be built earlier – one of the reasons the marine industry is complaining now is that a first section from the Westhaven Promenade to North Wharf is apparently going in in the next months.

  • Adam

    And they have parking on the roof? Why did the article not mention that, someone should get fired over such one sided or lazy reporting.

  • BBC

    The path is needed to connect to Skypath and the walking/cycling promenade around Westhaven. It’s essentially a case of Auckland Transport needing to stick to their plans rather than listening to a vocal minority. It’s a public road for starters and the redevelopment of Wynyard as a resource consent required focus on PT and active modes, in reality the businesses should have fought that resource consent and then paid in to the $200+ plus grade separated interchange that NZTA stated would be needed on Fanshawe Street if the usual 80:20 split of cars:PT was allowed in Wynyard. Furthermore, the vast majority of people buying stuff here aren’t buying a motor, they’re buying wet weather clothing and small pieces of equipment that they can easily walk home with. I cycle through here often, and most carparks are empty throughout the day, and if they actually paid any attention they’d probably see that the vast majority of their customers park somewhere else and walk to the shop, they don’t park right in front. Of course, they’re also assuming all their customers drive, another baseless assumption which with the expected large increase in residential population in the area will definitely not be true.

    Time are changing, and if they think they can have an innercity site with oodles of free parking like they did 10 years ago then they need to have a reality check.

  • Simon

    Just once I’d like a reporter to say to a business owner in these situations “show me your evidence that (a) cycle lanes and loss of x number of on street parking spaces reduce business (b) that a significant proportion of your customers park right outside (c) that the new normal (post cycle lanes) won’t be a net gain for your business (d) that even if you can prove a, b, c favour the parking, that the concerns of your specific business actually matter to the wider economy as opposed to even if they had to close down (vanishingly unlikely) someone else wouldn’t take their place and do well out of the new normal. Businesses oppose loss of on street parking, but they have no understanding of the real effect of these changes on their businesses. Not news, install them already, move on, profit.

  • Dan C

    You can’t take a propeller on the bus? Why not, are these the propellers for the Cook Straight Ferry?

    I was shopping down there recently, i bought some booties, mask and snorkel. I parked in one place and then walked around the different shops to find what i wanted. If i hadn’t been staying out of town, i would have rode my bike in as I could easily take those on my bike. These people need to consider how many casual pop in shoppers they will get when more foot and bicycle traffic is funnelled straight past their shop front door. Not being able to park right outside the front door will not deter anyone.

    I hope auckland transport are consulting properly with these guys and supplying them with case studies showing how much retail sales often increase when the likes of bicycle lanes and shared spaces are installed.

    • Exactly, every time I hear “but I can’t take XYZ on a bus/bike etc” I chuckle. What, but you can carry it out the door, across the road and two blocks up the street to where you managed to find an kerbside parking spot?

      They should invest in a delivery van too.

    • Bryce P

      Not Cook Strait ferry but we’re not talking fizz boats here. Props for those 40ft+ launches are neither small nor light. Neither are hydraulic pumps and rams and many other things that are fitted to these.

      • Dan C

        So if u are taking a propeller from a 40 ft launch, why not drive and park in their car park?

        Or are do the majority of their customers need to park outside the door? They couldnt possibly park on the roof or the other side of the road? Do they send someone on foot first to wait until one of the three parks outside is free, who then calls to give the all clear and then they drive up from the jetty?

  • SteveS

    Here we go again – the sacred cow of on-street parking. The residents of Northcote Point are up in arms, the marine industry players of Wynyard Quarter are up in arms. Over what? The loss of on-street parking that doesn’t belong to them and they never paid for in the first place. The road corridor is owned by you and me, the residents of Auckland, and we delegate its management to AT to move people and goods safely and efficiently. Increasingly that means better provision for pedestrians and cyclists, who have historically missed out when it comes to divvying up the road corridor. AT needs to show a bit of backbone here. There may perhaps be some minor concessions that can be made in extreme hardship, but not at the expense of ped/cycle continuity. And by the look of it, there is plenty of adjacent off-street parking available for customers. Perhaps some customers will be inconvenienced by walking a few more metres, but when you look at the overall community good, that’s a small price to pay.

    • Robert B

      They didn’t pay the council for the off-street parking, but they did pay someone for it. Availability of parking is a non-trivial part of a house price or the cost of business premises even if that parking doesn’t belong to you. I think you can make an argument as to how much risk should be borne by the property owner in these cases, but I think the council should deal with these cases fairly (as they seem to be here).

  • wayne

    Yes nothing new here. The same old pattern when a cycle lane is proposed. Some one will state one of these.
    1) I am a cyclist too but I don’t think a cycle lane is needed.
    2) No one cycles here so don’t need cycle lane.
    3) I am concerned about safety, and this cycle lane will make it less safe and endanger pedestrians.
    4) Propose a totally impractical alternative, or just state there is a better location, that is not in their street.
    5) Do a survey that involves looking out the window a couple of times a day and not seeing any cyclists.
    6) Come up with any reason other than the real reason of not wanting to lose car parks.

  • If car parking is really such an essential component of their private business model, why would they rely on the random, limited supply of public parking in the first place?

    It would be like a formal, sit-down restaurant occupying only public park benches; or a custom tours operator relying on only public buses and/or hitch-hiking; or an accountancy firm using some 30-day trial version of an accounting programme; etc etc.

    This is wanton business risk, in the course of solely private gain. The public has no obligation to support or subsidise such folly.

  • Bryce P

    Some key points to keep in mind.

    1) Imagine taking a dirty, heavy marine pump, or the like, on a bus.
    2) Leases for marine businesses have been increasing rapidly in this area. Due to these increases I understand a few are running on such slim margin that they are still there by some small miracle.
    3) Weshaven is the biggest marina in Auckland and boats and super yachts need maintenance.
    4) The benefits of having these businesses, and the knowledge, in a compact area can not be dismissed.
    5) A marine servicing business is not like a pub or a dairy, and cannot just be taken somewhere else.
    6) Daldy St is a fine cycle route. All it needs is a very good link from the Westhaven promenade. Are the tram tracks in the right place?

    Auckland Council have not made any promises to keep the industry in this place. Yes, there is some zoning on maps but so far, there appears to be no real effort. Big yachts can not pass under the Harbour bridge. None of the marinas further out have the slipways to take big boats. Many businesses can not trade on big boat business only.

    With all this in mind, is it any wonder that these businesses are speaking up?

    • Bryce P

      Daldy St had enough room for a protected cycle way, road and footpaths/park. In light of what is being proposed now, I think that space has been squandered. The fact that AC/AT now want to put cycle lanes down Beaumont shows that long term, integrated planning does not exist in the halls of power.

    • Bryce,

      Some of this is just special pleading, but you’re not necessarily wrong on at least one question at the end.

      >> 1) Imagine taking a dirty, heavy marine pump, or the like, on a bus.

      Yep, drive it. That’s what cars, vans and trucks are good for. No one is suggesting the bus or bike is the right mode for the job. But if you’re going to be driving, then you’ll need to pay a fair price for the privilege.

      >> 2) Leases for marine businesses have been increasing rapidly in this area. Due to these increases I understand a few are running on such slim margin that they are still there by some small miracle.
      >> 3) Weshaven is the biggest marina in Auckland and boats and super yachts need maintenance.

      Oh, won’t someone think of those poor, suffering super yacht owners and their specialty suppliers? If anyone can absorb, what, a 5% rise in maintenance costs for luxury toys, it is this industry. Because…

      4) The benefits of having these businesses, and the knowledge, in a compact area can not be dismissed.
      5) A marine servicing business is not like a pub or a dairy, and cannot just be taken somewhere else.

      Neither the customers nor competitors are particularly mobile, as you say. So no one is going to shop elsewhere, nor is anyone going to set up shop next door with lower prices.

      Maybe some businesses are running very slim margins, and are only surviving today because of the few freebie parking spaces they are afforded by the public. These are not viable businesses, and no private investor in their right mind would pour a subsidy into them, nevermind a struggling public. We’re not talking a hospital or shelter here — these are private enterprises working on luxury yachts for private gain.

      Remember that they are claiming car parking is essential to the operation of their business, not some nice-to-have. So, just as a restaurant pays per square metre to set up tables, so should these businesses pay for car parks. I mean, would you accept a panelbeater staging their work floor entirely on the public parking out front? A sane businessperson would pay to secure it and pass the cost on if they have to.

      6) Daldy St is a fine cycle route. All it needs is a very good link from the Westhaven promenade. Are the tram tracks in the right place?

      All of the above. Daldy St could have and should have been done better, as good as it already is. But Beaumont is part of the street grid, and in fact, considering the expected vehicle traffic due to the businesses, we should prioritise protection for cycling here.

      >> One of the problems is that much of the marine industry servicing business is not compatible with mixed use. AC appear to have missed this. Spray painting, welding/engineering workshops etc. Can’t plonk apartments above or next to these.

      You may have a point here. Cities around the world are struggling with preserving the working character of light industrial places, while introducing mixed use through residential developments. I don’t think the case is so clearcut though: there are all sorts of interesting changes happening in Vancouver, SF’s Mission District, NY’s Gowanus or Dumbo, etc. For local precedent, have a close look at Newton and adjacent Ponsonby/Arch Hill. Maybe it can be done, after all.

      • Bryce P

        I have friends working down there. The suppliers and contractors are not doing as well as you imagine. Leases have jumped considerably and many businesses are on ‘demo’ leases. Pretty difficult to make business decisions based on these kind of arrangements. At this time, Beaumont serves pretty much no businesses that are bike friendly. Over time this will change but these businesses will (should be) on the eastern side of Beaumont St. The same side the cycle lanes should go down. The industry needs some definitive answers from AC about what is happening in all aspects. There is quite a bit of uncertainty down there. The proposed cycle lanes just add to this.

        Like I’ve said, put the cycle lanes on the eastern side and leave 1hr max parking on the western side. This leaves parking for customers on the correct side of the road and cycle lanes on the correct side of the road to access future mixed use buildings. I still don’t think the ‘dogleg’ along Westhaven Drive is suitable for cycle lanes and a path along Fanshaw is better.

        • >> Over time this will change but these businesses will (should be) on the eastern side of Beaumont St. The same side the cycle lanes should go down.
          >> Like I’ve said, put the cycle lanes on the eastern side and leave 1hr max parking on the western side.

          Although I agree with this, I didn’t get the impression the marine businesspeople would. Their publicly-subsidised on-street parking capacity will be reduced either way. And there are a couple of businesses on the eastern side, if I remember correctly. The NIMBY fear is that any change would open the floodgates.

          >> I still don’t think the ‘dogleg’ along Westhaven Drive is suitable for cycle lanes and a path along Fanshaw is better.

          I agree with the Fanshawe suggestion too, but not instead of Beaumont/Westhaven. The waterfront edge as a ‘place’, and therefore the whole street grid attached to it, is worth opening up to full bicycle access. It’s not necessarily best to view it as a linear ‘link’, which is a misguided justification tied to SkyPath and the regional network. Treating the whole area for cycling is actually the reason why I think Fanshawe needs work — it’s another critical part of the area’s street grid.

          >> I have friends working down there. The suppliers and contractors are not doing as well as you imagine. Leases have jumped considerably and many businesses are on ‘demo’ leases. Pretty difficult to make business decisions based on these kind of arrangements.

          Indeed, it is easy to imagine, but consider that the general public is worse off. All sorts of sectors, ventures and people are struggling. You could say the receding tide is lowering all boats. Unfortunate as it is for the marine businesses, this subsidy still smacks of special pleading.

          • Bryce P

            Perhaps it is special pleading but where else would you suggest this industry go? We’re not talking about easily relocatable businesses here but an industry that has slowly been crushed into a corner by council and developers.

          • Bryce,

            I’ve said already they should stay, and should continue to depend on motor vehicle transport for their legitimate logistical use.

            There are only two changes they should deal with.

            One is the realisation of prices for goods that have so far been subsidised for them (i.e. car parking, land value through leases, etc). These are essential to their business, so it makes sense that they should secure it by internalising the cost and therefore the exclusive right of use. This absolutely does not require any of them to shut down or move out, as they can pass on most or all of the marginal increase to their very wealthy customers, who are a captive market based on location. There is no unfair advantage to any subset of the marine businesses in the area, as all are affected equally, so competition on price is not a threat (unless one of them figures out how to operate with bikes, I guess).

            (If it seriously comes down to a few publicly subsidised car parking spots propping up a business so it doesn’t shut down, then at the very least, the public should rightly be treated like a first-class investor and shareholder, and we should see their books, have a say in their business decision-making, and probably take a cut of their profits. Somehow I doubt that’s what they had in mind. They’d be on better terms if they pursued real public funding, such as an economic development grant — at least that would make explicit how much they depended on public subsidy, instead of the murky unaccounted parking benefit.)

            Another change is the use of the neighbouring land and the public street: there will be more people and more bicycles. As goosoid suggests in comments here, it may mean reprioritising travel time allocation by mode, so the marine business suppliers or consumers are delayed very slightly in motor vehicles. So be it; this is a dense central city area; if everyone else suffers motor congestion due to geometry, then why should these people get a free ride at the cost of others?

        • counterpoint

          So it seems that the argument here is that these marine businesses really do rely on having parking nearby, and that they are currently struggling, meaning that removal of on-street parking at this time would be a disaster for them. I’m curious though, why is the roof parking in the second picture not sufficient for this? From the photo, it appears that this is parking for that very business (or maybe that isn’t the case and it just appears that way, in which case why couldn’t this be negotiated with the current owner of said parking), so shouldn’t the removal of on street parking have a minimal effect anyway?

          • Bryce P

            What we need to do is differentiate between employee and customer parking and this needs to be put to the businesses in this context.

  • Paul S

    Bryce P raises some good points many of these businesses do rely on parking in close proximity, however a lot of on street parking is being retained. AT needs to do a stock take and an occupancy survey so we can have an objective discussion.
    Also bear in mind is that in about five years Wynyard quarter will be virtually unrecognisable with the planned mixed use developments. Accordingly the street upgrades will be staggered in line with this.
    And for clarity I understand that the Beaumont cycleway is planned for the most part on the eastern side (reduced vehicle crossings) and parking will be retained on the western side.

    • Bryce P

      One of the problems is that much of the marine industry servicing business is not compatible with mixed use. AC appear to have missed this. Spray painting, welding/engineering workshops etc. Can’t plonk apartments above or next to these.

      According to the drawings above, the proposal is to remove parking on the western side but I would suggest that the cycle track is on the wrong side of the road and should be on the eastern side. In conjunction with this, I would suggest AC/AT to approach the businesses with the idea of max parking times (say 1 hr) for the parking on the western side. This enables customers to drop off/visit and keeps the idea of employees using PT to get to /from work.

  • john.keenan

    Is this not the perfect opportunity to actually TEST the the theory of using temporary projects to prove that what will happen to an area will be positive?

    i.e. couldn’t this disputed area receive a well designed ‘temporary’ separated cycleway (following the plan) that if successful becomes permanent but if detrimental to the area is easily modified / abandoned?
    The business owners with skin in the game and their anecdotal ‘evidence’ is at present just as valid as some of the pro-cycling comments here, both are just guesses as to the true impacts of the cycleway development.

    Do the whole thing quick, cheap and temporary and then MEASURE the outcomes.

    This will then help provide a future case study for the effects of cycleways in an Auckland context and surely be supported by sensible business owners who are already saying in the article that there is a need / good reason for a cycleway in the area.

    • Luke C

      I understood the Beaumont St was to be a ‘temporary’ style separated cycleway, and to be installed in a few months to connect with the Westhave Promenade when it opens.

      • john.keenan

        Well great! – the ‘temporary’ part seems to have been left out on ALL sides of this debate then.
        Hard to find the word in the NZ Herald article, this blog or on the AT website link…

  • Charles

    (hm, replied to a comment that seems to have vanished).

    Business owners are duty bound to complain…newspapers need shock headlines…it gets overstated.

    Surely the marine shops are a valid use of waterfront land and do have an industrial aspect. Planning should at least engage with such pre-existing usage.

  • I don’t understand why this is an either/or issue. Beaumont Street is pretty wide. Why cant we have a separated cycle lane plus retaining the parking? That would narrow the street considerably but, contrary to popular belief, narrow streets are actually safer where speeds are kept low. The whole street is being redesigned so

    I realise wide vehicles go down the street too, but it will just be a matter of everyone slowing down and chilling out for the approximately 600m length of Beaumont. So at 20km/h it will take about 2mins as opposed to about a minute at 50km/h.

    I will post this article/video again to show how the Dutch redesign auto oriented streets to make them walking and cycling friendly. Narrowing is the key – it really isn’t that difficult or expensive:
    http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/making-a-1960s-street-grid-fit-for-the-21st-century/

    Is that going to kill their business too? A lot of the time these situations are pitched as battles between cycling infrastructure and parking when I think that conflict can be avoided by smart street design.

  • Stevenz

    I don’t know if any of the readers have worked closely with areas transitioning from old industrial and “heavy service” uses, but I have and I can tell you that a cycle lane is no idle threat. Of course, if your policy assumption or preference is to make a complete changeover to modern uses at the expense of the long-term businesses, then it doesn’t matter. It’s a lot trickier if you want to maintain the presence of those businesses to add to the character of the place (which is what I have tried to do in planning such areas, and what I think would benefit Wynyard very much) and creates a much stronger sense of place.

    A cycle lane can be viewed as a thin edge of a wedge which will lead to cafes, galleries, vegan restaurants, boutiques, and higher land values. This is a very real scenario, played out in hundreds or thousands of places around the world, and is often the desired end. (Again, is that the desired end here?) Existing businesses are very sensitive to land value and to congestion (see discussion of value of time re Air NZ fares.) Believe me, it doesn’t take much to convince these businesses to move elsewhere. You also have a political problem if those businesses see the new uses as being subsidized while their own business suffers for the public investment.

    It troubles me to see so many comments that show contempt for the legitimate needs of specialised business, and advocate for ignoring them outright. That does not lead to effective economic development or quality placemaking.

    • “businesses see the new uses as being subsidized” – as opposed to the existing subsidy where us ratepayers contribute to maintaining parking in a public space so that private businesses have more parking?

      Why do you assume that these areas must change? Why won’t the existing businesses change to embrace the new environment? I have constantly been told that private enterprise is a source of innovation (though I seldom see it in real life) so here is their chance to innovate and respond to change.

      If taking a few car parks that are maintained at the cost of the ratepayer is enough to put these businesses under then surely they need to look at the feasibility of their business model. Has that area always been exactly as it is now? I doubt it, so when the area changed before did some businesses fail or decide to move?

    • Stevenz,

      >> I don’t know if any of the readers have worked closely with areas transitioning from old industrial and “heavy service” uses, but I have and I can tell you that a cycle lane is no idle threat.
      >> A cycle lane can be viewed as a thin edge of a wedge which will lead to cafes, galleries, vegan restaurants, boutiques, and higher land values. This is a very real scenario, played out in hundreds or thousands of places around the world, and is often the desired end.

      Oh no, not the vegan restaurants! What next, pet grooming salons? (Actually, with an allergy to tofu, I can somewhat sympathise with the former.)

      Are we supposed to be shocked to hear that urban renewal happens the world over, time immemorial, etc.?

      It is a challenge to intentionally preserve the light industrial working character of a place while introducing mixed use developments, and approaches to the problem seem to be a continuous work-in-progress (just like city building in general). But it is hardly some obviously-doomed venture to embark upon. The benefits of succeeding far outweigh the risk of failure.

      >> Believe me, it doesn’t take much to convince these businesses to move elsewhere.

      I’ve just heard from another commenter here who knows some of the businesses involved, saying that they are not actually so mobile. It makes sense, too, considering that proximity to the waterfront is part of their value proposition. On the face of it, it appears they even have a captive market of fairly wealthy customers.

      >> Existing businesses are very sensitive to land value and to congestion
      >> You also have a political problem if those businesses see the new uses as being subsidized while their own business suffers for the public investment.

      Are they sensitive to the point of failure if their implicit subsidy ever becomes realised? It’s an important ethical point, because it means the public is investing in a for-profit enterprise in non-cash terms but for nothing in return. There could be all sorts of moral and political implications as a result (think bailout).

      >> It troubles me to see so many comments that show contempt for the legitimate needs of specialised business, and advocate for ignoring them outright.

      If by ignoring them, you mean unshackling the invisible hand of the free market. Businesses are always so keen for deregulation and commercial freedom, until their special mercantile advantages are threatened. Funny that.

      • Stevenz

        I stand by my comments, non-motorist, but I don’t have the time or inclination to refute your points, not that they’re all wrong, but there are still too many to deal with especially if I’m going to get flamed once again.

      • BBC

        Really? That’s great to hear, there’s a real dearth of vegan and vegetarian restaurants in Auckland so I’m very happy to hear that the cycle lanes starting to be rolled out will result in a big increase in them. Personally, I’m just as happy to walk to one as bike, but given the latter option I’m happy to do that too. And if a vegan restaurant makes more financial sense that an industrial business in downtown Auckland, then that’s simply the reality of changing land use demographics. Were the old council yards on Wellesley Street intended to be an extremely popular bagel shop or craft beer bar? No, but no ones complaining, but rather enjoying the new use of that site.

      • Bryce P

        if the parking is being used for employees, I see it as a subsidy. if, as it is now, paid parking, but add time limits so that it is designed for use by customers, then I see it as a piece of required infrastructure in a successful city. I think compromise is necessary, on all sides, in order to get the best outcome. In all reality, the marine area there needs a real plan put in place by AC.

        • Bryce,

          Firstly, public parking fares don’t cover the total cost of providing it. Just the opportunity cost of the land use may not add up to what the public feeds into the meter, let alone the benefits of alternative development, transport or infrastructure use. But I agree that some car parking is necessary for many reasons — no one is suggesting that all of it should be removed. Only that the businesses should not bet the yacht on it, if it is really so important to them.

          Secondly, given that these businesses are relying on it for their customers to use, it is not wholly different to a sit-down restaurant using park benches or the footpath (for which they usually pay a licensing fee). So we the public ought to expect something in return, or else we should be able to put the land to better use as and when we decide to.

          • Bryce P

            Except, as, mentioned, we’re not discussing businesses that can just be up and moved. And they are in no way comparable to a restaurant.

          • BBC

            These businesses have a roof full dedicated to parking, there is a massive carpark across the road. Aside from their scaremongering where’s the evidence that removing on-street parking will affect their business? It is comparable to a restaurant in that both are businesses and if one makes more financial sense and has more customers then that will be the one that should be there.

          • Bryce,

            That these businesses are relatively immobile is only making it easier to argue that they should stay and internalise the cost of car parking. I don’t see how it is relevant otherwise. I might understand if we were talking about a charity, a hospital, a shelter, or something. But these are for-profit private enterprises in a commercial marketplace with fairly wealthy customers. If they’re not going to move just like that, then no competitor is going to move nearby, and no client will move away either.

            Of course they are comparable to a restaurant: both are arguing that some square metres of public land is vital to their business, for their customers to use, in a way that could not otherwise be substituted without disadvantage. One internalises the real cost, and the other externalises it. Who’s being unfair, really?

          • Bryce P

            A restaurant customer is not going to turn up with a dirty 50 kg hydraulic pump.

            The big carpark across the road will end up getting developed just like the rest of Wynyard.

            As I mentioned above, change the cycle lane to the eastern side, switch the parking to the western side, put in time limits. Really, no different to what has been suggested by AT but with the parking closer to the businesses.

          • Bryce P

            Given that all development is going to happen on the eastern side of Beaumont St, moving the intended cycle path to that side makes even more sense.

          • Bryce P

            And I’m not suggesting the status quo by any means. More a slight change in what AT have proposed as well as measures that may assist with the marine businesses who feel they may be affected by this.

          • Bryce P

            See this parking here: https://www.google.co.nz/maps/@-36.843356,174.753591,3a,75y,270.88h,73.25t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sx1oBSFTemjUQftriLxf34Q!2e0

            According to GIS, the piece of land where the cars are parked belongs to the owners of the building. Can anyone see a problem with having a shared path through this piece of road?

          • Bryce,

            You seem to be missing the point:

            >> A restaurant customer is not going to turn up with a dirty 50 kg hydraulic pump.

            Of course not, but a restaurant customer will turn up with their 50kg (or more or less) of body mass, and will want to sit down and eat somewhere. I’m not suggesting that a restaurant deserves car parking, but rather that they should have space for tables and chairs. And for that privilege they will pay, whether on public land (e.g. footpath permit) or indeed any land (e.g. title, licensing, etc).

            The analogous good for the marine businesses is car parking, because as we seem to agree, it is equally essential for their continued operation. So let’s have them pay for it at the margin (i.e. they can pass on the cost and not be worse off).

            Again, I agree that the design of the bike path could be tweaked for the better, but the question is whether it resolves the fundamental objection from the businesspeople. My reading of it suggests it won’t — they are opposed to all change in the vicinity of their direct vehicular frontage access. Meanwhile, Stevenz calls it the “thin end of the wedge”. Do you think they will really settle for shifting the bike path to the other side of the street?

            I’m not sure what other measures you have in mind, but if it amounts to compensation of their lost subsidy, then I can’t follow you there.

  • john.keenan

    What is the Beaumont St ‘head count’ for parking spaces being used by the ‘temporary’ (Luke C) cycleway?

    That building with the parking on the roof looks like one side has covered parking, couldn’t the Council consent for that roof to be made a second parking level, to replace the lost on street parking?
    The building seems to be ideally suited as it is almost exactly half way up the street / cycleway.
    Anyone (customers) using it for parking would have a 250m North / South maximum walk.

    Also (maybe too far fetched and I don’t know the engineering) if say you consented that covered roof to have even 2 or 3 levels of parking it would be in an ideal site to facilitate ‘drive and glide’. Drive your car to a destination with off street parking – then bike or walk the area.

    Part of the 1st level retained as ‘Beaumont St customer parking’, remaining carparks charged.
    Incorporate a delivery lift and rental bike station / shop on the street into the design.

  • Benidorm

    The parking spaces are not free, they are metered, from memory at $1 an hour.
    You can still ensure spaces are available for customers by using demand responsive pricing.
    If the supply is reduced the prices will probably need to increase to manage demand but I doubt it would be more than double.
    So impact is likely to be customers have to pay $2 an hour instead of $1.
    If businesses are really concerned about this they could refund the parking fee to customers who spend over a certain amount and continue to offer “free parking”.
    Typically this business model works out cheaper than purchasing car park spaces and covering the cost of enforcing them and paying for them when they are empty. The businesses only pay for the parking their paying customers use.

  • Phiteven

    It was not the cycle-way per-say that was the problem, it was the total lack of any form of consultation that was the most annoying. When we (marine industry) had a constructive meeting with AT the short comings of there plan became evident and the proposal for the INTERIM cycle way was abandoned. We do have street parking available for customers due to the intoduction of a sliding charge that makes it prohibitave to hogg it all day. A shared path with no parking on the eastern side of Beaumont is easy to achieve when it is needed, ie. a painted one like a bus lane signposted and available after hours and on the weekend. That is when it will be used.

Leave a Reply