Submission to WCC Shelly Bay proposal, 2017

WCC Shelly Bay proposal
9 Sept 2017

Presented by Patrick Morgan on behalf of Ron Beernink, Chair Cycle Aware Wellington

Today I'll talk about the Hunger Games and broken parking buildings.

We've heard about how this plan is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve in Wellington.

It takes us further from our goal of being a low-carbon city where people are not locked into driving.
It is the opposite of the sustainable transport hierarchy, as seen in the Council's urban growth plan.


Our submission is focused on the concern that the proposal does not properly consider

the needs for people who want to be able to cycle to and from Shelly Bay and the

Miramar Peninsula

The consent application notes that the development is likely to result in a significant

increase in traffic volume, but does not recommend any safeguards for cyclists other

than maintaining the traffic speed at 40km/hr.


The NZTA cycling infrastructure guidelines clearly advocate against having cyclists

(particularly those who are less confident) sharing the road with that volume of traffic

and at speed


We are concerned that without a proper safe design to accommodate cyclists, that

biking to and from Shelly Bay and the Miramar Peninsula will no longer be seen as an

option for people other than confident road cyclists. Even then the risks of cyclists

being run off the road will increase to being unacceptable.


We recognise that widening the road to accommodate a separated cycle path would be

a major challenge and face significant objection from other stakeholders, in particular

those concerned with any resulting damage to the existing coast line and eco system.


We recommend an amendment to the consent / proposal to consider proper safe

cycling options, e.g.

o Keeping the status quo in terms of traffic volumes by providing better public


o Reducing the traffic speed to 30km/hr using various physical traffic calming

measures, to create a shared road where cyclists are given priority

o Creating cycle lanes on either side of the road with a single dual direction lane

for motorists in the middle

o Having the harbour side lane for cyclists, and hill side lane as a one way for


o Providing space for a separate cycle lane by building out a walking or cycling

path across the water where there is not sufficient width

In closing, this proposal reminds me of a car parking building hit by an earthquake – it's wrong at so many levels.



Ciclovia, 524, 1601

Overall this development will have an enormous impact on this coastal area with only a financial

benefit to the Iwi, the developer, people who are rich enough to buy or rent the limited housing

provided by this new development, and the Council. I believe that the financial benefit to the

Council itself is poorly considered as has to continue to invest in the supporting infrastructure,

regardless of what the developer choses to do. Personally I see the old Mt Crawford prison site as

a better option for a housing development, and would prefer for the Council to maintain Shelly Bay

as a space and facility that is for the public and communities like artists.
From a Ciclovia point of view the proposed development seriously compromises the ability / safe freedom to cycle from the

Miramar Cutting to Shelly Bay as it expects cyclists to share the road with a significant increase of

traffic with a 40km/hr road space that is not enforced.
One only has to look at the NZTA cycling infrastructure guidelines to see that this proposal is not acceptable, particularly for less confident cyclists young and old.
In addition I do not believe that the Shelly Bay design will provide enough

parking to allow another Ciclovia event to be held at the Miramar Peninsula. This despite

thousands of people showing how popular such an event is with each Ciclovia that was held over

previous years.

CAN submission

This is a bad deal for Wellington.
- severe negative impacts on people walking and cycling
- undermines investments in Cobham Drive walking and cycling route
- creates a 4km gap in the Great Harbour Way
- opaque process
- loss of public space
- what other options have been investigated?
- creates a car-dependent suburb
- poor alignment with Wellington's urban growth plan
- creates legal risk over consenting process
- failure to provide social housing
- development is vulnerable to sea level rise
- sends a message that Wellington is not serious about mitigating climate change
- risk over escalating infrastructure costs


Do your research at Google