The entrance to New World Thorndon supermarket, where a cycle-way is planned to be built. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The entrance to New World Thorndon supermarket, where a cycle-way is planned to be built. Photo / Mark Mitchell
A supermarket giant says a council’s decision to build a controversial cycleway directly outside the entrance of its supermarket is based on assumptions about safety, and wasn’t properly consulted on.
But, the council says it relied on expert evidence in deciding the best place for the new cycleway, and consultedwith the supermarket’s owners on the proposal from an early stage.
The cycleway, signed off by the council but yet to be constructed, is to be situated on the right side of Molesworth St, just 200m from Parliament and the High Court.
The street contains two lanes of one-way traffic - a left-hand lane that turns onto the SH1 on-ramp, and a right-hand lane that eventually converges with Tinakori Rd.
New World’s main entrance is off the right-hand lane, where the cycleway is planned. It makes up part of the council’s Paneke Pōneke plan, expanding the existing 23km of cycleways across the capital to 166km.
The supermarket giant isn’t seeking a specific alternative to the plan, but a finding that the council did not properly assess all options for the cycleway, nor adequately consult on them.
The yet-to-be-built Molesworth St cycle way. Photo / Wellington City Council
Stephen Quinn, representing Foodstuffs, said council officers decided prior to consultation that the New World side of the road was the only practicable option due to traffic volumes and safety concerns. The council didn’t adequately consider the cycleway being on the on-ramp side of the street, he said.
Quinn said officers presented this sole option to the council committee, which signed off on the plans.
“[The council committee] are constrained by what is presented to them. The information presented, on which they make the decision on, did not contain all reasonable options.”
Quinn said NZTA analysis seen by the council showed the SH1 on-ramp saw traffic of roughly 3900 cars each day. Councillors did not have information on the traffic of the supermarket when they made the decision, he said.
A traffic engineer contracted by Foodstuffs found an identical number of vehicles entering and exiting the supermarket each day.
He said the council believed the on-ramp side of the road wasn’t feasible due to the speed of vehicles entering the on-ramp.
But Quinn said a fundamental consideration was missed - a pedestrian crossing on the on-ramp. “We can’t have cars speeding up, as they have to give way to pedestrians. There is no proposal to remove the pedestrian crossing.
“If we were to follow that through, perhaps it’s okay for pedestrians to be unsafe because of high speeds, but not cyclists.
“There’s no evidence produced or analysis of speeds, there’s also no analysis which assesses the impact of the pedestrian crossing.”
Foodstuffs had its own safety concerns about the cycleway, saying there was a risk of exiting customers driving into the cycleway to ensure it was clear before turning into traffic.
Quinn added that it was Foodstuff’s view they were not adequately heard during a three-day hearing for public submissions and would have liked the chance to put forward experts they had engaged.
“The supermarket is the largest traffic-generating business on the relevant route.”
He stressed Foodstuffs was not against the cycleway proposal in general, only this particular plan.
Council responds
In reply to Foodstuffs, Wellington City Council lawyer Nick Whittington said multiple options were considered by the council including protected cycle lanes in each direction, and a cycle lane on Molesworth St only, not on Murphy St as well.
“There are three main reasons why the plan was chosen. It avoids conflict with high speed on offramps, avoids bus stops and provides improved cycle activity.”
Whittington said the council received expert evidence on the plans.
“The council didn’t see the number of vehicles to be the determining factor, it considered the speed to be the more significant factor.” He added that expert evidence concluded the turning radius for cars moving to the onramp was six times greater than for cars entering New World.
Regardless, he said it appeared Foodstuffs had withheld its own information on traffic entering its carpark, reading out an email from a council officer that listed action points from a meeting that included Foodstuffs providing the information. He said it was never provided.
Wellington City Council's Thorndon cycleway plan. Photo / Wellington City Council
“Foodstuffs is well within its rights to keep that information, perhaps it regards it as commercially significant, but there is apparently traffic count data out there. It simply hasn’t been provided.”
He then turned to Foodstuff’s claim of inadequate consultation, reading out a list of correspondence between the council and Foodstuffs.
“What it demonstrates is councillors were aware of Foodstuff’s concerns and had an open mind to changes they were asked to make. That doesn’t demonstrate a failure to consider views, but an action to consider those views and consider changes accordingly.”
He said that the council’s obligations to consult with Foodstuffs were met, which included an oral submission to councillors.
“The councillors had the submissions, heard from Mr Quinn orally, and had key points summarised to them in the summary presented. In my submission, there’s no evidence the council failed to consider those views.
“Foodstuffs was involved from a very early stage.”
Ethan Griffiths covers crime and justice stories nationwide for Open Justice. He joined NZME in 2020, previously working as a regional reporter in Whanganui and South Taranaki.
