Regulatory Processes Committee

To start, I would like to— I'll read the karakia and welcome everybody to the meeting. Whakatākati hou ki te uru, whakatākati hou ki te tonga, kia mā kiina kiina ki uta, kia mā taratara ki tai, ehi ake ana te atakura, he tio, he nuka, he hapū, tihei Māori ora. Welcome everybody. Thanks for coming. Welcome to the committee. So apologies, now I do have some. So I think we've got an apology for late arrival from the Mayor. We're expecting her after 11. And if we do have quorum, Councillor Rogers would like to slip away for another meeting on city safety, and I think that's— I'd like to support him in that. He'll only be gone for as long as he needs to be. So I move the motion that we I accept both those apologies. Do I have a seconder? Thank you, Councillor McNulty. I'll put that motion which has been moved and seconded. We'll vote. No, she's going to be— Liz is going to be attending online, but the new rules are that we need physical quorum for voting. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry, I probably didn't word that. We need only people who are physically here in the room count for the quorum. Alrighty, um, so we'll move on to conflicts of interest. Do we have any conflicts of interest? No, we don't need to do anything about that. The confirmation of the minutes. So I'll move that the minutes of the 14th of November 2024 from this meeting be taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of that meeting. Do I have a seconder? Thank you, Councillor McNulty. We'll put that to the vote. Okay, we have no items not on the agenda, and so we'll move to public participation. Oh, before we do that, I'll just say that we're likely to be having morning tea at around 10:45, all going well. So I'd like to invite Nigel up to the table. Sorry, Elise. Either— you can either use the podium or sit at the table.

Can we get the submission spreadsheet with the numbers up on the screen?

Okay.

But you know how I'm usually with the page references for the information.

Nigel's page 14, if that's of any help. Sorry, we're just getting a bit of housekeeping done. Just, Nigel, just before you do start, I'll just draw everybody's attention to the fact that the area we're talking about is limited to the CBD, the parking area, so we've all got a map so we can actually understand what we're talking about. Nigel, you've got 5 minutes and that does need to include time for questions and it will go by quite quickly, but over to you.

Yes.

Yeah. Okay. We won't start the time until you're ready to go. Okay. It's been a while since our last meeting back in November. There we go. Alright. Okay, are you—

I'm just waiting for it to—

Okay. Yeah.

Okay, kia ora everyone, my name is Nigel Keats. I Here we go. I'm a contributor of the following World Bank publications. I've been involved in road safety for 27 years from everywhere from here to Bangladesh to Oman to Tunisia and lots of other places as well. I do this work and I'm here today because I'm interested in saving people's lives. The big question is, are you interested in the same thing? So are you interested in saving lives? Are you interested in earning revenue for the City Council? Are you interested in boosting Wellington's economic development? So all these things play into parking. So the really important thing to remember today is that motorcycles are an inherently unsafe mode of transportation. So they're about 2.5% of the vehicles, On the road, they're 14% of the deaths and 20— just under 20% of the serious injuries. Some of those serious injuries costing up to $20 million by ACC figures. So a person on a motorcycle, 21 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than someone in a car. So an inherently unsafe mode of transportation. So how is the use of other dangerous products disincentivized? So we see up there the cigarettes and tobacco. So price of cigarettes, nearly $25 in tax plus just to disincentivize smoking. A huge amount of excise tax on alcohol disincentivize the use of these dangerous products. So the price of parking is one of the few tools that the Wellington City Council has at your disposal to disincentivise motorcycle usage, this inherently unsafe mode of transportation. So if you do low-cost or no-cost motorcycle parking, you're incentivising more motorcycle usage and therefore you're causing more deaths and injuries. Um, the second point besides the, um, deaths and injuries is, does the council need more revenue? Are your books balanced? Is there no debt? Are the rate increases only in line with inflation? If the answer is to any of those questions is no, then the City Council needs more revenue. Motorcycle parking is one way to achieve that. The last point is road crashes are a significant economic burden. So the reason why the World Bank, who I work for, is involved in road safety is because it's a big development issue. New Zealand figures show it's around 4% of GDP is lost due to motorcycle— due to road crashes. Obviously motorcycles are overly represented in that. As I mentioned, one ACC, you know, one serious claim to ACC can be $20 million from that alone. So in summary, significant parking charges can reduce deaths and injuries, it can provide the revenue that Wellington City Council needs, and it can boost Wellington's economic growth by not having this drag on the on economic development due to road crashes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. I've got a question, two questions actually. What is your preferred, what do you think people, how do you think people should come to the city? And two, what do you think about the government's proposal to increase the speed limits where we've consulted on lowering them?

Okay, so there are lots of other modes of transportation to bring people into the city. And obviously you're encouraging, you know, public transport and cycles and all sorts of things. So I don't believe there's a shortage of methods of transportation to get into the city. 97% of people get in some other way. Speed limits, I think the government's got it wrong by increasing them. It doesn't boost productivity. There's good data on that, and they're not taking in the loss of productivity from crashes into account, I don't believe.

Okay. Councillor Chung.

Thanks very much for coming in this morning. Thank you. It's always interesting to see the stats and to— but I think that when you're using stats, you can use them to either justify one thing or another.

Question. And so is it—

Is it more economical or is it better for Wellington City to actually have motorcycles taking up a lot less space in a car park than people bringing cars in? So you're talking about the alternative of riding cycles and things, but what if these people who are currently riding cycles then turn to cars?

Well, that's a question for, you know, for you, but you know, in terms of the parking you know, the availability of parking is one issue to consider, but you know, you need to consider people's lives as well. I think that's more important.

So—

Okay, we might be out of time. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay.

But thank you very much, Nigel. That's an interesting perspective, and thank you for sharing that with us.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you. Do we have Mr. Squire? No. Graham Buchanan, hello. Welcome. Thank you. If you're ready to go, you have 5 minutes, and as you've seen, it goes by quite quickly.

Yeah, thanks, Councillors. So, reading the relevant papers, I was left with the strong impression that I was opposing this, which my one-sentence submission said was actually a done deal, that I was here to deal with a done deal, but that I was wasting your time and mine. But I then saw a short paragraph in your papers about no fee as a possibility still, and it says that not charging will remain an option when decisions are made on how to proceed. So, got some faint hope. I've not been a motorcycle rider in Wellington, by the way, I've been a commuter. The other thing I wanted to say at the front was that having been a public servant, I used to be an unthinking supporter of council activities and all that you do. But I've had a number of personal experiences and have observed your seemingly going through the motions consultation processes, that's led me to question some of the assumptions you've made and the decisions you've reached. And there's been, in my personal experience, too many mistakes, and I can list some of those later if you want me to. Um, so looking at this proposal, your offices list 4 benefits.

You're right.

They're all questionable. Look at them. So the first is equity between the parkers, and that is between cars and motorbikes. So at best it is equality, not equity. It's equality in David Seymour terms. Equity in this context is a much more complex concept. It brings into play many broader considerations such as the interests of employees, interests of employers, businesses, ratepayers, the city, society as a whole. So in my humble submission, the first alleged benefit is a simplistic crock. The second alleged benefit is, to quote, increase in access through turnover. That is suggesting that lots more motorcycle riders want to come in and out of the city during the day. Where's the evidence? No evidence. This one is— it's plain laughable. Who are these people? Build it and they will come. In fact, council data already shows in your papers that the preponderance of motorcycle CBD parkers are all-day commuters. So another crock benefit. The third alleged benefit is reduced carbon emissions. Oh, come on. So John McEnroe, where are you? You can't be serious. Having just argued that they are expecting higher turnover during the day, that is more emissions, they then say it will somehow reduce emissions.

Come on.

Fantasy. And then to the fourth benefit, which is what it's all about. Come on, be honest about this—

revenue.

So merely $1 million a year for the preferred option, and that assumes only a 5% drop-off from current occupancy. There's no real evidence or data to support that guesstimate. So, so much for the alleged benefits. What about the costs? Oh, $210,000 we estimate in the first year. But for example, what about your new pay-by-plate meters? How are they going to be reconfigured to cope with motorcycles? And $1 an hour for motorcycles compared to $4 something for— you know, there's the interface, there's the software, etc., etc. So there's no mention of that as part of your costs. What about some of the real costs? Cost to the affected commuters, cost to employers. I see I'm running out of time. But I see that it all fits with your parking policy. Overall, which short-sightedly classifies motorcycle riders as low priority. So you're focused on revenue rather than cost cutting— in my— cost saving, in my view. Cost cutting is another thing. So this particularly petty measure sits alongside the even worse proposal for charging parking— for parking in suburban centres, which parked for 1 year. Duh. Your efforts should be instead on managing the costs, not by cost-cutting but by dropping whole chunks of work.

So, Graeme, would you be able to just wrap up in a sentence or two?

Well, yeah, my overall thrust, Sarah, is to— that you should be looking at internal costs, bring back some services in house, right? Traffic mismanagement is one of the big ones in my view. Huge costs to the city, little benefit, and it's all done to feather the profits and dividends of private companies. Fulton Hogan, etc., etc. So I could go on, but—

Thank you. Thank you very much. And I'm sorry, we are out of time. Time for questions, but thank you. I think we're moving to Mr. Swan. John, welcome.

Thank you, Councillor Free, and thank you for the opportunity of addressing the council's proposal to impose charging regimes for those parking their motorbikes in spaces presently designated for this purpose. I'm pleased that you've got a relatively full book of people that are concerned about that, this, and they will recognize that this is a money grab by the mayor, council officers, and the Labor/Green councillors, all of which are leading the city to bankruptcy. These same people have selected another group to prefer against citizens and ratepayers who elect to travel in the city and elsewhere on motorbikes using an internal combustion engine, or an electric motor that generates more than 1,000 watts. Cyclists remain the preferred species in the city. Cyclists get the ultimate free ride when compared to other road users. No licence, no ACC levy, no registration or warrant of fitness regime, and millions of ratepayers' money spent on ensuring that they can be emotionally carefree. All this and an electric motor too. Electric bikes of 500 watts can achieve speeds of 20-25 km/h. Upgrade to a 1,000-watt motor and you can travel at 40 kph. And they weigh 120-130 kilograms. They're missiles. Uphills, no trouble. Competing with cars, no worries. Getting a park, well, the WCC provides these, but really it's easy to chain it up on the footpath. WCC provides the racks on the footpath, and if you leave this building by the terrace, you'll see the mess that surrounds it of bikes littering the footpath. But back to the money question. Parking revenue to fund council operation and to service the city's ballooning debt has taken a dive.

Why?

Car parking costs have soared, availability has slumped, enforcement officers patrolled city and suburbs for at least 12 hours a day. The Mayor's bright idea of parklets has swallowed parks. Parklets have limited use because of weather and food outlet administration issues. That sounds familiar. In fact, they impede commerce. They and cones and traffic calming measures and street closures for remedial pipe issues do nothing for commercial ratepayers apart from hiking rates. It's unclear as to how much I understand the proposal is $1 an hour for parking. It is clear that it is unlikely that the charges levied will cover the costs of enforcement. It is accordingly not financially prudent, which is the mark— the benchmark that council and its officers are legally bound to observe. The LTP submission process is about to commence with inevitable cuts to public public service, as indicated by the Begonia House fiasco. The City has got to cut its cloth. Councillors should make this clear to Council officers. There are savings to be made from a top-to-bottom review of the cost-effectiveness of Council staff. The ratepayer and those who paid rent have taken a hammering. Council are about to move into sumptuous premises with room to store whatever bike they ride in a secure basement. The line-to-line examination of staff costs should include a look at the 18 people necessary to run the Mayor's diary and choose not to let her know that social housing is not fit for purpose, 54 in comms, another 8 in cycle lane implementation. The list just goes on. My suggestion is this—

We do have a question if you'd like to allow time.

—back off major cuts and maintain the status quo. An election is coming. The Green-Labor councillors should make it their policy and ask the people to decide.

Lovely. We have a question from Councillor McNulty.

Yeah, just my assertion you talked about Green-Labor councillors bringing this proposal, on what basis were you making that assertion? Did you follow the vote of the committee at the whole?

It was an assumption, Councillor, and I suppose And when you look back at the airport sale fiasco, that was another example of dysfunction and uncertainty around the council table. Now, I spoke last week on issues that relate to that in the context of the Begonia House. It's not going away, and it's not helping the city.

Councillor Abner Rahman.

I always appreciate your presence here and your constructive contributions and critics as well. Follow up on Councillor McNulty. If you look back when this decision was made, you can go back and look at it, how the Labor councillors voted. I want you to correct that while you are seated today. Now we are asking you for that.

Okay, um, this is for us to ask questions. Did you have a question?

Well, I think since that assertion came through, I'm just clarifying, asking for clarification.

Uh, no, no, no, this is a different process. Processes for asking questions on some matters.

That's the question, because I need to see the raw information.

OK. All right.

You might be aware of our— are you aware of our new online voting record system which lets you look at every decision?

I'm having trouble making it work. I applaud the fact that it's there. I can't see it and use it on the website, and I can't see it on Let's Talk Wellington. OK.

So that's some feedback for us. Thank you for that feedback and thank you for your support. Submission. Thank you, yes. Right, so we're moving on to— is Keith here? Keith, welcome. You're welcome to either sit at the table, stand at the podium, and once you start, there's 5 minutes which needs to include questions.

Great. Thank you. First off, thank you for opening up to this consultation. I'm really glad to see that you have at least lowered the charges from— was it $3.50 an hour or $2.50 an hour down to $1 as a proposed parking rate change. It's good to see you taking on feedback like that. I was tempted to come here with kind of proposals of greater societal impacts and conjecture on what that would actually mean for the council, but I think maybe what would be useful. And something that I find useful in my own role, in my own work, is we often do polls and we gather data, but actually doing user research and user interviews with counsellors, so you can ask questions of someone that is going to be affected by these changes. So, I would be affected by these changes. I would change the way that I act on a day-to-day basis. Do the councillors have any questions that they would like to ask of a motorcycle rider?

Absolutely, and that's part of this process, Councillor McNulty. But keep them brief, because I'm sure there'll be a few.

Look, you weren't here for the first submitter, but he made an argument that we need to disincentivise motorcycle parking. Under the current proposal, where it's something like $45 a week, would you argue that's a relatively significant disincentive as it is?

It would prevent me from coming in, in the majority of cases. I have the option to work from home. In most cases, I will not come in. On average, I spend $120 of money on food for daily purchases, uh, and throughout the city. So that's on a weekly basis, sorry. Uh, and I would just come in less. I would imagine that I'd come in only for the dates I'm required to come in, which would be 1 to 2 every fortnight.

I've got a similar question. If you had to pay, you know, even say sort of $5 to $10 a day, would that change your behaviour? Would you take another form of transport or would you just not come?

Public transport is an option for me. It takes 5 to 6 times longer for me to get in. It goes from being 12 minutes to over an hour for me to get into the city. So I can get into the city for a cheaper rate, but it's just not worth my time. I will spend that time working or contracting. It's just, there's no reason to come in. With— ah, sorry. $5 to $10 a day, I have thought about this. It would be nice if there was some sort of sign-up fee we could just pay, I don't know, some flat rate and you just get unlimited parking in the city, kind of like we might do in the suburbs for residents that park there. That would be more useful. It would also lower the threshold of, or the resistance of coming in. If I have to come into the city and I have to go to a parking meter, that adds another few minutes of time that is actually a little bit annoying. It's not a major thing, it doesn't it doesn't seem like a major thing. But if I have to go find a parking meter, that's another 3 or 4 minutes on top of my now 12-minute ride. So, you've just added— I don't know what the percentage on that would be— 20% time to my time to get into work. It's just extra—

it's extra— Okay. We do have some more questions. So, Councillor Abdurahman. I think you already touched a bit on this.

Regards to equity issue as well, and I'm sure if you afford to bring your car and to hire one of the buildings to park it, you would do it, but you can't— most of the people who bike, they can't afford, and that means now trying to charge them, not only making them not to come to the city, it's also creating equity issue.

I mean, driving a car in is an option for me. Again, it's more of a time concern. It's, for me, I can get in on motorcycle in 12 minutes or so, and the car, it's closer to 18. If you account for parking, we're looking at 25 minutes. It's a significant time portion. Returning journey home, that is considerably less, but you know, I don't have to look for parking. I park inside my garage at home. So it's not a double-edged sword in that regard. But it's less about the money and it's more about resistance. You're adding resistance to this happening. Disincentivising users coming on their motorcycles, which I view personally as a positive thing for the city. No, probably not as positive as, you know, cyclists in terms of health outcomes, but certainly I believe it's a generally positive outcome for motorcycle riders to commute into town.

One last one from Councillor Randall. Yeah, I'm just interested how far away you live from where you motorcycle, and one of the modes you haven't mentioned is cycling, is that— that's not an option because that's, uh, e-cycling.

Well, an e-cycle would be an option. Uh, so I'm very high up in Crofton Downs. It's a big hill to get up, and then you go over another big hill in Wagetown, and then you drop down to town. It's significant. Um, an e-bike would be viable. There is a bit of a money threshold there that e-bikes are expensive although there's a lot of incentives to buy them. Again, it's a time thing. They wouldn't be that much slower, to be honest. You know, we're probably looking at— I haven't actually done the ride myself. I've ridden into town before, so if I guess at my parking time, I'm guessing it would be 17 minutes for me to get in on an e-bike.

Okay. We are actually out of time, but thank you. That's been very helpful, and I hope you feel like you got your opportunity opportunity to speak to councillors and answer questions. So thank you. Joseph Sutton, do we have Mr Sutton? Thank you. Over to you.

Kia ora koutou. Ko Joe Sutton tōku ingoa. E roia au, kei manatua humatua o e mahi ana. Thanks for having me here to speak to you today. I haven't spoken to councillors before. Just for context to my submissions, I work in town just off Bowen Street, and I ride a moped to work pretty much every day, hence me being here. I don't want to take up too much time. I think if I speak for 5 minutes, nobody will remember what I said, including me. So I've got two key points to talk to. The first is that I don't think that the council should charge for motorbike or moped parking in Wellington, and the second is that if that horse has already bolted, then I think you should set a low hourly rate or a low flat rate for the day so as not to drive perverse behaviour changes. Ha! So my first point, as I said, is that the council should not charge for motorbike or moped parking. In the city. The 3 main reasons I could see to justify charging for any type of parking are to reduce congestion, to reduce personal CO2 emissions, or to maintain parking availability. We don't really contribute to congestion. If you put all the car drivers stuck in morning traffic along Old Hut Road onto mopeds instead, you'd pretty much eliminate the traffic jam entirely. Our emissions are very low. I use $10 worth of petrol a fortnight, and that time I drive about 200 kilometres to and from work. I live in Kandala, for context. It's a 10 kilometre commute. And parking availability isn't really an issue for us. If one of the moped or motorbike parks in town is full, I just go around the block to the next one. I've got a mind map of where they all are, and there's always a park if you look hard enough. So that's my first point. My second point is that if the horse has already bolted and the council is going to charge for motorbike or moped paid parking, then I'd implore you to set a low hourly rate or a low flat rate for the day. So if you were to set the charge at, say, $1 per hour, then that's going to cost me $9 to $10 per day to park in town just for the purpose of going to work. That's about the same price as catching the train to and from Kandala. That's $9 per day with a Snapper card. So my most attractive option I'm just speaking personally, I think that's the most useful submission I can give to you, is my best option becomes to drive into work and park at Sky Stadium. If my girlfriend and I drive into work together, that's $17 a day, that's $8.50 per day, and I get to sit in my warm air-conditioned car. So, as I say, if you charge me $1 per day, then I don't think you'll be achieving anything good for the city. You're going to take me off my moped, probably put me into my car, increase emissions, increase congestion. I don't think that's something the council is trying to achieve. The other behaviour change that I think could result is that I'll be encouraged to work from home. At the moment, I come into town every day for work because I like being in the office and I'm more productive. If you're charging $9 to $10 per day for parking, then I'm likely to try to work from home 1 to 2 days a week. Days per week. And I also don't think this is a behaviour change that the council is trying to drive. So just to sum up, if you're going to charge for moped or motorbike parking, then I'd suggest you set it at less than $3 or $4 per day, whether that's through the hourly charge or whether that's through a flat rate for the day. Otherwise, I think you're creating perverse incentives for people like me to drive my car to work or work from home more often. Those are my submissions.

Okay, thank you. We do have some questions. I think I've got Councillor McNulty, Councillor Chung, and we'll see after that.

So Councillor McNulty. Yeah, just after, you know, what does that $45 a week that you would not be spending otherwise, you know, really represent for you in your current budgetary state?

Probably things like luxury groceries, leisure activities like going rock climbing or going out for dinner, things like that. Yeah, if I'm honest, you know, I have a good job, so it's not like it's the difference between being able to afford food or defaulting on rent payments. It's just extra money out of my pocket, and I suspect extra money out of the pockets of people who are actually in a position where if you add $45 per week to their sort of baseline cost of living in Wellington, it is going to have a big effect on them.

Thank you. Councillor Chung.

Great, thanks very much for coming in. I'd like to ask you about having a lower daily charge. Do you agree with an earlier submitter that said that most people who bring bikes in are actually in those parks all day, so they're less likely to be like cars, where cars will come in and stay for a short time, then they move out, so there'll be a turnover? What's your view on that?

I can only speak to, I guess, my experience, but yeah, I drive into work. I park it in the park closest to my work if that's available, and I'm there for about 10 hours until I drive home.

Okay, thank you. That's useful, and thank you for coming. Thank you. We are out of time. Cool. Thank you very much. Thanks very much. Now, Tim Kendall. Got Mr Kendall? Welcome. You're either at the podium or at the desk, whatever you're more comfortable with. Table, whatever you're more common—

comfortable with. Opportunity to stand at a podium very often.

Over to you, you have 5 minutes.

Um, like the previous speaker or submitter, I have not done this before. Uh, I'm actually surprised to be here because when I read about this proposal and I looked at the council documents where the strategic traffic plan is to reduce congestion I thought, how did this proposal even make it past the first hurdle? All the international research will show that if you disincentivise, like charging, for a mode of transport that reduces congestion, you will drive the perverse incentives that our last speaker spoke about. So I don't even know how Council allowed this proposal to even make it to the stage, because it goes against your own strategy. Secondly, we're meant to live in a democracy. I can find no evidence on any webs or blog sites or anything else that the public want this. I did find on a council document that it's about equity. Car drivers pay to park their car, therefore scooter riders should pay to ride their scooter. Given the council has invested millions of dollars for people like me who commute by pushbike, not all the time, mainly I run, but sometimes I ride pushbike, which costs— from which there is no revenue gained. Clearly the council cares nothing for equity or user pays, so claiming that user pays for scooter riders is inconsistent at best. But my main point is the overwhelming majority of people who ride scooters scooters or motorbikes to work in Wellington are the young and the low-paid, the people who can least afford it. It has no impact on people like me because if I did choose to drive a car or ride a motorbike to work, I would park in my organisation's car park that is provided. The people who can afford to pay this won't pay it because we don't. This is just one more stab at our youth and our low-paid. And given how hard life is for them at the moment, and I'm sure you're all familiar with The Salvation Army's State of the Nation that came out last week, given what rent's doing to those people, given what food costs have done to those people, you know, the old middle-class people, we're not riding scooters. The people who can afford to pay this are not riding scooters. We look at this from a social equity point of view, there are few things the council could do that would send a stronger signal to our young and low-paid that we don't care about them at all and don't mind making their life harder than doing this. And I don't want to hear from anyone questions about cycling. If you don't work in a place that is a safe place to to lock your bike up, and you don't work in a place that has showers when you get to work, or if you're like me and live in Brooklyn and you're not reasonably fit, cycling is not an option. Also, in the decades that I've cycled in Wellington, the wind is the biggest danger, not the traffic. So I advocate strongly, if you look at any of the research, and all council proposals like this should be research-based, and this one clearly is not. All council proposals should be consistent with your overall strategies, and this one clearly is not. But mainly, if you just want to dump on the young and the poor one more time, charge them to park their scooter.

Thank you. Now, do we have questions? Councillor Chung.

Thanks so much for coming in. I, um, Just thinking about how the young and the lower paid people travel to work, do you think that would be an option for them to take public transport or do you think that there's compelling reasons for bringing their own bike?

Look, none of my kids even live in Wellington anymore, but when they were at high school, first had jobs at Vic, 3 out of 4 of them use scooters. The public transport's unreliable, it quite often has nothing to do with lecture times, when they're juggling lectures with part-time jobs, public transport's not really an option. Or if it is, they have to build another couple of hours into their day to sit on the bus. And particularly, the nearest bus stop to my house, even though I live in within 3 k's of the CBD is a kilometre from my house. So then you've got the weather, so public transport, great in theory, but for kids with part-time jobs or parents who've got kids in childcare and they have to be there on time to pick them up, you'd be a brave person to risk our public transport.

Okay, well, thank you very much, Tim. It's appreciated. Thank you. Travis. Yeah. Welcome. Oh yeah, okay. Yeah, no, actually—

I've brought a him to here too.

Sorry, this isn't your fault. That's—

sorry, we'll just need to adjourn. I didn't know that we were going to have, um, Councillor Abdurahman leave.

He said he was going to be back in a second.

He says he's going to be back after the adjournment. Sorry about that. Right, so you do have somebody else listening and I trust that Councillor Abdurahman won't be very long. And it is recorded on YouTube. So we'll carry on.

Thank you, Travis. Hi, so I'm Travis Wootton. So my phone just died so I just lost my speech there, but anyway, so The people that this is going to affect the most is obviously the poor and the students of our community. Being a motorcycle rider, it's one of the most dangerous forms of transportation. I pay $540 a year for just even for registration. To put on parking on I think the people that don't have the money for this, that aren't going to be able to pay that money, I think it's going to affect the most. We're usually quite courteous in the sense that if you get a motorcycle and you can't find the designated ones around, we'll get 7 to 10 bikes in a park, no problem. And I feel like, me, myself, if I'm going to get the option of charging a motorcycle, which is, soaking wet before 8 o'clock this morning. I'm fortunate enough, I'm gonna be able to take my car, but I'm gonna choose to take a car, take up that car space, have far more emissions. I think I get less than 2 litres for 100 kilometres from my motorbike. Put that into my V8 car, it lasts me just down the road. So, it's incomparable. In the sense of car versus motorcycle. Yeah, the amount of bikes we fit in the park, being able to zip in and out, as you say, I said before, uni students, they've got a lecture on here, it's so easy to, even just increasing time, you know, 10 minutes to get on a bike, get in somewhere, get what you need to be done and then out of there, it's quicker than being able to go to the pay machine and put your money in to pay for the Blindie Park. And in a lot of cases, like, the amount of things I just zip in and out and quick, you know, picked up something yesterday that was probably, you know, worth car ride, but the fact that I could just get in there, get outside the front door, literally put it on my bike and get going, I was home within 12 minutes. So anyway. So we do have We do have some questions.

Yeah, brilliant. So my question is, how are you finding the availability of car parking? I'm just interested to know what the current situation is. For like the designated? In the CBD, in the CBD, because that's where we're talking about the changes.

Well, are you taking as well full car parks or just the ones that are designated for like bikes at the moment?

Well, I'm just saying when you ride your bike, how easy is it to find a park?

If I'm just zipping in and out of somewhere and the parking wardens are very firm on this now, but we used to just go in behind someone, a small car park, we'd slip in behind them and be gone by the time they even got back to the car. And we never do it in a way that cars can't move, there's plenty of room, say, so I would take that park if there was no bigger park. In fact, I would usually even slip in behind a car to leave that car park open for another car to come in. I wouldn't come in and take a full car park. I'd find myself between two small cars, find myself a park that's not going to interrupt anyone else and leave that car park for someone else. So I think, yeah, most motorcyclists are quite courteous in that sense.

In terms of the actual designated car parking bays, how do you find them? Car parking bays? Oh, sorry, motorcycle parking bays.

They are jam-packed, so you know, they are jam-packed, so depending on the time of day, but I find them very handy, but yeah, they are—

we use them. Okay, cool. Now I think there were some other questions. I saw someone's hand. Was it— okay, Councillor McNulty and then Councillor Chung.

Yeah, just with what you're saying about them being jam-packed, if there was a better level of service, let's say more of them made available, would that then justify some type of charging in your view?

I think the charging would be so prohibitive on the people that rely on, as you say, students and like I just came from, I was getting my bike warranted and it's from a scooter place and you just see the amount of students and that they rely on. I think that even a small charge on students and a thing that when they're paying $500 for registration to begin with, it's just beyond ridiculous, you know. I'm too scared to use our ACCC for any problems that arise from a motorcycle riding 'cause I don't want to increase my bloody levies anymore. It's just, it's too hard. Yeah.

Okay, thank you. And that's Councillor Chung.

Great, thanks, Travis. Now, you're a little bit, sorry, from what you've described, you're a little bit different to the usual motorbike rider that you don't use the bike park for all-day parking, but you quite frequently go in and out of other parks. So is that Is that your usual way of getting around or do you actually park in those long-term? Because our thinking is that it would actually increase the number of bike parks if people came in and out if they had to pay. Do you agree with that?

Yes and no. I just think that the people that you're going to affect by having those charges are the people that aren't as fortunate as me, which is I don't think it's fair. I'm fortunate and I'll come and I'll leave my diesel car, you know, petrol car running in the day just to make spite of it. But I think, yeah, the people that you're going to affect are the people that need the most help in our community.

Okay, thank you, Travis. We've run out of time unfortunately, but thank you very much. So we've got Keith online. Welcome, Keith. Now, we can't hear you just at the minute, so I might have to try and do something about that. Does that help? Oh, we can now. Thank you. Okay. Keith, it's 5 minutes and that does need to include questions, and I'll give you a little bit of a heads up when you're getting towards that time.

Yeah, no worries. I've just made some notes quickly. I'm just going to run through my notes. I think should only take me 2 or 3 minutes.

Turn up your volume a little bit. Or maybe we'll just try and get you a little bit louder.

Have you? I mean, I think I can't do that on my end.

No, we're trying at our end. We can hear you, but it's not terribly loud.

So you want me to shout?

Oh, that's come right now. That's come right. No, you're full volume now. Away you go.

Okay, great. So I suppose a bit of a backstory to myself. I moved here from the UK. I've motorcycled in London, for instance, commuting to London. I moved here in 2013. Wellington has changed a huge amount since I arrived. I remember one of the things that struck me about Wellington was that it was a very welcoming, open place, very easy to move around, very easy to park. And times like from Friday nights through to Sunday, it was actually free to park around the city then. It was such a welcome you know, a breath of fresh air. It was amazing. These days it's much, much harder to park. Generally, car owners feel very alienated already. Parking fees are only going up and up, and there's never any free parking anymore. It kind of feels like everyone's being pushed onto a bus or a bicycle, but without really factoring that that isn't workable for everyone, and external factors such as the Wellington weather make things like riding a bicycle, for instance, impossible for portions of the year. It now kind of feels like motorcyclists are being targeted as the next kind of revenue stream instead really of being considered as a crucial part of the solution to Wellington's bigger traffic problem. I did a bit of research. Cars are very inefficient at moving people around, average of 1.4 people per car typically, and a study presented to the ACEM in the 2012 conference in Brussels found if just 10% of private cars were replaced by motorcycles, time losses for all vehicles decreased by 40% and emissions reduced by 6%. I feel like Wellington should be supporting motorcycle use and increasing the cost by parking, as we're discussing, on this niche market who already pay over the top through things like ACC, which I'm sure has already been brought up and you guys are familiar with what's being proposed. It doesn't send the right message or attract motorcyclists, it's pushing more of them away. There are many examples of thriving cities throughout the world with populations who far exceed Wellington who do not charge for motorcycle parking. And if they wanted to make a quick buck, it would be very easy for them to do so. Just 3 examples which come to mind are London, Barcelona, and Amsterdam. I have personal experience of commuting into London where it's very easy to move around, park, and bikes aren't charged. You know, they're cities that are very aware that motorcycle numbers need to be maximised and they're part of the solution not a problem or a cash cow to be milked. Personally, I actually live up the coast now in Kapiti, and I've lived up here since 2019, but I organised the Wellington Tattoo Convention, so I frequently have reason to come back to the city, and already I will only visit if I can ride a motorcycle because driving around the city has just become prohibitive. And if you were to charge for motorcycle parking, it would pretty much put me off It's supposed to be a cheap form of transport for people to get around, and that just adds to that cost which is ever rising for motorcycle use. Crucially, many people who would feel similar to myself are actual tourists and day visitors. Wellington can be a lovely place to visit on a nice day, but the city is already struggling. Many people describe it as dying at the moment. Businesses are moving out. It's not doing well, and just adding more charges onto people who would be visiting just pushes them away. They will choose other options as opposed to pay money. Money's tight for a lot of people. I think what it comes down to, and sometimes people don't consider, is like, yep, you could charge for motorcycle parking in Wellington, but at the end of the day, just because you can doesn't mean that you should.

And that's me. Thank you. We do have time for questions. We have one from Councillor Randall. Yes, in terms of your experience, I've got two parts to the question.

One is how much do you motorcycle because of the lower cost versus the time convenience?

And, you know, why don't you bicycle?

Why don't I bicycle? I suppose to ride a bicycle.

Why don't you use a bicycle instead of a motorbike or a scooter?

Well, I mean, I suppose there are two angles from that. To ride a bicycle from Karpaty to Wellington is quite a distance and really quite prohibitive. Yeah. I mean, I'm kind of fit, but I wouldn't do that for, you know, for pleasure.

And the first question was about—

when I lived in Wellington, I wouldn't cycle to get around, and there are a number of reasons for that. Because the motorcycle's quicker, yes, it's cheaper, and parking, you know, you can usually find somewhere to park, which has become a lot, lot harder. But also, and I don't know if this has ever been considered, but for people who motorcycle regularly A lot of it is actually a mental health thing, and I think that needs to be considered, is that there are proven research and statistics that back up that motorcycling is very good for people's mental health, and a lot of people ride because of that. And that's one reason why I would ride for a journey, is because it gives me that time and space to, I suppose, be by myself and with my thoughts and process things. And even if it's a— when it was in Wenting, it could have been just the 10-15 minute ride somewhere because you know you get that enjoyment and that time and that quality mental health side of things. That's one of the reasons why I would ride. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. We have actually run out of time. There was a second part to the question but I don't think we've quite got time for it. But thank you, Keith. That's been very useful and that— Thank you very much. —personal experience and all that information has been useful. Thank you. Thank you. George. Welcome. Thank you, good morning.

Thank you for having me. So I just want to touch on sort of the impacts of the current proposal as it stands. You're instantly providing less incentive for people to come into the CBD, instantly. You're adding $40 to $50 per week onto users of motorbike parking at the moment. That's going to lead to further strain on on local businesses and people looking for staff as well. There's an added cost of bringing staff in because they have to pay for their parking, excuse me. It also increases the likelihood of people driving in private vehicles because the trade-off has now become swung in favour towards private vehicles, which increases congestion. The high transaction costs of hourly paying increases wastage and loses productivity for workers within the CBD. And also, the proposal has no regard for the use of electric motorbikes and electric scooters, which are going to be— they have a great ability to advance our efforts in decarbonisation. I suppose one of the noted reasons for bringing in these charges, and you've touched on it today, is that the dedicated motorcycle parking areas are at capacity in the central city. That you've sold that as a problem rather than an absolute opportunity. If they're being used, it means people are coming into the CBD and are using the CBD. They're coming in, they're spending money, they're working, they're using the services. Typically, a CBD car park is about 6 meters long. Conservatively, you can fit 1.5 motorbikes per meter, so that's 9 motorbikes per car park. If you are saying that the dedicated motorbike car parks are at capacity, surely a better approach would actually be to open up up a couple more car parks because instead of fitting 1 car, you can fit 9 bikes. That's 9 more vehicles coming into the CBD that aren't chewing up space on the roads but are bringing in revenue into the CBD. My concern is that the long-term plan is kind of set on charging motorbikes. It sounded like you've kind of come to a conclusion, you reduce it from $2.50 an hour, which is astronomical, that is absolutely crazy, to $1 an hour because that sounds palatable. A dollar an hour for someone that comes into the CBD can work out to being $10 to $12 for the day if they're working there for a 12-hour stint. You know, you see the charging's gonna be 8 AM to 8 PM. People work those sort of shifts in retail and in hospitality. You can get an undercover car park at a Wilson car park for $19.50 a day. So, the trade-off there for an extra $7 is undercar secure car park for your private vehicle versus an on-street car park, on-street park for a tiny motorcycle. That trade-off makes zero sense to me, and I think if you're going to say that there is going to be charging come in, you need to make it more appropriate. You need to have it as a much more equal trade-off. A car park in Wellington is $5 an hour. For motorcycle car parks, you're basically going to be saying you're charging $9 an hour because you get 9 bikes at $1 an hour. At least, at the very least, that should be equal. My thinking is that a proposed solution, if you insist on charging motorcycle users for parking, I'm actually okay with that. User pays is a pretty common idea around the world. But we want to encourage people to come into the CBD. We want to encourage people to come in, spend their money, work, come in and buy coffees, buy lunches, that sort of thing. My solution is bringing in an annual motorbike parking permit. We have the infrastructure and technology in place. We have it with residential car parks. People have it all around all the suburbs. If you could have an annual charge for your motorbike, you slap a sticker on it and you pay it, so the council is still getting revenue from motorbike users, but actually the motorcycle users now are encouraged to come to the CBD to get value for money. They're encouraged to come in, buy their lunches, spend their money, work in the office, rather than saying, "Actually, for $50 a day, I might as well just work from home an extra day a week." So that's less people in the CBD, less more revenue for local businesses. It's my thinking.

Councillor McNulty.

Yeah, so if the revenue projections are accurate here, we're basically subsidising motorcycles to the tune of $1 million a year. I'm thinking about the fact that we subsidised Tarkina for $15 million a year. Do you have a view on which we're getting more bang for buck out of?

I just think people coming into the CBD is only a good thing, and if you're reducing congestion and you're doing it in an efficient manner, we should be doing it.

Okay, we've got a couple more questions, we'll keep them brief. We've got Councillor Chung and Councillor Randall. Thanks very much, George.

I'm really interested in your idea about annual parking charges. Do you know if this has been implemented anywhere in the world?

No, I only know it in Wellington because I had a car park just on Ascot Street when I lived there, and I had to pay, it was $150 for the year, and my car could be parked there and I could use it all the time. I'd figure We want all the infrastructure in place, the technology in place, why can't we do it for motorbikes?

Thanks very much, I will look into that. And the last one will be Councillor Randall. You mentioned the alternative is to have a car in a secure car park.

Do you think if the Council are going to charge for motorcycle parking that we'll maybe have some obligation to also provide some better security? Not at all.

I mean, you don't do it for car parks on the street at the moment. There's no obligation, you don't provide security for parked cars, and they pay their charges. One thing I would note though is that if you bring in the proposal, at the moment I've talked to people at work, a lot of people ride their motorbikes, actually for $20 a day, we will just pull in and go in on that. Why don't we get a private car park for just 5 of us at work, buy a private car park, you know, $4 a day for each of us, and we can just have it undercover, paying a private provider to park our bikes in their car park, and in one car park space you can easily fit 5 bikes. Bikes, that's going to be a lot cheaper than what you've proposed and it's undercover.

That's a very good point actually. Thank you very much.

You've given us a bit to think about there. Thanks, George. Thank you. Alright, Tony Henderson-Newton, welcome.

Firstly, thanks for allowing me to talk. Tēnā koutou katoa, kō Tony Henderson-Newton. Toko ingoa ki te nohau au ki Whanganui-a-Tara. So as context, I am self-employed. I've recently had to close a business due to some economic climate stuff. I'm also a superannuitant, and my sole form of transport is a motor scooter, which allows me to navigate the city affordably and efficiently, So, in speaking to the submission, my perspective is shaped by the concerns about city access, affordability, and the support of existing city infrastructure and environmental stability. So, firstly, let's deal with economic impact on everyday Kiwis. Motorcycles and scooters are more than just vehicles. They are lifelines for countless individuals in our community, from the barista who wakes up before dawn to serve your morning coffee, coffee to students juggling part-time work and studies. These two-wheeled companions offer an affordable and efficient means of navigating our bustling city. Introducing a $1 an hour parking fee as proposed equates to approximately $45 a week for someone working a standard 9 to 5. For many, this is not a mere inconvenience, and for— as a superannuitant, I can echo a significant more burden than, and would force a reconsideration of transport and other things including employment opportunities. Just keeping a job with that extra cost is suddenly you have to change. Hmm. Our city has long prided itself on its commitment to environmental sustainability. Motorcycles and scooters play a pivotal role in this mission by producing fewer emissions and occupying less space on roads. And I've listened to a few people this morning echoing that sentiment. They elevate congestion, making commutes smoother for everyone. Discouraging their use through parking fees is, I believe, counterproductive. It may push riders back into cars, increasing traffic woes, carbon footprints, and this starkly contrasts with our city's vision of a greener, more sustainable future. The strain on our local businesses is something that's worth thinking about too. The heartbeat of Wellington lies in its local businesses—corner cafes, boutique shops, family-owned stores—that give our city its unique charm. Many of these establishments rely heavily on patronage and motorcyclists who find it convenient to stop by due to current free parking provisions. Introducing fees would deter these regular customers absolutely forces a change in behaviour and leading to decreased foot traffic, possibly subsequently revenue. In a time when businesses are still recovering from the impacts of global challenges, this proposal could be a blow from which many might not recover, and I'm an example of that. Enforcement and practicality issues. Implementing and enforcing this parking fee presents a myriad of challenges. Unlike cars, cars, motorcycles do lack secure compartments. If there are parking tickets, increasing risk of theft or damage, while the council may argue that existing enforcement systems such as number plate recognition or digital monitoring will streamline the process, this does not justify the introduction of fees. The reduced need for traditional ticketing systems would result in lower enforcement costs, meaning that even less rationale for imposing additional financial burdens on motorcycle cyclists further. The reliance on automated enforcement could lead to errors, ticketing disputes over fines, and overall increase in administrative complexity. I think you guys already know about that. The cost of setting up and maintaining these digital enforcement mechanisms could further diminish any projected revenue gains from parking fees, making the entire scheme more efficient. So in conclusion, while the pursuit of additional revenue While marking consistency is understandable, I believe we must weigh these against the adverse effects on our community. The proposal stands disproportionately impact hardworking Wellingtonians, I believe, contradict our environmental goals and place unnecessary strain on local businesses. So, the implore is that you reconsider this approach that does not necessarily penalise those who are contributing positively to our city's fabric. Nā mihi nui ki te aktena koutou katoa.

Thank you for your time. Thank you, Tony. I know we've had some contact in the past. We have.

I recognise a couple of people at this table straight off the bat.

So I just want to ask you a question. Like, if we did have to go ahead with some kind of charging regime, there have been some suggestions of a capped daily charge and a suggestion of an annual motorbike permit. Do you have any comment on either of those?

So if you're thinking about affordability to justify, then I'm pretty much always going back to the students as an example. Victoria University, Massey University bring in a huge amount of motorcyclists every year. They tramp the city, they motor around the city, and I know that unless the universities stump up the money, nobody's going to pay for them. And I also, from the work that I've been fortunate to do with Victoria University in the past, I know that the students are just struggling for money. So I'm a superannuitant, I use a scooter, right? I love getting around the city. To be fair, that annual fee made me think a little bit around what that might mean. But if you were looking at recouping a dollar a day for a year, not necessarily the weekends, for a year, then what does that mean? Also, as a Gold Card player, I can access buses, I can access trains, I can bring my scooter into the city, I can shop, I can— I have a freedom. But how many other superannuitants like me have actually been here to talk about the fact that they also use scooters and suddenly there's an imposition of cost that wasn't there before? And how does that change our behaviours? I think the main argument I have for you today is to think about the behaviour change that's going to occur if it is a introduced and what does that mean for the various elements of the city. Sorry, longer answer than I intended. That's fine.

Thank you, Tony. We have run out of time, but thank you for everything you contributed.

Good to see you guys. To our discussion.

Thank you. Alright, we will have morning tea. We are running a tiny bit behind. We will resume at 10:45. Maybe we'll make that 10:50. Just so we can actually have a break. Okay, thank you. we're just starting up again. We're 5 minutes behind. But we will get started with Brendan if he's here. Um, Brendan, the rule is that you have 5 minutes and that needs to include questions. Over to you.

Good morning. Um, so my name is Brendan. I appear here to oppose the proposal. So the proposal for paid parking is contradictory to the long-term plan strategic priorities to transform our transport system to move more people with fewer vehicles. A livable and accessible city must also be inclusive of motorcycles and mopeds, which are affordable to buy, use, and maintain. As a comparison, we can look to the City of Melbourne's Transport Plan, uh, Strategy 2030, which sets out their similar long-term vision that will see more space for pedestrians, cyclists, and emissions reductions. The strategy plans to add 300 more free on-street motorcycle parking bays and increase off-street options, reducing the need for footpath parking. This is part of a broader effort to ease congestion in busy areas and encourage walking, cycling, and car sharing. Motorcycles and mopeds use less road space, reducing congestion. Wellington's annual parking report shows occupancy is below the 70 to 80% target. Meaning the city already has spare capacity. Lower occupancy has also led to reduced infringement revenue, suggesting enforcement-driven revenue models are unsustainable. The focus on revenue generation through infringement fees is likely a significant, significant factor in only 46% of residents perceiving parking enforcement as fair. The pricing has been set by comparison to rates for car parking, at $5 an hour, not market rates for motorcycle parking. Metering revenue was estimated to be $737,000 at $2.50 per hour. At $1 per hour, this can be adjusted to $294,800 of metering revenue. Option 2 in Table 1 of the motorcycle metered parking report, uh, estimates total, total revenue to be $1 million $94,980. To me, this implies a heavy reliance on infringement fees to generate revenue, an approach that is financially uncertain as fees may be successfully appealed. Motorcycle and moped riders may seek to minimise that cost and the risk by using private parking options. Depending on the circumstances of the commuter, private options range from about $16 per week for for a secure and dedicated car park for a motor— sorry, not a car park, motorcycle park, or $40 per month for dead space parking at Wilson Parking, where they don't allocate you a space but you can park anywhere within the building that is not going to obstruct the traffic. The financial benefits are quite uncertain and will be impacted by competition, reduced demand, and cost to deliver the proposal, weather conditions, enforcement expenditure, and ongoing transaction fees, to name a few. Uh, the emissions reduction target is 57% of 2020 emissions by 2030. Motorcycles and mopeds are key components in this strategy. Rather than forcing a shift to walking, cycling, or public transport, options which may not suit all commuters, the council should support a balanced transport system that includes motorcycles and mopeds as a low emission alternative. Over 3 years, $52 million has been spent on cycleways, equating to about $642 per household. Yet cyclists contribute only through general rates and taxes. In contrast, maintaining a free motorcycle parking would only cost just about $3.64— sorry, $3.64 per household in foregone revenue— metering revenue. If Equity is a guiding principle. Motorcycles should receive similar consideration. Rates are the most appropriate funding method given the low revenue being discussed here. Free motorcycle parking has shown value for money and high popularity. Implementing paid motorcycle parking goes against the strategic priorities of the long-term plan and could harm economic, social, and environmental goals. I urge the committee to reject this proposal and instead recognize value motorcycles bring to an accessible, inclusive, and livable city. Retaining free motorcycle parking is a small investment with significant economic, social, and environmental benefits. That concludes my submission.

Councillor Randall has a question. Yes, I'm looking at what we're proposing. Do you see this proposal as part of a wider transport management plan or just a money grab from from people who aren't.

I think there's a contradiction that we have a wider transport plan, but this is contradictory with it. If you wish to have a more sustainable city and move to a lower emissions transport model and better use the resources that are available to you and allocate them, so that's parking and throughput on the highways, motorways, and streets, then it's quite contradictory So you're sort of saying we want people to cycle, walk, or take public transport, which is great, that's an ideal to aim for, but you shouldn't be forceful about saying you must use these options. And it doesn't recognize that people have a varying circumstance. For example, when I lived in Wainuiomata, you can't take a cycle over the hill then sort of commute from there. It's much more factored in. It's difficult to simply drive a motorcycle the whole way. Thank you, Brendan.

We've run out of time, but thank you very much for coming and for answering that question. We'll move to Sean. Kia ora koutou.

For context, I ride a 100cc scooter to work from the eastern suburbs to the Terrace. Park just down the road there. I do that because my door-to-desk time of doing that is 15 to 20 minutes. If I was to catch the local bus, it's 45 minutes to an hour. That doesn't work for me. At my parking location, I would estimate that over 90% of people are commuters like me who ride to work and park for between 6 6 to 10 hours a day. These are the people who use motorbike car parks in the city. And I emphasise that point because reading the documents, the whole framework seemed to be that commuter parking for motorbikes on street is bad and is to be discouraged, and we want to free the spaces up for short-term parking. But, but to me, that's the lens that works for on-street car parking, but it doesn't translate to on-street motorbike parking where 90% of people are commuters. Car commuters, people who drive in and park for 6 to 10 hours a day, have private car parking buildings as their available and preferred option. You cannot park on a— on the street for 6 to 10 hours a day. The rules don't prohibit it. Don't allow it, and, and the pricing doesn't work for it. So I can have a private car park in one of the buildings down the road for $20 a day, that, that, that's the car commuter option, and then this proposal is saying to me, who rides a little scooter in, we're going to charge you $8 to $10 a day. That, that to me just doesn't make sense. The base case at the moment in Wellington is that you have a few hundred people commuting to work by motorbike every day. The question is, where do we park and, and what should we pay for it? And the question for Council, in my mind, is whether the Council wants to encourage people to commute by motorbike or scooter, or discourage that, because the current proposals are clearly going to discourage that, and as the paperwork acknowledges, will drive people to evaluate and change their transport options. From a congestion and emissions point of view, motorcycle commuting is fantastic and should, in my view, be encouraged. My scooter, for example, uses less than 10% of the petrol that my car does and doesn't add to congestion, very similar to an e-bike. Like in that regard. If these charges were brought in, me and many other people will not shift to buses because it isn't practical. We will shift to cars. If you close the pricing gap from $0 to $20 a day to $10 to $20 a day, it makes the marginal cost of driving a car and parking much less. That's where the majority of people will go. Won't be to buses. The pricing model, it seems to me, is based on the comparison being short-term on-street car parking, as the previous submitter said, $5 an hour. But again, that's not the right comparison. The right comparison should be what do car users pay for 6 to 10 hours a day? They pay $20 a day, take up more space, add to congestion, all those things. Little motorbike, you're trying to bring in $8 to $10 a day? Doesn't make sense. As I said before, if I was forced to pay $8 to $10 a day, I would move to driving. I wouldn't move to a bus.

The—

yeah, on that point, the paperwork also said that in respect of a cap, a $1 an hour— at $1 an hour, the fee cap does not significantly impact the maximum daily cost for a user. That's, uh, in my view, rubbish. A $5 cap, for example, would halve the cost. It'd go from $10 to $5. That's $50 a week down to $25 a week. That's a significant change. So in my view, a cap at $5 a day would still allow people to commute and to change that decision-making. Obviously, the first preference is to keep it as is, and in my submissions, for more off-street parking for motorcyclists like exists over at Aitken Street by the Court of Appeal, where there's a big space off-street for motorcyclists to park for free, and that would not be captured in your proposal.

Thank you. I'm just going to slip a very quick question in. I think the last submitter said you could get parking for $16 a week. Would you have any information about private options? Motorcyclist parking? Paid options?

I've never explored it. No, no. I haven't had to.

Okay, thank you. I might get if we can just manage to find somebody who can give us, or maybe our staff will later be able to give us that information. But thank you very much for your submission. All right, we've unfortunately run out of time for that and we need to move to the next submitter who is Richard. Richard, welcome. Kia ora. Kia ora. Kia ora. Kia ora. Kia ora. Kia ora.

Very much. First of all, I want to thank the Committee for their service in administering this, obviously officials also, and for the participatory democracy element of being able to speak to this topic. I commend the committee to take as read the points that my previous colleagues, fellow citizens have offered you. Those aspects of policy and practicality apply as much to me, although I have a 150-kilometre commute to the city. Uh, the single point I really want to emphasise is that if the council is to implement a paid parking requirement for motorcycles, the impact that arbitrarily removing motorcycle parks from the pool available— that business approach needs to be addressed if you're offering a service for a fee, then there needs to be a business-like approach with respect to not making it quite changeable where parks are available and not. So the number of times that I've come into the city expecting to park at a particular place and discover that there's construction machinery there or that there's a bicycle lane been imposed on it with no notice and no warning. So I think I understand the ship has sailed that there will be some sort of charge. I may be wrong about that, but whatever the price you set, I commend to the committee that you need to consider the business approach to what you're offering and make sure that the service is professional and available and predictable for those who are going to take it.

I'll leave it at that. Thank you. I'll just ask, do you ride a motorbike yourself?

I do. I commute Mondays and Fridays to and from the provinces, 150 kilometres, and stay in a flat down here.

And are you currently parking on the street or—?

So when a park is available, I'll park at the building I work in on the Monday and on the Friday, but I park in a block of flats during the middle of the week. So it just saves a half hour to walk back to my accommodation to pick up the bike at either end of the working week. So during the weekday, I'm a pedestrian commuter.

Okay, okay. I did see someone else's hand. Councillor Chung. Thanks very much, Richard.

Would you consider other options of coming in to work rather than going on the bike? Like, would you consider looking at public transport as being convenient or as convenient, or what's the reason for actually riding a bike?

So the last time I caught the Capital Connection, it got me as far as Paraparawumu, and then I was on my own. I can't afford the unreliability with the work that I do to commit commit myself to a public transport option that's unreliable. But maybe to add as well, I've cycled for 15 years in other countries, major cities, and an injury to my knee as a cyclist meant that I took a powered two-wheel option. So I'm not a sort of a dyed-in-the-wool biker from youth. I'm a lapsed cyclist. Okay. Can I ask one more?

Right. So would you compare riding a bike into Wellington or driving a car? How would you compare the two options? Would it be cost or convenience, or why would you actually choose one or the other?

So I know that if I'm taking the bike, the journey will take between 1.5 and 1.75 hours, every time I ride. If I take a car, it'll take between 1.25 and 3 hours. So the variability of that isn't something I can afford with the commitments I've got.

Excellent, thank you. I do have another question I did ask somebody else. There's been various suggestions if we did have to charge, you know, what might work over and above $1 an hour. Do you have a view on a sort of a daily cap versus annual fee?

Well, I guess I know that I'm going to be commuting every week. I know that I'll be parking one day a week at least. If that was a fixed thing that I paid at the beginning of the year, like a 10-trip ticket for the railway station, that might be a practical outcome. But I guess I'd like to emphasise the idea that there— it's really difficult to find a park unless you come in really early. And there's that variability of whether a park will actually be available or not that makes it quite vulnerable to, you know, an undelivered business option that—

Mm. So you're saying consistency of availability, if you're gonna start that kind of regime, would be important.

Which is the challenge with all of the transport options. And just to sort of go back briefly to your question, I come from a deep conservation background in the 1970s and '80s, and so riding a Euro 6 specified motorcycle when I've got such a long commute, that feels to me like the least footprint I can— and then being a pedestrian during the week, that feels like the least footprint that I can offer to do the work that I do.

Okay, thank you. We're unfortunately out of time. Thanks very much. We will move to Hohepa Te Aroha. Welcome. No, he's not here. Okay, so Dean Riddell. Thank you and welcome, Dean. And you probably noticed that's a 5-minute time slot which needs to be able to include questions if you'd like them.

Oh, PowerPoint's up there.

Okay.

You okay with that?

We are, thank you.

Okay, so my name's Dean Riddell, 50 years of motorcycle riding experience, 42 of them in Wellington City. The last 5 years as a delivery motorcycle delivery driver, which some of you have met either on the streets or in your homes. Currently I do about 1,000 k's a week around Wellington City, and I just added there that I have previous experience as a property consultant advising to Council, so going through this and previous chief executives. Firstly, I want to just point out the major contributors of motorcycles reducing traffic congestion. Sorry, before I go, my submission is conditional agreement, but it's slightly conditional. So improving traffic flows, reducing emissions, significant less demand on the infrastructure. And when it comes to delivery drivers, specific issues around that is quick, efficient, and effective, as you those that have had your meals delivered by me know. The current situation is, the pros are it's a very economical option for motorcycle capable commuters. It's free. It's first in, first served, almost zero maintenance for policing tickets and stuff. The cons is that motorcycles can only park there. We can't park anywhere else. So no car parks even if we pay a full fee, a car park fee. Very limited turnover. Unreliable space availability, which has been mentioned, and inconsistent policing. The proposal, and my key point is the pros, is a bit of fairness, but I'm questioning the amount of fairness, whether the dollars are fair, as previous senators have. It is consistent with car park charges. It will encourage turnover and it will improve availability and policing will be a bit more consistent. The cons is it's likely to be unpopular and it's massively disproportionate to the likes of apartment owners and commuters. Apartment owners, they're likely to be up for about $4,000 a year. And commuters, full commuters, that's $2,000 a year, you know, on $1,000 Vespas kind of, or scooters, mopeds, it's a big number. I did some rough calculations, property guy, I reckon that a car park, a conventional car park can take about 7 to 8 cycles if we could run our own system of, you know, we could pay $5 and get us in there for $0.60. However, the more important point to me, and we've got examples right out this window of motorcycle spaces that are in places where are not suitable for cars. They're just rubbish space that can't be, you know, this one, big one down here, there's about 30 bikes in there, can't be used for car parks. So where's the fairness there? Just some other notes about the disproportionate— the disproportionality of motorcycles. We already pay 4 to 5 times the ACC levies because we're involved in so many accidents caused by cars. The difference between a moped and an electric bike, very fine line, about the same capability except for the fact that one carries a registration plate so it can be ticketed, the other one can't. And the other one that we need to watch is that the three-wheel bikes, they're actually cars, so they don't actually pay the full ACC levy and technically should be in a car park. That last— oh, who's— I think that's probably me.

Do we have a question? Yeah. I think it was Councillor Randall. Yeah. So just as a delivery person, can you not use the loading zones?

I talked about inconsistent policing. One thing I find on a— I have a good relationship with 90% of the parking wardens, but they're not consistent. Some of them will say move on, some of them will say say that's a good place to be. I have a constant stream of communication with them, as in for the tickets I do receive, because some of them I get off, some of them I don't. But it's a fine line. Most of them will say, yeah, you're fine, but others will whip me a ticket.

Thank you. And Councillor Chung.

Great, thanks very much, Chair. Interesting. Because you're coming in and going and parking in different spots, you know, many times during the day, how do you find the availability of the bike parks at the moment in the city?

Very weather dependent. A day like today where there's a bit of rain, there's thousands of them, or hundreds of spare car parks. On a sunny day, the place is full by 8 o'clock. So no consistency.

Great. Okay, thanks. No churn. So when you can't find a bike park, what do you do? Where do you go?

I look for wardens and create my own creative solutions. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I can't tell you what they are. No, no, no, no, don't let your secrets out. We've run out of time, but thank you very much.

Sorry, back to the loading zones. There's a bit of vigilantism to, you know, you have to fight with the trucks and the vans. They say, I'm not a trucker or a van. So they— I get threats and— Okay.

Thank you, Dean. That's very useful and helpful. And welcome to the Mayor as well and Councillor Rogers. Welcome back. We now invite up Peter, if he's here. Peter McKeefery? Online, maybe? Maybe we'll move in the interim to Stuart Hemphill, if he's here. No. Okay. Aidan. Aidan. Okay. Thank you, Aidan. Hi. And welcome.

Thank you for having me.

Yeah, I'm a motorcycle user and a citizen of Wellington. And I stand against the notion to charge for parking. I think outside of things being framed in a monetary way, motorcycle riders take a risk in terms of their life and limb. That's not articulated in money except for the ACC levy that we've paid. That's been stated before. Much of the previous arguments I support regarding keeping things as they are or improving them for motorcycle riders. And I also think that it reminds us that non-monetary means can be used for dealing with things like parking and sharing space, first in, first served, all the rest of it. Even sometimes there is no churn and there's difficulty, but usually you can find a space because it's just a slender piece of machinery.

I don't have much more to say than that. Okay, thank you. We've got a question from Councillor McNulty.

Hey, thanks for coming in, eh. I suppose one thing we have heard a bit of this morning is that lack of space is coming through. Do you think there would be some justification around charging if a far greater level of service was provided? That then, in your mind, support potentially some change in charging if we increase space, or—

Yeah, I just— I think it creates the precedent where the prices will only go up, and especially the $1 that's being suggested in the initial press release regarding this seems pedantic in my view. Like, it's a very small amount of money for what will be like a bit of business every time you stop your vehicle to get out and pay for the levy or whatever. Yeah, like the $400 a year in rego fees, like, seems to me to be like a monetary offering to the paying for the roads and all the logistics around that. But yeah, sorry.

Lechung.

Thanks very much for coming in, Aidan. Do you commute in every day?

No, no, I don't commute. I live in Newtown, but I I drive around and I love being able to just park my vehicle and not have to worry about— as long as I find a space and it doesn't get blown over in the wind, then there's no biggie.

Okay, great.

So how would you compare riding a bike into Wellington, or do you have the—

Sometimes I catch the bus, but I mean— oh, sorry, this is another big thing in terms of the council's push around the way encouraging the way its citizens to move around. Bus, bike, and foot isn't very helpful for when you're like doing a supply run at the supermarket and getting lots of stuff and you get all sweaty and, you know, the convenience of a motor is a valuable thing. So in order to be able to— a small one in order to, you know, not take up other people's space when they're loading their family wagons or whatever or anyway.

That's great. Thank you. Aidan, there's been a suggestion about perhaps if you did have to charge an annual fee to make it simple.

Perhaps if that was incorporated into the— when you pay for your rego every year or something. Yeah, yeah. If you're living in the city, because as opposed to living in Palmerston North or whatever, like that's represented somehow.

Yeah, that goes to a different agency, of course, that fee that you pay, you know, the ACCC levy and that sort of thing. Are you thinking that would be a workable solution if we had to charge, or would you still prefer the suggestion of you pay as you go sort of thing?

No, no, if there's a way to get around the whipping your wallet out every time you park, or maybe it's like the New York City congestion thing where they just— the camera reads the license plate and then charges the person and immediately said that you don't actually have to physically do all the business of paying for it. You just get charged by the camera when they see your rego plate. Okay. Yeah.

So there's kind of— the pay-as-you-go is kind of counteractive for a lot of motorbike— Pay-to-use. Pay-to-use is sort of— doesn't really fit with some motorcyclists' ways of doing things.

Right. Okay. Yeah. I understand we're all individuals and have our separate needs. I'm just here, like, speaking from my perspective as a motorcycle motorist. But yeah, like, to my mind, like, the motor going public, the people who use cars, like, they're a much more substantial burden upon everyone else than a humble motorbike. Okay.

Are there any last questions? Questions, one small question, or are we—? Thank you very much, Aidan. I think that's been really helpful. Thank you for coming. Right, we do have Rupert, I think. Rupert, we're running a little bit ahead of schedule, but if you're ready to come and speak to us, that would be wonderful. Absolutely. And you have 5 minutes, and that needs to include time for questions if you'd like it to.

Kia ora, I'm Rupert Ablett-Hampson. I've put in my submission that I support the proposal. I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of the proposal. I have put that I support the proposal on the basis that really it appeared to me that the decision to charge had been made in May last year and really the focus of the deliberations at this time were around the level of that fee and how they were charged. So that's where I really focus my attention. Really only have quite a discrete point, I suppose, to make, which is the way that the analysis is approached utilises the August 2020 parking policy. The issue is how that parking policy approaches motorcycle parking in the city. The policy allocates priority to, amongst other things, short-stay motorcycle and car parking. And it gives a lower priority, arguably the lowest priority if you're not a bus and a caravan, to commuter motorcycle and car parking. I mean, I think that's probably a category error, to be honest with you, to bundle the two of those together. And really, for many, many years, car parkers have accepted that there is not curbside commuter parking. In Wellington city. I've been living in Wellington since 1994, and I don't ever recall an expectation that I'd be able to park a commuter car at the— around town. And what's come up around that is car parking buildings, previously more run by the council, now more run by private private arrangements, and so those are available and there's car parking options. But that's not the case for motorcycle parking. There actually isn't that many motorcycle parking options available on a commuter basis. The analysis of the documentation reflects my experience with car parking. I think Aidan might have maybe shown that there are some other people, but most people seem to come in and they use their motorcycles for commuting and they park them up, they fill up before 9 o'clock and they empty out by 6 o'clock and they're there all day. Um, I accept that the strategy or the parking policy seems to want to not have that situation, But if that's the case, I think we need to have an option that's available for commuter motorcycle parking. There isn't, it seems to me, again Aidan might have negated this, there isn't a large demand for short-term parking from motorcycles. I think the evidence was in the report Port, where the timed parking in Lambton Quay is used much less than the commuter parking that is elsewhere. And so really, my submission is the exercise is what's a reasonable fee to charge. Commuter parking for cars around town, it varies of course, but like it goes from from like $18 up to $35 a day. But if we use a midpoint of about $25, and you say on average that the space occupied by commuter parking is about 5 motorcycles and scooters, then to me the right level is probably about $5 a day. And capping it to about $5 a day seems reasonable. The proposed daily rate here of $10, to me that probably is twice as expensive as parking a car in a commuting situation. In terms of when fees should be charged, the car park— the motorcycle parks are empty in the evenings and in the weekends. Well, not quite empty in the weekends, but it's very easy to find a park. So, I don't know. I kind of want to encourage people to get in. I've not got any strong views on that, to be honest with you. But I do think that capping the fee at $5 would be an appropriate approach, and that's really my submission to you.

Thank you. A quick question from Councillor McNulty. Thanks, Rupert.

The decision, as you alluded to, was initially made in May last year to reduce the parking looking, this committee won't vote until April this year. That's almost a year. Do you think it may be appropriate for the committee to revisit the decision given economic conditions and the wider economic environment in Wellington between those decision points?

I mean, I would say primarily yes, but you've got lots of submissions from motorcyclists who would rather not pay. I mean, I don't think anyone would rather pay for the utility they've had for free for a long period of time. Look, I wouldn't strongly advocate it, to be honest with you. Probably the direction was set and the situation in terms of choices that are being made around Wellington for services, you know, kind of you can understand that the writing's on the wall.

Okay, thank you very much and we appreciate you coming. Lovely, thank you. Thank you. We are actually going to take a short break, well, 10 minutes to 15 minutes. We've had some people not turn up. Oh, okay. Okay, we'll take 10 minutes. A few more submitters to hear from. So we— I'd like to welcome up Pete Robson. Welcome, you've been waiting a while, thank you. A while. Yeah, and you've got, I'm sure you know the drill, but it's 5 minutes and that needs to include time for questions if you'd like it to.

Sure. Kia ora tātou, kōrero peihu tokou monga, no tōpunga nui aotāra, aho kōpeito ko ingoa. It's awesome to be here, thanks for the opportunity. I ride a scooter, a moped, I live up in Kelburn, and I I work down in the city and I commute down through every day. I don't do work from home. I'm a good public servant, so I work in the office. I wanted to talk to you today about my submission opposing the parking fees. I've sent through things, they're up on the slides. Do I say next slide to someone? May I press the magic button?

Yes, just a clicker there.

Oh, I've got a clicker. Okay. Let's go with that. So there's a whole heap of slides. I'm not going to go through them all because it's actually kind of pre-read, and I'm just expecting you're going to hear a lot from people with jackets and helmets and things who are probably going to say similar stuff today already. What I wanted to focus in on was the 4 points in the exec summary of the paper that in my view are flawed. The front page, and I've got it in here, talked about first off with the equity with car parking. Motorcycles and scooters occupy significantly less space than a car and bringing in equity, in quotes, with a vehicle which has 4 wheels just seems flawed in terms of the amount of space maximisation and utilisation. The current fee structure encourages a vehicle which is better for the environment, better for congestion, and introducing a fee will simply just mean that there will be a mode shift. It won't be, in my view, to public transport. It will be to a 4-wheeled vehicle which will increase congestion. So that— in the paper it talks about having equity with car parking. I guess my question is, what equity are we trying to seek here, and on which level? And to my next slide, or my next point, turnover and access. The paper talks about how having charging will mean that there'll be greater turnover of the spaces. But I think that completely disregards the usage of those spaces, which is by people like me who queue I'm not going to move my bike or scooter more often, and the people I see come in every morning between about 8:00 and 9:00-ish, and they leave about the same time as me. Having fees there won't increase our turnover. It will mean that we won't ride our bikes in, we'll come in in different vehicles. So the suggestion to having turnover and access will be increased by having a charging system won't be the case. It won't be turnover, it will be unused. So the space will become unused because we won't be using them, we won't ride in, we'll come through different ways. There's no demonstrated evidence of the significant issues it talks about here that need intervention. I can't see that in the paper, I haven't been able to find any significant reason for intervention, and I guess my question here, or what I wanted to talk about, is this feels very much based on opinion or reckons as opposed to evidence, and that is missing from everything I read. I can understand that there's a view, but there's no evidence that supports that view, so I'd ask that that was actually spent time in, as opposed to let's put an idea forward and put it in place. Onto my third page, so environmental considerations. I was kind of stunned when the paper talked about, in its executive summary, that the introduction of this will reduce usage of a vehicle which has such low emissions, and so in anything this will be completely the other move because people will move towards a four-wheel vehicle. Motorcycles have lower emissions per kilometre and it's the assumption that we'll move to active transport is just not fair, it's not reflective of Wellington's public infrastructure and what we have. And then lastly, revenue generation. The primary objective of a transport transport policy shouldn't be to— should be to improve accessibility, efficiency, and sustainability, not create revenue. I understand that there are needs for this. However, a revenue generation from a transport solution is just— seems flawed. You know, implementing these fees and the parking will be offset by a lot of the cost to manage, to maintain, and to enforce as well. So the revenue that's projected in here, I think, was roughly about $1 million. Just seems really like— I don't— none of those numbers seem to reflect elasticity of demand. There seem to be some straight-line assumptions in terms of 5% shift. None of that looks at different weather patterns. The timing in which the window with the survey was done was during August, which doesn't reflect the entire year. There just seem to be a lot of flaws in putting together the numbers. That's what I wanted I've got about 30 seconds for any questions.

Very quickly, what are your other options for parking your motorbike? As opposed to the current? As opposed to the current on the street.

Look, I think there could be some partnerships done with the likes of Wilsons, so there could be things that we could look at. There could be a different level of capping. The stretch in terms of, you know, look at the fact that we are commuters, so charging an hourly rate just seems completely contrary to the usage of those. You're trying to implement something that reflects the desire to have hourly usage or two-hourly usage. That's not who uses the spaces now. Why would you want that space to be empty?

Okay, and quick one from Councillor McNulty.

Is it your view that rather than charging a fee and then improving the service, this proposal seems to be more about charging a fee to disincentivise that form of transport with no discernible—

There is no It actually says in the paper there's no improvement to the service that will be offered. So there's no dedicated spaces, there's no lines, there's no nothing other than a fee, so that what we will be paying for doesn't change other than the fact that it will be, as you said, a disincentivisation. So, and again, I can say, "Oh, I've talked to 20 people," all that kind of stuff, like it's all opinion-based. I'd rather like for you to go to evidence-based and engage with the community and get some hard numbers to deal with it, because I'm just one person and there'll be lots. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Pete. Cheers, Gus. Very much appreciated that you come. We're going to move to Geoff, because I think you're here. Thank you, Geoff. And then after that to Geoff Miller. Oh, there are two Geoffs. Which one have we got?

Doesn't matter. I'm Geoff Miller. Is that the right?

Yes, we're all out of sync a little bit, so Sorry, the other Geoff, if that's okay. Oh, I might be cutting you out. Sorry about that. Right.

Yeah, yeah, so kia ora koutou, I'm Geoff Miller, Tākawhingo. I want to speak further on some of the information in the report on metered parking for motorcycles, specifically the proposed benefits on page 4. One of the proposed benefits is revenue, and to be honest, I think it's all you've actually got here. The revenue was modelled and the report needed to account for the fact that when prices go up, elastic demand goes down. So what proportion of riders were predicted to stop using these parks once this proposal came in? If you were listening before, you would have realised it was 5%. It's on page 18 if you don't believe me. So out of all the other options that exist, people could opt to work from home more, they could park privately, They could use public transport, they could use an e-bike, or they could drive in on their car. Collectively, 5% of current riders will go to any of those options once these charges come in. Is that reasonable? You know, is it ethical to base a decision that will spend $200k of council money on a number such as that? You know, if this was a private business venture and you had to go to a bank and and ask for a loan, would you put that figure on a page and give it to the bank in good conscience and expect them to read it and say, "Yeah, that sounds right"? I mean, the figure is so far off. I think I'm being generous to say that it's going to drop to about 50%, but then it's going to go downhill from there. It'll go downhill because the parking privately, like Wilson's, they are going to adapt. They'll open up some more of their spaces and convert them to bikes, and then people will choose them as a long-term option. You know, your expenses for running this are going to go up. Parking Enforcement Services are not a charity. If they do more work from here, you are going to pay for it. Your expense ratio will not change. If you're expecting to get a lot of money out of this, you need to expect to be very disappointed with what you get. That initial outlay LA is going to take a long time before it's paid off, I suspect. The only real revenue winner, I think, in the long term is Wilson's. I found the reduced emissions mentioned in the— as a benefit to be quite interesting. I'm not quite sure how that got in because if the emissions benefit comes from mode shifting, then how can this suggest it yet also state that only 5% of people will mode shift in the first place. So there seems to be an automatic contradiction within the report. I think there's a bit of an issue that expecting this change to bring an environmental impact because riders make their own decisions. I think the people who switch to use their cars, who probably come from further out of Wellington, are going to fight against the people who may choose a more green option. So the net benefit is probably going to be quite questionable. Maybe a little bit positive, might even be a little bit negative. I think probably that point is in there just for sake of greenwashing, to be honest. If we were serious about the environment, the most green alternative is promoting electric mopeds and electric motorbikes, and putting in a charge like this is not going to do anything to help the uptake of those, and in fact it's going to stifle it outright in Wellington. You know, Wilson's parking, mentioned before, they're not a local business, so I don't really see why the report says that local businesses are going to benefit from this. On a personal level, I've never avoided a local business for the sake of not finding a park. The city is not that big, so if I park over there, I can walk over there, it's all done. You know, however, if you're getting loads of local business people stand up here begging you to put this charge in because it will save them, then you can you can disregard my opinion on this. Have you had any yet? Okay, close. Then finally, getting equity with car parking is a little bit odd.

I don't know why we're comparing a four-wheel transport with a two-wheel transport.

I mean, the amount of space they take up, the congestion, the emissions, the road surface wear, nothing inside this is equitable, so why do we make the comparison? I think sometimes Some people who are big fans of user pays policies really like the idea of that comparison, and I think once this goes through, I wonder if the next equity argument comes down to bikes versus bikes, and is that a direction we want to take? You know, so I think if we want to put this in place, then obviously Councillor's pointing in that direction, we'll be in favour of it. Everyone else, we're possibly playing into their hand, all at the sake of a very, very weak revenue stream. So with that in mind, I can't see any benefits to this, and I want you guys to reject it.

How quick is your question, Councillor? Can you make it very succinct? Thanks.

Hello, thanks very much, Geoff. I really I like your arguments. Do you think that we should actually drop this proposal until we actually go back and do some more analysis on the reasons that we think that this should be installed and brought in? Or do you think we should drop it altogether?

I think as it stands, it's deeply flawed and it's bad to go ahead with it. I mean, as a business decision, it's just not a right thing to do. To do. I don't see a problem with going— like, if you think, oh, is there a better way of achieving what you want to achieve, yeah, go back and discuss that. You know, I quite like the idea of having a free option for all-electric modes possibly as something to work towards, but then anything that's non-electric possibly doesn't fit into that zone, or maybe have dedicated parks. Electrics can go here, but no one else can go there. So the you can kind of encourage that in other ways. So yeah, I'll be open to, you know, if you want to sort of go back to the drawing board a bit and nut out a better solution. Great.

Well, thank you. Thanks very much. We're out of time. Sorry, but that's been very helpful. Now, sorry about the mix-up with the Jeffs. My apologies. Yeah, I hope you don't mind the extra wait. No, no, no problem. So 5 minutes and we're looking forward to hearing what you've got to say.

Okay. Kia ora koutou. Thanks for your time today on the subject. My name is Geoff Greenfield, and I've held a motorcycle licence since 1973. Currently I ride two Triumph motorcycles. One's 2 years old and one's 88 years old. I ride for the enjoyment, the freedom, the convenience that two-wheeled machines offer. In the '70s, it was also a very cost-effective means of transport. Not so much these days. So in opposing the proposed parking charges for motorcycles, my thoughts and questions are: when will it ever end? The never-ending extraction of funds from the general public. And do you ever actually consider the effect of continual cost increases on individuals and families? That's it. Fairly simple and short. I'm sure you got lots of detail from other people as well, so that's it for me.

No, that's good because it's nice to have time, sometimes to have time to ask lots of questions. So Councillor Chung has his hand up straight away. Great, thanks, Geoff.

Tell me, do you commute into town on one of your bikes? No, I don't, no. Yep, okay. So when you do come in— Sorry, can I follow up? When you do come in, do you come in and leave your bike in a park all day, or do you actually park there temporarily?

Yeah, I just park temporarily. My wife works in the city, so sometimes I come in for shopping, sometimes I catch up there for lunch. So I'm normally in town maybe for an hour or two, maybe once or twice a month is about all really. So it's quite, yeah, infrequent.

Yep, great. Thank you. I think Councillor McNulty here.

Yeah, probably a softball question, but I guess going, what's your view of current motorcyclists going from $0 per week to, if you're commuting, $45 a week, and the fairness and equity of such a decision?

Yeah, sure. I guess my response is why don't we just keep it the same as it is, don't change anything. I think it works quite well. Obviously space is tight in the city. I think I've got a ticket a couple of months ago for having one wheel on the yellow line, so you know, they're pretty militant in picking you up. My opinion is just why can't we just leave things as they are? So yeah.

Councillor Abdurahman.

There is a submitter this morning who said he even get— it's good for his mental health wellbeing riding a bike. There is another submitter who said it's very safety issue, there are a lot of people who get hurt. So for you, what it means on top of the economic side of it.

From a safety point of view?

A safety point of view, it's also from personally, it's mental health, it's a good thing to you.

Yeah, I love motorcycling, it's part of my life, it's part of my family's life, and I think from a safety point of view, pretty sure the statistics say that most accidents are caused by other drivers, not motorcyclists. ACC, obviously putting fees up at the moment. I think it's a little unfair also. I think you're going up from $550 a year to $850 a year for registration fees. So again, is that really the motorcyclist's fault? I mean, roads are more congested for sure. In that sense, there's a little bit of risk riding a motorcycle. There's more cars on the road, there's less room on the road, so you have to be vigilant. And I'm quite experienced, so I I know how to dodge things, I know where the risks are, and I find myself, I feel quite safe on a motorcycle. So, but yeah, it's definitely a risky area for sure.

Sorry, just if you want to quickly pick up on that point, it's been made a few times this morning, what's the ACC levy increase at the moment that motorcyclists are facing?

I've read that it's going from $550 thereabouts annually to $850 for the larger capacity City Motorcycles.

Okay, so $300 plus a proposal like this, which might be sort of, you know, in the realm of $2,000 to $3,000 a year in parking costs.

Correct, yeah. So again, my thoughts are, why can't we just leave things alone? It's not our fault we get knocked over by cars. I've had one or two spills over the years, but generally it's cars not seeing you, so you've got to stay out of cars' blind spots. Yeah, you have to be very vigilant, and I make a really hard obviously in that area, yeah.

What's your— I'm just going to ask a question— what's your opinion about the availability of car parking spaces currently in the city?

Yeah, sure, it seems to be less and less, you know, with all the cycle lanes going through, it just seems a little bit more difficult now to get a car park. Maybe motorcycles are the same. I get more people are driving cars, I've got I've got grandchildren that drive cars, so you know, there's more cars on the road. It'd be lovely if you made another car park, you know, maybe bowl the town hall and put a car park instead.

Oh, that would be an expensive car park. Expedia, wouldn't it? Oh, well, that's an interesting situation.

I just thought, you know, I mean, people talk about it and you're pumping a lot of money into that thing and a lot of like everything else, and it's like, well, how do we afford all these things? Are we, you know, having to charge motorcyclists to pay for cycle lanes? What is it? Why are we having to pay all this money all of a sudden? I read yesterday that people with Airbnbs are now going to have their rates go up because they're running an Airbnb. My brother got one, my sister's got one, so, you know, where does it end? That's my question. Where does this thing stop?

Yeah, okay. I think you made that point at the beginning too. Thank you very much, Geoff. We appreciate it. Now we will move to Faye Lee. Online. Welcome, Faye Lee. You have 5 minutes and that needs to include time for questions if you would like it to.

Yep. And just to be clear, do I have to indicate when—

Now can we do something about the volume just before you begin? Check that we've got. Can you hear me okay? Yeah, no, that's come through nice and clear now.

Just to be clear, kia ora everyone, just to be clear, do I need to just tell someone to switch to the next slide?

Yep, just say next slide. Okay, next slide please.

So kia ora everyone, my name's Faye Lee, I'm a motorcyclist and I oppose the introduction of parking. Just to give a little bit propose the introduction of fees for parking, I should say. So I'm a professional, I work on Wakefield Street where I am currently, and I commute from Tawa to Wakefield about 3 times a week. I park just on the corner of Tory and Wakefield, a short walk from the office, and typically I'm here during work hours. And usually there's been between 4 and 7 bikes in the same spot, but there's always enough space for additional bikes there. I would like to take public transport, but just practicality-wise, given that I've got a small child and I want to be home for her and help my partner, it takes about double as long and costs more for me to take both train and bus, so motorbiking is an attractive option for me. Next slide, please. Okay. So I guess my question is, do you want to incentivise more people to ride motorbikes? And if so, you want to make it appealing? They obviously take up less room. They are— there's less congestion and they emit fewer emissions. One thing that I think is important, I'm sure other submitters have talked about this, is just the cost to run a motorbike is extremely high. So although they are appealing, like, things like maintenance is way more expensive. I have a 3-year-old motorbike and I paid close to $2,000 for my most recent service and valve clearing. And then the registration is around $450 a year. My bike is a 390. So it's already an expensive endeavor and adding on an additional, say, $8 a day for someone to commute as a disincentive given the other expenses. Next slide, please. So yeah, basically I think if we can, I would encourage us to keep it free. If you're intent on introducing parking, I would propose that for commuting spaces. I've read, and maybe someone correct me, there's about 200 motorbike parks around Wellington. There presumably are zones that are more targeted for commuters, so I would say cap those areas at $5 a day to keep it, you know, reasonably affordable. But in high traffic turnover areas like shopping areas, I think $1 an hour is fair. Next slide. So I guess I would be curious if someone could please enlighten me what percentage of all parking spaces in Wellington are dedicated to motorbikes. And what— I read what the reasons for the proposed parking changes are, but what is the primary reason? And I've heard someone else say about $1 million a year is being projected to be generated. Is that correct? And if so, that doesn't seem like a whole lot of money to implement these changes. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Faye Lee. Now, we can't answer your questions directly because this isn't the process for that, but officers can follow up subsequent to this meeting with you. Do we have any questions from the committee? So, Councillor Chung.

Thanks very much for your submission today. You're coming in from Tawa. How would you compare your options with taking public transport, you know, into town rather than bringing your bike in?

So, to get from my house to the train station is about a 15-minute walk. Often the train is late. Then the train journey is $5 roundabout, and then from the train station to Wakefield Street is another 15- to 20-minute walk or a subsequent bus ride. So then the total expense per way might be $8, and it, say, takes 45 minutes versus 20- to 25 minutes. As I said, I have a 3-year-old, so I'd prefer to spend more time with her. That's great, thanks.

Just one last question. When you park at the corner of Victoria and Wakefield Street there, and you were saying that there were about 5 bikes parked there but lots more room, do you notice people parking there all day? Like, are the same bikes there all day or do people come and go?

Yes. Generally speaking for that one, I would assume it's less of a parking area, it's less of a shopping area. I think it would be mostly commuters, so it's the same bikes most days.

Okay, thank you. Great, thank you. Councillor McNulty. Kia ora, Whaea.

Ben McNulty here. Very quick question as a fire board the 4 and the 1-year-old. How are you finding the cost of living and those daycare fees at the moment?

Is that relevant? I suppose it is. Well, just have a quick answer.

I don't need to tell you, Ben, but everything is expensive. Yeah, everything. I feel like we're being squeezed from all sides at the moment and additional expense is not what I would ideally like. Okay.

Cool, thank you. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any further questions? Actually, we are out of time, but thank you, Fayelee. Been quite useful and appreciate your time. Thanks very much. So we have just two left. So Issy, I think Issy is online. Yona? Hi Issy, welcome. You have 5 minutes and that needs to include questions if you'd like it to. Over to you. Welcome. Thank you.

Firstly, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. I'm strongly against this proposal. I have 4 key points. Firstly, as we all know and all agree, I'm sure, Wellington is a great city and a very liveable one. However, it's not a secret that many businesses in the central city have been struggling recently, and charging for motorcycle parking will make this worse, particularly on the weekends. People like myself who drives a moped will be less motivated, motivated to come into the city for recreation we will instead go to a different location with free parking. This will not help with the efforts to revitalise the city. Another point I wanted to raise is rebuffing the argument that charging for parking will make access to motorcycle parking bays in the central city easier through high turnover. And I know this was raised in Fayelee's submission. As a user, I don't think this will be the case. I think there might be more availability because I think people will stop coming into the city unless they have to, because of this fee. But I don't think it will improve turnover because, as Veili said, people park because they need to, because they're coming in for work, it's their only option. I'm one of those people as well because I live in Wainuiomata and it's extremely difficult to catch public transport from where I live into town where I work. My third point is to understand that the no fee and the changes to the number, size, or location of parking bay options were not considered as part of this. However, I think they should be. I think they should be prioritised. For me, the logical solution if there aren't enough motorcycle car parks or if they're always full would be to respond to this demand to encourage people to ride mopeds and motorcycles and in doing so reducing emissions, reducing traffic. I don't think charging for motorcycle parking I think it will lead to not only more cars but also a more strained public transport system. Lastly, I wanted to address the argument that charging for motorcycle parks is more fair or equitable. I don't want to debate the meaning of fair and equity, but to me this argument disregards the fact that many people who ride mopeds, particularly mopeds as cheaper to run than motorcycles, do so because it is more affordable than buying and maintaining a car. It's certainly why I first bought a moped. Many moped drivers are students or they're young career professionals and they don't have the disposable income to pay for parking. And this would be, yeah, $40 extra a week, which is significant for a lot of people. Alright, thank you for hearing me out.

I'm open for questions. I see, thank you very much. You're one of the few women that have actually come this morning, so it's really good to get your perspective. Availability of motorbike parking. You did talk about that. What's it like right now?

So I will note here that I come from a position of privilege right now, as I have motorcycle parking in my work building, which I really appreciate. So during work hours, I am not, you know, I don't have to deal with that. However, I do, and I have in the past, and I do being a moped rider for many years, park on the street a lot. I do not struggle to find a park. Sometimes I will need to go to a different bay than I would have because it's full, but I have to walk 5 minutes more and that's not an issue. And I don't think— I do see parking availability in the outskirts, not even outskirts, but just not in the centre-centre city, and I think everybody is willing to walk an extra 1 to 5 minutes and park slightly further away than right next to the shop they're going to, rather than pay for parking.

Thank you. I think there might be one— I'm just looking around to see if there are other questions. Only me. So I've got another question. Yes. Safety. Yes. There's been an argument that put that right at the start of this session that motorcycling is inherently unsafe, a cost to society, and I'm just interested from your view as a female cyclist how safe you feel when you're on your moped.

Sure, personally I feel much safer in my moped than in a car, and I would note, as I've noted, I live in Wainuiomata, so my moped is actually a motorcycle, but it's a small motorcycle, so I call it a moped, and it's getting technical, but so I do ride it on the motorway and I feel a lot safer than I do in a car. I feel I'm smaller, I have the power in my bike to, you know, stop quickly if I need to as opposed to in a car. I understand the argument there for motorcycling being dangerous. I think cycling on a normal bike, driving, these activities that are on a road are absolutely, you know, they have dangers and motorcycling is one of them. But I also think, yeah, I wouldn't— to me that's a personal risk and it's about people managing their risk. I think I manage my safety really well on a motorcycle. I consider myself a very responsible motorcycle driver, responsible car driver, and so to me it comes down to a matter of personal responsibility and how you know, how well you drive on the road, as opposed to, you know, no one should drive a motorcycle because it's more unsafe than any other form of transport. I just don't think that's the case.

Oh, well, thank you. That's interesting to have that counter view. I don't think we have any other questions and we are actually out of time, but thank you very much for your submission and for coming to speak to us. It's really appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. And our last submitter of the morning is Catherine. Catherine, welcome.

Kia ora, thank you. I'm sure I'll be echoing all the previous submitters' points, and good on you for sitting through hearing a lot of repetition. The point I'd like to make is that this move will drive more people out of the CBD. It will be bad for retail, it'll be bad for hospitality, and it will be bad for business. And I'll just quote you this: in September '19, a report to Minister Nicola Willis from the Treasury said retail and hospitality were more pessimistic than other sectors, with spending down sharply in the previous 6 months. Part of that was attributed to people working from home, with the effect more pronounced in Wellington. I would submit that a lot of these motorcycle riders are are going there for work purposes, you put a charge on that makes it unaffordable, those people will stay out of the city, they will work from home, and that is actually bad for their employers too. I spend money in the city every day, and I'm sure most other bike riders do as well. Public transport is not a good alternative. My route is the 23 coming in from Houghton Bay. Houghton Valley. It gets cancelled regularly. It's a 20-minute— they're not coming every 10 minutes. A bus gets cancelled, you're standing there for a long time. Terribly irregular and a lot of cancellations. If there's not enough parking for bikes, get out the paintbrushes. Take a few more car parks. That is a very low-cost solution. But a yellow paint. Plenty of car park buildings that motor vehicles can park in, and I would submit that motor vehicles are quite disincentivised to come into the city anyway because the traffic has become so bad. And I ride through it on a scooter every day and observe the traffic jams in Newtown are terrible. If motorbikes have to pay, why not pushbikes? What's the difference between an electric bike and a moped? Not very much. They go about the same speed, and when it comes to safety, I would argue they're actually quite dangerous. They are going at speed, they're heavy, they crash into something, they're going to cause a lot of damage, and they're now traveling at speed down very narrow cycleways. I'd love you to have a look at the stats from ACCC about accidents on e-bikes and just normal bikes. And then I would just say that, you know, we don't want to kill the city. You know, we want people to come into the city, we want it to be vibrant. You know, this will absolutely take a whole bunch of people out of the city. And I would also submit I just don't come into the city on the weekend to shop because it is too hard to get in the car and sit in the traffic. So, I shop now because I come into the city to work. I think you'll be putting a lot of business out of Wellington and it's just going to go downhill. So, that's my pitch.

Thank you. We have a question from Councillor Chung. Thanks very much, Catherine.

You were saying the convenience is the main factor that why you ride a bike and rather than taking public transport. So do you think that cost is actually relevant, the cost of actually parking? So if we impose this cost on people, do you think that would be a big disincentive for people to bring their bikes in? Oh, huge, huge.

I mean, particularly if you're going to charge, I don't know what it is, but say $4 an hour and you're there all day for the working day. If you did charge, I would say no more than a bus fare. A bus fare, you know, so $4 or $5 a day maybe would be reasonable, but then you've got the overheads of trying to collect that revenue and police it, etc., etc. I actually don't think, I mean, I don't think you're going to bring in much revenue because I think a lot of motorcyclists will just exit stage left.

Great, thank you. Catherine, this is the question I've been grappling with because I've always been actually a fan of motorbikes and more motorbikes. Do you think we should actively encourage motorcyclists to maybe deal with some of our transport issues?

Yeah, look, I think so. I think the challenge you've got in Wellington is we're trying to cater for motorists, cyclists, and we've got skinny roads, you know, we don't have big wide roads where that's made it easy. So we've got a lot of traffic jams with motor vehicles now and, you know, getting into a narrow single lane. So motorbikes are one way to, you know, we're allowed to go in the bus lanes, which is fantastic. You get where you're going really fast. I think I said in my submission, I'm not sure if it's accurate, it'd need to be checked, but I think in Melbourne, for example, they allow mopeds on the footpath. You go do your Christmas shopping, you can literally park outside the retail shop, grab what you want, and you're gone, you know. So yeah, I think they're part of the mobility, accessibility, you know, really important part.

We have unfortunately run out of time, but we do thank you very much for coming with your perspective. And as I said to the last submitter, we haven't actually had a lot of women submit today, so it's really useful to have that slightly different perspective. I know. Yeah. So thank you. All right. Now we do have something, a process thing that we need to do. We need to vote to extend the meeting beyond 6 hours in accordance with Standing Order 11.7. That's because, of course, we're continuing with submissions on Friday. We also will agree to adjourn the meeting until 9:30 AM on Friday. On Friday the 21st of February, 2025. So I'm going to move that. Do I have a seconder? Thank you, Councillor Chung. Um, and we will vote on that now. So I just put yes. Yes, we take you as a yes. Um, that has passed unanimously. And with that, I don't think I actually actually need to read the closing karakia either because we're just continuing the meeting. So I would just like to thank everybody for their participation today and of course our submitters who've all been very respectful and brought lots of information for us to consider. And with that, I think we will call this part of the meeting to a close and we'll see you all— unless you've got apologies, we'll see you all at 9:30 AM I'm sorry.