Love the Bay – Delivering on the Cycleway, 2017

Analysis of submissions

Research and Evaluation Team, Wellington City Council September 2017

Contents
Comment from External Reviewer 	6
Executive summary 	8
Background 	8
Key findings 	8
Findings: Submitter profile 	8
Findings: Submitter preferences 	9
Findings: Preference comments 	9
Method summary 	10
Consultation results 	11
Submitter profile 	12
Summary of results 	12
Residence 	12
Age 	13
Connection(s) to Island Bay 	14
Informal submissions 	15
Submitter preferences 	16
Summary of results 	16
Options analysis 	16
Overall preferences 	17
Preferences by submitter characteristics 	18
Submitter preferences: Informal submissions 	22
Preference comments 	23
Summary of results 	23
Preference analysis 	24
Option A preference comments 	27
Option B preference comments 	29
Option C preference comments 	31
Option D preference comments 	32
Revert option (including Option E) 	34
Retain option 	36
General comments 	38
Preference comments from informal submissions 	40
Option summaries 	41

Appendix 1. Submission analysis method 	49
Acceptance of submissions 	50
Data entry 	50
Duplicates 	50
Informal submissions 	51
Data analysis 	51
Submitter profile 	51
Submitter preferences 	52
Preference comments 	54
Public release of submissions 	56
External Review 	56
Appendix 2: Description of options A to D 	58
Option A – roadside cycle lane - original layout with enhancements 	58
Option B – one-way separated kerbside cycleway – road level - current layout with enhancements 	58
Option C – one-way separated kerbside cycleway – above road level 	59
Option D – one-way separated kerbside cycleway – above road level, with angle parking 	59
Appendix 3: Description of Option E 	61

List of tables
Table 1. Submitter profile: residence	12
Table 2. Submitter profile: age	14
Table 3. Submitter profile: connection to Island Bay	14
Table 4. Informal submissions: profile information provided	15
Table 5. Submitter profile by residence and connection to Island Bay	15
Table 6. Preferred options	16
Table 7. Borda count results for all options (including Revert, Retain and all “other” options)	18
Table 8. Overall preference by age group (Borda count results for all options)	19
Table 9. Kerbside versus roadside by submitter age (combined Borda count results)	19
Table 10. Overall preference by residential location of submitter (Borda count results for all options)
.............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Table 11. Kerbside versus roadside comparison by residential location – overall main preference (combined Borda count results)	20
Table 12. Overall preference by submitter type (Borda count results for all options)	21
Table 13. Kerbside versus roadside comparison by submitter connection to Island Bay – overall main preference (combined Borda count results)	22
Table 14. Informal submission submitter preferences	22
Table 15. Count of comments received by theme for each main option	25
Table 16. Highest to lowest frequency themes	26
Table 17. Option A: highest frequency preference comment codes	27
Table 18. Option B: highest frequency preference comment codes	29
Table 19. Option C: highest frequency preference comment codes	31
Table 20. Option D: highest frequency preference comment codes	33
Table 21. Revert Option: highest frequency preference comment codes	34
Table 22. Retain option: highest frequency preference comment codes	37
Table 23. General comments coding frequency	38
Table 24. High level mentions of options by sentiment	40
Table 25. Summary of submitter response to options	42
Table 26. Summary of Option A (preference and feedback)	43
Table 27. Summary of Revert (preference and feedback)	44
Table 28. Summary of Option B (preference and feedback)	45
Table 29. Summary of Option C (preference and feedback)	46
Table 30. Summary of Option D (preference and feedback)	47
Table 31. Summary of Retain (preference and feedback)	48
Table 32. Components of Revert option	53
Table 33. Preference comments coding	54
Table 34. General comments coding	55
Table 35. External review feedback areas	56

List of figures
Figure 1. Flow diagram of method (summary)	10
Figure 2. Heat map of submitter residence	13

Figure 3. Options and kerbside/roadside: percentage of submitter first choice preferences by residence 	21
Figure 4. Flow diagram of method (summary) 	49

Comment from External Reviewer

A re there sufficient quality controls in place to ensure the accuracy of the data informing the
analysis?
Is the analysis (and conclusions drai,,vn fr om it) commensurate with the quality of the data provided in the public submissions?, and
A re the limitations of the process recognised andfaithfully reported?

Research First s A.ssessment

Research First's assessment of the Wellington City Council's Research and Evaluation TeamTs approach, analysis,and reportingof public submissions fr omthe 2017 l ove the Boy, De/;v ering on the Cydeway consultation process is:
The analysis and reportingof the public submissions reflects a sound and sensible approach to a complex task.
The report makes it clear that WCC's Research and Evaluation Team neededto contend with responses that i,,vere not anticipated in the original feedback process (and which therefore sat outside of the officialfeedback form). Moreover,much of this unanticipated feedback was provided in an unstructured form, with many respondents noting that these unstructured comments superseded the preference identified in the formal part of their response.This means that the analysis task facing W CC:s Research and Evaluation Team required the team to make a series of decisions about:
what feedback wa.s counted a.s legitimate,and
how to code the content of the unstructured messages.

The reportdocuments how these decisions were made,evaluated,and refined,and these processes
embody best practice among the evaluation community.

The quality assurance steps that W CC:s R&ETeam have taken mean that the Councilcan have
considerable confidence that the conclusions in this report reflect the public submissions received.

(,1µ-4\	Davidson
Director of Strategy and Insight
Friday,September 22,2017

Iwww rouarchtir5f.co..ra.

Executive summary

Background
This report provides the results of submitter feedback from the July/August 2017 Wellington City Council consultation Love the Bay, Delivering on the Cycleway. In this consultation the public was invited to submit on four design options. Specifically they were asked to select their preferred option or options from four designs using a ranking system, and to provide further information about their preferred option or options, or to describe an amended option. This could be done online, or  through a paper submission. On the eve of the consultation, Option E was proposed by the Island  Bay Residents’ Association. This report includes analysis of a Revert option (inclusive of Option E), and also a Retain option (ie keep the current cycleway), which was known as Option F.

This report provides information and analysis of: submitter profile, submitter preferences, preference comments, and option summaries. Full details about the method used for submission analysis is contained in Appendix 1.

Key findings
There was a sizeable public response to this consultation. Nearly one quarter of Island Bay residents participated, which led to over half the submissions being from the area. There were submissions from all over Wellington City and beyond.

Public sentiment about the future of the Island Bay Cycleway is divided. The Island Bay community was generally supportive of a roadside option – especially Option E. A number of these supporters were critical of the current layout, saying it was unsafe, unnecessary, and detrimental to businesses, shoppers, Parade residents and road users. A Revert option was seen to take things back to the way they were. It was also seen as the cheapest option.

For submitters outside Island Bay, there was a more varied response and generally these submitters preferred a kerbside option. This group wanted the current cycleway enhanced and they saw kerbside options (particularly Option C) as safe and effective for cyclists and other road users, and an important part of the wider investment and development of transport infrastructure and urban communities in Wellington.

Findings: Submitter profile
3763 formal and 94 informal submissions were received.
The Island Bay community made a significant contribution to the consultation, with 57.1 percent of submitters reporting that they were residents of Island Bay and slightly less providing an Island Bay residential address.
Regular and occasional visitors to Island Bay also made up a significant portion the submitters
(43.3 percent).
Significant numbers of submissions were received from across the age spectrum including children.

Findings: Submitter preferences
When preferences for options A to D and Retain and Revert options were compared , the most preferred option by a significant margin was Revert, followed by Option C, Option B, Option D, Option A, Other, and lastly the Retain option.
There were differences by submitter characteristics (Borda count scoring):
Age: the most preferred option was Revert for 18 to 29-year-olds and all ages 40+, and Option C for under 18s and 30 to 39-year-olds.
Residence: Island Bay residents showed a preference for Revert, whereas feeder suburbs and wider Wellington City and beyond preferred Option C.
Connection to Island Bay: a Revert option was the highest ranked preference for residents, regular visitors, local business owners and “others”, while Option C was the highest ranked preference for occasional visitors.
In comparisons between all kerbside and all roadside options: Roadside was favoured by Island Bay residents, Island Bay businesses, “others”, and all submitters 60+; kerbside was favoured by other Wellington residents and submitters beyond Wellington, visitors to Island Bay, and all ages up to age 59.

Findings: Preference comments
Across all options, a dominant theme was safety features and potential safety concerns for various groups. There was also significant comment about car parking impacts, general support for either a roadside or kerbside option, and the cost advantages and disadvantages of particular options.
OptionA attracted negative comments about its safety, its status as a roadside option and the loss of car parks. Some submitters did provide supportive comments about its safety and roadside status.
OptionB was positively supported as a kerbside option, for its safety and its features of separation from pedestrians and parked cars through a buffer zone. There were concerns about the loss of car parks.
OptionC was considered positively as safe and a kerbside option. Also positive were the height of the cycleway (above the road and level with pedestrians), and the kerbside buffer zone between bicycles and cars. There were concerns about the loss of car parks.
OptionD was supported for being safe and being a kerbside option, and its retention of angle parking. However, there were related concerns about the loss of car parks, and the reduction in footpath width associated with angle parking.
For the Revertoption inclusive of option E, almost all leading themes were positive, led by the retention of car parks, followed by safety. The reported low cost of the option was strongly supported as was its status as a roadside option resembling the original layout.
For the Retainoption, safety concerns were prominent. There were also negative comments about visibility and the impact on car parks and road width. However, there was support by a number of submitters for its safety elements – especially for cyclists.
General comments not assigned to a particular option were led by the themes of positive safety and support for a kerbside option.

Method summary
The following diagram summarises the approach taken by the Research and Evaluation team (R & E team) to collate and analyse the consultation data. It includes the key steps in the process and the integration of internal and external review during the process. A full outline of the method is contained in Appendix 1.

Figure 1. Flow diagram of method (summary)
Process	Internal review	External review

Submission open (31 July 13 August).
Submissions accepted until final cut off time of 5pm, 14 August.

Development of research protocol, including:
code frame for comments
method of analysis
process for multiple submissions.

Protocol was developed, reviewed, and agreed to by R
& E team.

Protocol was reviewed by external reviewer. Feedback integrated into final protocol.

Data entry of paper submissions.

Accuracy check of data entry against paper form.

Accuracy check of data entry against paper form.

Final check of data including:
checking for duplicates
checking data quality, and
submissions moved to  informal .

Internal check and agreement by R & E team of all submissions removed as duplicates, or moved to informal.

Coding of preference comments based on peer reviewed code frame.

Five key coders initially group coded a cluster of submissions for interrater reliability.

All coders had random submissions checked for accuracy.

A random sample of coded submissions sent to external reviewer for check.

Data analysis and reporting of submitter profile, option preference, and preference comments.

Report reviewed by members of R & E team.

Report reviewed by external reviewer. Feedback integrated into final report.

Consultation results
The consultation results are provided in the following sections:

•	Submitterprofile – presenting the characteristics of submitters: their residence; age; and	
connection to Island Bay.	
•	Submitterpreferences – presenting the overall preferences for different options and how	
these preferences differ by submitter characteristics. Kerbside versus roadside preferences	
are also considered.	
•	Preferencecomments – presenting the major themes in submitters’ comments about each	
option, and general comments.	

The report concludes with summaries for each option containing overall preference, which submitters relatively preferred this option, and prominent comment themes about this option.

Submitter profile
This section profiles the submitters by their residence, age, and connection to Island Bay. Informal submissions are discussed separately at the end of the section.

Summary of results
There were 3763 formal submissions received and 94 informal submissions.
Just over half (53 percent) the formal submissions received were from Island Bay residents. The remaining 47 percent comprised of nearby (feeder) suburbs (13 percent), other Wellington suburbs (28 percent), and other areas beyond Wellington City (6 percent). Nearly one quarter
(23.4 percent) of Island Bay residents submitted.
The age profile of submitters shows that there were relatively more under 18s and people 50+ from Island Bay submitting than for the other combined locations. There were relatively more 18 to 39-year-olds submitting from all other areas than from Island Bay.
In terms of connection to Island Bay, 57.1 percent of submitters recorded that they were a resident and 43.3 percent were a regular or occasional visitor. Seventy-three submitters said they were a local business owner and 4.9 percent described another type of connection to Island Bay.
Informal submissions often lacked this profile information, however, from those that did indicate profile characteristics, these broadly matched the formal submission results.

Residence
Submitters provided a street address and results for the location of submitters is presented below by submitters’ physical relationship to the Cycleway: those living on The Parade, the rest of Island Bay, feeder (nearby) suburbs, other parts of Wellington, and all other locations.

Table 1. Submitter profile: residence		

Residence	
N	
% of total submitters	% of total population (2013
census)	
The Parade	309	8%		
Rest of Island Bay	1687	45%		
Total Island Bay	1991	53%	23.4%	
Feeder suburbs	495	13%		
Berhampore (141)
Happy Valley (10)
Houghton Bay (34)
Kingston (19)
Newtown (128)
Owhiro Bay (76)
Southgate (87)
Other Wellington City suburbs	1072	28%	
Total Wellington City	3552	94%	
All locations outside of Wellington City	211	6%	
TOTAL	3763		

The submission profile by residence shows a clear relationship between proximity to the Island Bay Cycleway and participation. Nearly one quarter of Island Bay residents submitted and there was relatively strong participation from seven nearby suburbs. Only 6 percent of submitters were from outside the Wellington City Territorial Authority.

The heat map below confirms this association between physical proximity to the Island Bay Cycleway and participation in the consultation:

Figure 2. Heat map of submitter residence

Age
Submitters were asked to provide the age range band that applied to them. The age range totals and percentages for all submitters are recorded below, and the totals are split by Island Bay residents  and all other submitters. Age range comparisons for Wellington City and the Island Bay area are also provided.

Table 2. Submitter profile: age

Age
range	All
submitter s	All
submitter s %	Island
Bay resident s	Island
Bay resident s %	All other
resident s	All other
resident s %	Wellingto
n City Populatio n	Island
Bay- Owhiro Bay Populatio n	
Under 18	172	4.6%	139	7.2%	33	1.9%	20%	23%	
18-29	572	15.2%	247	12.7%	325	18.8%	23%	17%	
30-39	633	16.8%	245	12.6%	388	22.4%	15%	14%	
40-49	815	21.7%	442	22.8%	373	21.5%	14%	16%	
50-59	749	19.9%	441	22.7%	308	17.8%	12%	15%	
60 +	731	19.4%	425	21.9%	306	17.7%	16%	16%	
Missin
g	91	2.4%	52		39				
* Green text indicates that the proportion is significantly higher than expected if due to chance (p<.001)

The Island Bay versus non-Island Bay comparison shows that under 18s and over 50s in Island Bay were significantly more represented than in the non-Island Bay submitters, while 18-39s were significantly more represented in the non-Island Bay submitters.

Connection(s) to Island Bay
Submitters were asked to describe their relationship to Island Bay using the following categories: resident, regular visitor, occasional visitor, local business owner, and other (submitters could tick more than one category). The following table shows the number and proportion of total submitters for each category.

Table 3. Submitter profile: connection to Island Bay

N		% of total submitters

Resident
Regular visitor	2148
1296	57.1%
34.4%	
Occasional visitor	334	8.9%	
Local business owner	73	1.9%	
Other type of visitor or interested party1	183	4.9%	

Over half (57.1 percent) of the submitters indicated that they were a resident of Island Bay and almost all of the remaining submitters ticked that they were a frequent or occasional visitor. This suggests that almost all submitters had some physical connection with Island Bay, with about nine in 10 either living there or visiting regularly.

1 The 183 people indicating other included landlords with a property in Island Bay, ex-residents, future residents, relatives and friends of people living in Island Bay, people working/providing business services in Island Bay or participating in Island Bay community groups but not living in Island Bay, cyclists who ride in Island Bay, parents of children attending school in Island Bay, and shoppers.

Thirty-eight (52.1 percent) of the 73 submitters ticking that they were a local business owner also ticked that they were an Island Bay resident.

Informal submissions
For the 94 informal submissions, there were gaps in submitter profile information – particularly age. The number of submitters that provided particular profile information is as follows:

Table 4. Informal submissions: profile information provided

Submitter profile characteristic	Frequency		Percent	
Physical address
Age
Connection to Island Bay		56
19
43	60%
20%
46%	

Because age data is insufficient across the informal submitters, this was not categorised. The table below shows the informal submitter profile by location and connection to Island Bay.

Table 5. Submitter profile by residence and connection to Island Bay

Residence
Island Bay
Other Wellington suburb Other (including PO boxes) Relationship to Island Bay Resident
Regular visitor
Occasional visitor Local business owner
Island Bay property owner

Frequency	Percent

24	43%
26	46%
6	11%

26	60%
7	16%
4	9%
2	5%
2	5%

  Other	2	5% 	

Submitter preferences
This section contains results for submitter preferences. Informal submissions are discussed separately at the end of the section.

Summary of results
All seven options (A, B, C, D, Revert, Retain, and Other) were compared using the Borda count method. The summary table below summarises option preferences, ranked from most preferred to least preferred.

Table 6. Preferred options

Most to
least preferred option	Total score – Borda count	
Revert	7627	
C	4527	
B	3709	
D	3284	
A	1765	
Other	220	
Retain	218	

•	By agegroup, the most preferred option (Borda count) was Revert for 18 to 29-year-olds and all	
ages 40+, and Option C for under 18s and 30 to 39-year-olds. Overall, a kerbside option was	
most preferred for all ages except 60+. This age group most preferred a roadside option.	
•	Preference by residentiallocation showed an overall preference (Borda count) for Revert by	
Island Bay residents, and an overall preference for Option C in the feeder suburbs and the rest of	
Wellington City and beyond. For Island Bay residents, overall, a roadside option was the most	
preferred, whereas in all other parts of Wellington and beyond there was an overall preference	
for a kerbside option. This pattern was consistent using a “head to head” ranking of options and	
kerbside versus roadside.	
•	In terms of reported connectiontoIslandBay, a Revert option was the highest ranked	
preference for residents, regular visitors, local business owners and “others”, while Option C was	
the highest ranked preference for occasional visitors. A roadside option was the most preferred	
by residents, local business owners, and “others”, and a kerbside option was most preferred by	
regular and occasional visitors.	
•	Informal submissions produced a strong preference for a Revert option with much lower and	
fairly even support for and opposition to other options. However, 20 informal submissions	
proposed some form of alternative option.	

Options analysis
This sub-section introduces how options were included in the preference analysis, including the collective categories of kerbside versus roadside.

Options A to D
The consultation asked submitters to rank their preference among four options – A to D. Specifically they were instructed to select their preferred option (first rank) and rank up to the remaining three options in order of preference. Submitters could rank as many of these four options as they liked. For full descriptions of options A to D, see Appendix 2.

Option E and Revert
On the eve of the consultation process, the Island Bay Residents’ Association proposed a fifth option, “Option E”. To manage this change, the analysis used a Revert option that includes comments that referred to:

Option E specifically (N=1230),
the Island Bay Residents’ Association and/or the Business Representatives Association proposal but not Option E literally (N=228)
any comments that suggested a preference to “restore” or “revert” the road to its original layout (N=479).

The first two categories above were considered “Option E”. The final category was considered “Other Revert”. These categories are combined where appropriate into a composite “Revert” category for the purposes of comparing options. For a full description of Option E (as proposed by the Island Bay Residents’ Association), see Appendix 3.

Option F and Retain
The concept of an “Option F” to retain the existing cycleway was also introduced during the consultation and it was agreed that this would be accepted as a preference if it was mentioned in the comments section. This is referred to as “Retain” in the results.

Overall preferences
Revert (including Option E) and Retain (including Option F), were introduced into the consultation process. The submission form did not describe these options, and references to them by submitters are recorded in the open comments section of the form. This section of the form invited submitters to note an “amended option” if they had one. Rankings have been derived from these comments. A Borda count result was derived for these alternative options and these results alongside options A to D results are presented below. These results need to be interpreted with some caution because of the two avenues for ranking preferences that were ultimately available to submitters. This has led to some imbalances in the submission results that are impossible to quantify. See the method section (Appendix 1) for a discussion of this.

Kerbside versus roadside preferences
Cycleway options A to D, Revert, and Retain can be divided into kerbside or roadside options that represent two fundamentally different design options: kerbside sees the cycleway situated between pedestrians and parked cars (passenger side); roadside sees the cycleway situated between parked cars (driver side) and moving traffic. Options A and Revert (including Option E) are roadside options and Options B, C, D and Retain (including Option F) are kerbside options. Kerbside versus roadside preferences are considered by submitter age, residence, and connection with Island Bay.

As noted in the method section (Appendix 3), the lack of a default process to rank options Revert and Retain among other options has had an unknown effect on the Borda count results for all options. These kerbside versus roadside comparisons need to be interpreted with some caution because had all six options (A–D plus Revert and Retain) been available and fully and accurately described in the ranking section of the submission form, this would have led to a different ranking response and Borda count scores than the two avenues method that has been necessary for comparison purposes.

Table 7. Borda count results for all options (including Revert, Retain and all “other” options)

1st rank	2nd rank	3rd rank	4th rank	Total score

A	344 x 4 = 1376	46 x 3 = 138	
38 x 2 = 76	
175 x 1 = 175	
1765	
B	319 x 4 = 1276	658 x 3 = 1974	212 x 2 = 424	35 x 1 = 35	3709	
C	819 x 4 = 3276	317 x 3 = 951	143 x 2 = 286	14 x 1 = 14	4527	
D	267 x 4 = 1068	291 x 3 = 873	659 x 2 = 1318	25 x 1 = 25	3284	
Rankings based on comments section	

Revert	1898 x 4 = 7592	11 x 3 = 33	0 x 2 = 0	2 x 1 = 2	7627	
Retain	48 x 4 = 192	8 x 3 = 24	1 x 2 = 2	0 x 1 = 0	218	

 Other	47x4=188	10x3=30	1x2=2	0x1=0	220 	

The overall order of preference for the options based on the Borda count method is:

Revert
Option C
Option B
Option D
Option A
Other options

If the Revert total is broken down into its two main groupings (Option E and Other Revert) the overall order of preference for all formal submitters becomes:

Option E
Option C
Option B
Option D
Other Revert option (not referring to Option E)
Option A
Other options
Retain

Preferences by submitter characteristics
This section explores responses by different submitter characteristics: age, location, and connection to Island Bay.

Submitter age
Revert (including Option E) is the preferred option based on the Borda count method for each age group except for under 18s and 30 to 39-year-olds (where Option C is most preferred using this method). The table below shows the full results.

Table 8. Overall preference by age group (Borda count results for all options)

1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th

Under 18	

C	

B	

Revert	

D	

A	

Retain	

OTHERS	
18-29	Revert	C	B	D	A	Retain	OTHERS	
30-39	C	B	Revert	D	A	OTHERS	Retain	
40-49	Revert	C	B	D	A	Retain	OTHERS	
50-59	Revert	C	B	D	A	OTHERS	Retain	
60+	Revert	C	A	D	B	OTHERS	Retain	

Kerbside versus roadside by submitter age
The kerbside versus roadside Borda count comparison by submitter age shows all age ranges prefer a kerbside option with the exception of those aged 60 years or older, who as a group favour a roadside option.

Table 9. Kerbside versus roadside by submitter age (combined Borda count results)

Kerbside	Roadside

Under 18
18-29	x
x	
30-39	x	
40-49	x	
50-59	x	
60+	x	

Submitter residence
Submitters provided a residential address. The table below shows Borda count results for preferences by submitter residence in relation to the cycleway.

Table 10. Overall preference by residential location of submitter (Borda count results for all options)

1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th

The Parade	

Revert	

A	

C	

D	

B	

Others	

Retain	
Island Bay excl. The Parade	Revert	C	D	B	A	Retain	Others	
Island Bay TOTAL	Revert	C	D	B	A	Retain	Others	
Feeder suburbs (Berhampore,	C	Revert	B	D	A	Others	Retain	
Happy Valley, Houghton Bay,	
Kingston, Newtown, Owhiro Bay,	
Southgate)	
All other Wellington suburbs	C	Revert	B	D	A	Others	Retain	
(excl. IB and feeders)	
Wellington TOTAL	Revert	C	B	D	A	Retain	Others	
All locations outside of	C	Revert	B	D	A	Others	N/a	
Wellington City	
TOTAL SAMPLE	Revert	C	B	D	A	Others	Retain	

The results by residence show split preferences between Island Bay residents and those in nearby suburbs and the rest of Wellington City, with Revert (including Option E) the most preferred option overall for those closest to the cycleway, and Option C the most preferred option for those living nearby and throughout the rest of Wellington (and further afield).

Although Option C is the highest scoring option for residents outside of Island Bay, the large proportion of Island Bay residents in the total submission response (53%) leads to an overall preference for the Revert option at the Wellington City level.

Kerbside versus roadside by submitter residence
The kerbside versus roadside Borda count comparison by submitter residence confirms a general preference split between Island Bay and non-Island Bay residents: roadside options as a whole are preferred by residents and kerbside options as a whole are preferred by people living in other communities.

Table 11. Kerbside versus roadside comparison by residential location – overall main preference (combined Borda count results)

	Kerbside	Roadside	
The Parade
Island Bay excl. The Parade		x
x	
Island Bay TOTAL		x	
Feeder suburbs
All other Wellington suburbs (excl. IB and feeders)	x
x		
Wellington TOTAL	x		
All locations outside of Wellington City	x		
TOTAL SAMPLE	x		

Submitter residence – first ranked options only
To further explore the relationship between residence and option preferences, the chart below only shows the first choice option results and kerbside versus roadside results for formal submitters.

Figure 3. Options and kerbside/roadside: percentage of submitter first choice preferences by residence

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A	B	C	D	Revert	Retain	Others	Kerbside
total

Roadside total

Parade only	Rest of Island Bay	Feeder suburbs	Rest of Wellington	Outside Wellington

The results for first choice clearly show a pattern of very strong support for a roadside option  support (and in particular Revert) for Parade residents, with moderately lower support for the rest of Island Bay. While a Revert option is still popular outside of Island Bay, support for kerbside options and in particular Option C increase significantly.

Submitter connection with Island Bay
Submitters were asked to provide their connection to Island Bay from the following options: resident, regular visitor, occasional visitor, local business owner and other. Note that submitters could tick all that applied to them (ie more than one group). The table below shows that submitters with a self-reported stronger connection with Island Bay favoured the Revert option (including Option E), whereas occasional visitors strongly preferred the kerbside options, including options C, B and D.

Table 12. Overall preference by submitter type (Borda count results for all options)

1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th

Resident	

Revert	

C	

D	

B	

A	

F	

OTHERS	
Regular visitor	Revert	C	B	D	A	OTHERS	F	
Occasional visitor	C	B	D	A	Revert	OTHERS	F	
Local business owner	Revert	C	D	B	A	F	N/A	
Other type of visitor or	Revert	C	B	D	A	OTHERS	N/A	
  interestedparty 		

Kerbside versus roadside by submitter connection to Island Bay
The kerbside versus roadside Borda count comparison by submitter connection to Island Bay again showed that preferences were related by proximity and connection to Island Bay, with residents, local business owners, and other interested parties favouring a roadside option, and visitors as a group favouring a kerbside option.

Table 13. Kerbside versus roadside comparison by submitter connection to Island Bay – overall main preference (combined Borda count results)

Kerbside	Roadside

Resident
Regular visitor	x
x	
Occasional visitor	x	
Local business owner	x	
Other type of visitor or interested party	x	

Submitter preferences: Informal submissions
The table below presents the number of submitters who selected each option as any preference (from 1st to 4th preference). This number adds up to more than the total number of informal submissions, as some ranked more than one option and this chart shows overall mentions regardless of rank.

Table 14. Informal submission submitter preferences

Number of submitters indicating any preference (n=91)

Option A	16	
Option B	9	
Option C	12	
Option D	12	
Revert (including Option E)	42	
Retain (including Option F)	5	
  Otheroptionsandgeneralfeedback 		19 		

Preference comments
This section summarises submitter comments about preferences, significant liked and disliked aspects of specific options, and the more general comments received. Informal submissions are discussed separately at the end of the section.

Summary of results
Across all options, prominent themes were associated with safety features and potential safety consequences of options on various groups, the impact on car parking spaces, general support for either a roadside or kerbside option, and the cost benefits of particular options.
Negative comments about Option A were prominent. Option A is disagreeable to both supporters of a proposed “stronger” Revert option (eg Option A sees the removal of car park spaces) and supporters of an enhanced kerbside option. Hence, it attracted negative comments about its safety, its status as a roadside option and the loss of car parks. Some submitters did provide supportive comments about its safety and roadside status.
Option B was positively supported as a kerbside option, for its safety and its features of separation from pedestrians and parked cars through a buffer zone. There were concerns about the loss of car parks.
Option C was considered positively as safe (often cited as being the “safest option”), its status as a kerbside option, the height of the cycleway above the road and level with pedestrians and the kerbside buffer zone between bicycles and cars. There were concerns about the loss of car  parks.
Option D was supported for being safe and being a kerbside option, and its retention of angle parking. However, there were related concerns about the loss of car parks, and the reduction in footpath width associated with angle parking.
For the Revert option inclusive of Option E, almost all leading themes were positive, with the most prominent the positive element of retention of car parks, followed by its safety. The reported low cost of the option was strongly supported and its status as a roadside option resembling the original layout.
The Retain option attracted critics of the current layout in the comments, and safety was by far the most prominent concern. Negative comments about visibility were also strongly reported and the impact on car parks and road width. However, there was relatively strong support by submitters for its safety elements – identifying the current layout as safer for cyclists in particular than the original roadside layout.
General comments were led by the themes of positive safety and support for a kerbside option.
Preference comments from 91 informal submissions showed a similar pattern to formal submissions and by option showed significant positive support for a Revert option.
The preference comments confirm a deep split between submitters about a way forward in particular, and to a related extent, perceptions about the positives and negatives of the current design. A significant majority of local residents want a return to a roadside option, which they see as safe, adequate for all users of The Parade, and supportive of local businesses and residents. Many others want the enhancement of a kerbside option, which they see as safe, adequate for all users of The Parade, and a necessary step towards stronger cycling infrastructure in Wellington City.

Preference analysis
In this report, the public sentiment is summarised with a focus on the most prominent themes expressed through coding for each option2.

For each option, the top ten coded categories are shown with discussion focused on the most prominent of these. Positive sentiment is highlighted in green and negative sentiment is highlighted in red. Prominent themes and illustrative quotes are presented for each option.

The following table shows the overall frequency of coded themes across the six main options and highlights the top 10 coded themes for each option shaded green for positive and red for negative. One of the results from this data is that supporters were quite likely to support the safety of their preferred options, even though these options differ in some key characteristics. Car parking was also a prominent concern, with many options seen to have a negative impact on this.

2 Coded comments about different options have also been used to explore the engineering and design implications of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each option and proposed amendments.

Roadside cycleway negative

Traffic lane width negative

Table 15. Count of comments received by theme for each main option

	Option
A	Option
B	Option C	Option
D	Revert
(inc. Option E)	Retain
(inc. Option F)	
Roadside cycleway positive	34	0	0	0	151	5	
	58	3	2	0	6	3	
Kerbside cycleway positive	4	83	99	63	0	26	
Kerbside cycleway negative	1	2	2	3	9	17	
Traffic lane width positive	7	2	25	8	94	5	
	9	9	10	11	3	30	
Footpath width positive	1	12	32	9	6	1	
Footpath width negative	3	0	1	27	0	2	
Height of cycle path positive	1	38	70	20	1	1	
Height of cycle path negative	2	22	21	18	0	2	
Cycle lane buffer zone positive	6	37	51	14	72	3	
Cycle lane buffer zone negative	3	3	1	2	1	7	
Parallel parking positive	2	4	6	2	81	1	
Parallel parking negative	4	2	1	3	0	0	
Angled parking positive	1	2	1	33	12	1	
Angled parking negative	2	5	5	23	0	2	
Number of car parking spaces
positive	3	5	6	25	266	4	
Number of car parking spaces
negative	53	34	39	34	7	29	
Visibility positive	10	5	32	8	39	1	
Visibility negative	6	5	3	1	0	54	
Safety positive	31	74	130	66	184	53	
Safety negative	92	19	18	17	20	157	
Parking proximity to services
positive	2	1	0	9	39	0	
Parking proximity to services
negative	9	7	7	6	2	18	
Cost positive	5	5	0	1	169	24	
Cost negative	29	22	25	28	8	7	

The following table ranks these codes from highest to lowest frequency for all six options combined.

These results show prominent concerns about safety, the loss or gain of car parks, the width of the road and distance between cars and bicycles, costs, and general advocacy for either a kerbside (in particular) or roadside option.

Table 16. Highest to lowest frequency themes

Theme	N	
Safety positive	538	
Safety negative	323	
Number of car parking spaces positive	309	
Kerbside cycleway positive	275	
Cost positive	204	
Number of car parking spaces negative	196	
Roadside cycleway positive	190	
Cycle lane buffer zone positive	183	
Traffic lane width positive	141	
Height of cycle path positive	131	
Cost negative	119	
Parallel parking positive	96	
Visibility positive	95	
Roadside cycleway negative	72	
Traffic lane width negative	72	
Visibility negative	69	
Height of cycle path negative	65	
Footpath width positive	61	
Parking proximity to services positive	51	
Angled parking positive	50	
Parking proximity to services negative	49	
Angled parking negative	37	
Kerbside cycleway negative	34	
Footpath width negative	33	
Cycle lane buffer zone negative	17	
Parallel parking negative	10	

Option A preference comments
For a description of Option A see Appendix 2.

The 10 most frequent coded themes for Option A are as follows:

Table 17. Option A: highest frequency preference comment codes

Theme category	Number of mentions by
submitters	
Safety negative	92	
Roadside negative	58	
Number of car parking spaces negative	53	
Roadside positive	34
31	
Safety positive		
Cost negative	29	
Visibility positive	10	
Traffic lane width negative	9
9	
Parking proximity to services negative		
Traffic lane width positive	7	

Option A attracted high rates of concern about safety, its status as a roadside option, and the loss of car parks.

Safety concerns
Option A attracted concerns about cyclist safety from supporters of a kerbside option. It was seen as the least safe option of the four options offered because it did not separate cyclists and motorists.
“Option A is the most unsafe, as it involves the highest risk of car-cyclist accidents.” “Option A is substandard and a major step backwards for cycle safety. It fails to provide
adequate separation between traffic and cyclists.”

“Option A is a great leap backward. I'd be worried about being hit from behind by a car or 'doored', just like on any other road without a separated cycleway. I wouldn't feel comfortable letting my kids ride to school on it.”

Comments were made by, and on behalf of, vulnerable cyclists and children and other road users about being unsafe.

“I am 8. I use the cycle way with my family. I like it. It is nice that it is more safer now because if you slip on your bike you don't really get hurt but if you changed it to number A that's what would happen because if you slipped you would go onto the road and could get run over by a car. So if you are going to change it I think it's going to be a bad idea and I wouldn't use it. It wouldn't be safe. I don't think anyone would go on it.”

“I have only ranked those options that I consider safe options for my kids to use. Currently 8 and 11 years they now cycle on the current lane. There is no way I would ever let them ride on what was there before, or on Option A where you are placing vulnerable users between parked cars and high volume traffic (including in the future double decker

buses apparently). If the Council is truly committed to providing safe cycling routes and enabling less confident riders to get on their bikes then a fully separated option had to be retained.”

Roadside option concerns
There was criticism of Option A not having separation between cyclists and motor vehicles, and this was often connected to the safety concern above.

“I have not ranked Option A as reverting to a painted cyclelane with no separation from traffic is a huge waste of time and money, and an incredibly backward and Trumpian choice of action. If a city wants of lead the world in livability and quality of life then it should be fully embracing active and sustainable transport. It is well established in the academic literature that the best way to encourage cycling is by installing high quality separated cycleways. This is why so many progressive world-leading cities are investing in networks of separated cycleways. Wellington should be doing the same if it wants to keep pace with these cities and improve the health, wellbeing and satisfaction of its residents.”

“I really appreciate a move away from the roadside design. When I used to cycle down to the beach with my children (when they were learning to cycle) and before the current cycle-way was installed, my children were too nervous to ride on the roadside , but choose the footpath. Which of course I was nervous about with cars pulling out of driveways. I'm really enjoy seeing how many parents and children are now using the cycle-way… I didn't vote for Option A as I believe a return to roadside would be unsafe and would discourage new cyclists to use it, as with example of my children above.”

It was identified by some that Option A, as a return to a roadside option, would not meet NZTA safety guidelines and that it did not match with the Council’s wider strategies and policies.

Car park loss concerns
Option A was opposed by some on the grounds that, like Options B, C and D, it removed car parks from The Parade. In this respect it was noted as inferior to the Revert option, which proposed to restore and preserve car parks.

“I'm horrified yet more parks would be abolished under Option A - D when Option E would provide more.”

“I chose Option A because it is closest to the original, which in my opinion was perfectly functional and safe. However, I am very disappointed in the number of carparks you are determined to remove, especially in the shopping centre.”

“I'm largely OK with both Option A with a MAJOR exception being the business zone parking which must largely be left as is with angle parking.”

Roadside option positive
There was support for Option A as a roadside option and it was noted that Option A was relatively close to the original layout.

“I'm a cyclist and believe that the Option A is the safest and best option for all. As a cyclist who is teaching my kids to ride too we need to share the road. Having multiple  and confusing options is crazy when it's one of the widest roads in Wellington. The only areas I have issues riding is the south coast and Makara. Cyclists need to be aware of their surroundings and a short cycle way will not protect injury or encourage motorists to take a more cautious approach. It may have the opposite effect.”

Safety positive
Although Option A was considered unsafe by a large number of submitters commenting on this option, others commented positively on its safety and contrasted this with the perceived unsafe current design.

“If Option E can't be done (because of so-called new rules and regs and best-practice engineering, whatever that is) then Option A. Parked cars have no place sitting out in the middle of the road as they are now. It is stupid, dangerous and creates a very narrow pathway for vehicles, especially buses. Should never have been allowed.”

“Option A will separate people from machine and wheels considerably, hence protecting people and keeping them away from traffic hazards. Vehicles and Bikes can co-exist with each other and deal with each other according to the road code and away from pedestrians especially away from children, school kids and the elderly.”

Option B preference comments
For a description of Option B see Appendix 2.

The 10 most frequent codes tagged to comments for Option B are as follows:

Table 18. Option B: highest frequency preference comment codes

Theme category	Number of mentions by
submitters	
Kerbside positive	83	
Safety positive	74	
Height of cycle path positive	38	
Cycle lane buffer zone positive	37	
Number of car parking spaces negative	34	
Height of cycle path negative	22	
Cost negative	22	
Safety negative	19	
Footpath width positive	12	
Traffic lane width negative	9	

Option B attracted significant numbers of comments about the positive aspects of a kerbside cycle way and safety. There was a moderate number of comments in support of the height of the cycle path and the cycle lane buffer zone, and concern about the loss of car parks.

Kerbside positive
As a kerbside option, Option B was cited positively (often as part of a generally supportive comment about the other kerbside options, C and D).

"It needs a physical barrier from motorised traffic - both to protect the cyclists and to stop encroachment from parking vehicles. If the lane is included at same height as pedestrian path then the utility would be degraded through essentially being used as pedestrian thoroughfare. This makes the Option B preferred”

“Option B seems to provide the best balance between the needs of different road users, and create a safe, easy to use, cycleway and roadway.”

Safety positive
Related to the relatively strong support for Option B as a kerbside design, safety was commonly cited positively. Again this was sometimes as a part of a wider comment about all the kerbside options.

“Option B best and safest for all users.”

“A = going backwards, B is safer for bike users of all ages.”

Height of cycle path positive and cycle lane buffer zone positive
Option B has a cycle path that lies below the height of the footpath and cyclists are also protected from parked cars by a kerb, hence creating buffer zones between pedestrians, cyclists and parked cars. These aspects were noted as positive including being clear and safe for pedestrians who were clearly separated from the cycle path, and reducing the risk of cyclists being “doored” on the passenger door side of the parked vehicles. A number of submitters thought this was a significant enhancement on the current layout, which was perceived to have these risks.

“I chose Option B because it's most like the way it is now with a barrier in between cyclists and moving cars. It also has a curb in between the pavement and pedestrians, I think this will dissuade people from walking on it causing less accidents.”

“Option B is safest for the average cyclist as the cycle user is protected from the moving traffic by the parked vehicles and safety strip, pedestrians are kept on the footpath and are unlikely to wander onto the cycle lane. This also means that faster cyclists would not endanger pedestrians.”

Car parking concerns
Loss of car parks was cited as a concern with Option B, usually as part of a wider comment about the loss of car parks with options A to D.

“Options A to D will destroy businesses and the local way of life by taking away more car parks when those that have already been taken away should be returned.”

“The current options are all taking car parking away that Island Bay business owners and residents need and use.”

“All other options, A,B,C,D involve loss of more carparks.  We have lost enough already.”

Option C preference comments
For a description of Option C see Appendix 2.

The 10 most frequent codes tagged to comments for Option C are as follows:

Table 19. Option C: highest frequency preference comment codes

Theme category	Number of mentions by
submitters	
Safety positive	130	
Kerbside positive	99	
Height of cycle path positive	70	
Cycle lane buffer zone positive	51	
Number of car parking spaces negative	39	
Footpath width positive	32	
Visibility positive	32	
Traffic lane width positive	25	
Cost negative	25
21	
Height of cycle path negative		

Option C attracted significant positive comments about safety, the kerbside design, the height of the cycle path, and the cycle lane buffer zone. Good visibility and the footpath and traffic lane width were also viewed positively. As a kerbside option, the loss of car parks was a concern for some submitters.

Safety
There was very strong support for Option C as a safe option. A number of submitters noted it as the safest option, and safety as a strong factor in their preference for it.

“C is the option that makes this the most accessible and the safest.”

“Option C has physical separation from Cars and pedestrians. Making it safer for both users. Option C also increases road width making it safer for larger vehicles. Option C also increases the buffer between parked cars and the cycleway.  Parallel parking is fine and is safer than angle parking with easier views of pedestrians, bicycles and other cars.”

“My 1st choice is Option C because it has a safe and large buffer zone between the parked cars and the cycleway, and doesn't eat into the pedestrian zone in the town centre.”

Kerbside design positive
Separation of cyclists from motor vehicle traffic was also regarded very highly in preference comments about Option C, and this was almost always linked to the perceived safety of cyclists, and sometimes also the perceived safety of pedestrians and motorists.

“Option C makes cyclists more visible, makes it easier for cyclists to pass each other, and provides easier (but not necessarily safer) access for people getting in and out of parked cars. Proper separation will be needed between the cycling and walking path.”

“Option C. It's clearly logical and separates, safely, all three modes of transport. It also makes it safe for cyclists and pedestrians as cyclists as cyclists don't go onto the footpath; likewise, cyclists are separated from cars. It's the safest option and encourages cycling.”

Height of cycle path and cycle lane buffer zone positive
The height of the cycle path and the cycle lane buffer zone were strongly supported aspects of Option C. Option C has a cycle path level with the footpath (ie above the road level) and this was generally seen as safer for cyclists and pedestrians. The raised cycle path was seen to provide better visibility of cyclists. Note that the height of the cycle path design for Option C is in contrast to the height of the cycle path design for Option B, which was also seen as safe by some supporters of Option B. There were also a number of supporters of Option C that wanted a further level of separation between cyclists and pedestrians.

“Option C raises cyclists slightly above road level, good for seeing and being seen. And you won’t feel trapped in a channel – there’ll be more room to pass, or to avoid any obstacles. It needs a tweak to keep walkers and cyclists separate though.”

“I support Option C as it retains a separated kerbside cycleway which is safer for cyclists and pedestrians. I would prefer that the cycleway was at the same height as the footpath. I think it would be less safe for people moving between the footpath and cars to have two small kerbs, and it would be better to just have one between the cycleway and the cars.”

The buffer zone between cyclists and parked cars was similarly supported as safer for cyclists and passengers exiting cars.

“Option C is the best because it is raised and further away from parked cars. So cars can't park on the cycle way or open their doors onto passing cyclists.”

“C offers the best buffer space between bikes and parked cars. This is important for me as I use the bike lane with children.”

Car parking concerns
There were concerns with the loss of car parks associated with Option C, and this feedback often came via a general critique of options A to D for their loss of car parks.

Option D preference comments
For a description of Option D see Appendix 2.

The 10 most frequent codes tagged to comments for Option D are as follows:

Table 20. Option D: highest frequency preference comment codes

Theme category	Number of mentions by
submitters	
Safety positive	66	
Kerbside positive	63	
Number of car parking spaces negative	34	
Angled parking positive	33	
Cost negative	28
27	
Footpath width negative		
Number of car parking spaces positive	25	
Angled parking negative	23	
Height of cycle path positive	20	
Height of cycle path negative	18	

As with Options B and C, positive comments about safety and the kerbside characteristics of this design were leading for supporters of this option. There were mixed concerns about car parks, with support for the preservation of angled parks but concern with the loss of car parks overall.

Safety and kerbside option positive
As with options B and C, Option D was seen as safer for cyclists and this was often related to the kerbside design. Support in these areas was sometimes expressed as general support for kerbside options.
“I support Option D as I think this would be the safest for cyclists and other users.” “The design priority should be on segregating cycle traffic from motor traffic, to
maximise safety for cycle commuters. The Parade, due to its width, is ideally suited to the
safest possible cycleway design. Option D is preferable due to the reduced risk of open- door injuries to cyclists.”

“I believe options C, B and D all provide safer options by segregating cyclists from motorists. This will enhance the ability of my children to use the cycleway and improve conditions for both cyclists and motorists.”

Angled parking
A unique feature of Option D was the retention of angle parking in the business area and this was singled out as the reason some submitters preferred it over the other three formal options (Options A–C). Some submitters preferred another option but wanted the business zone aspect of Option D integrated into their preferred option.

“I prefer Option D as it keeps the angled parks providing easier and more parking spaces in the actual shopping area. As someone with limited mobility having as many parks near the places I need to be as possible is helpful to me being able to use our shopping area easily.”

“I like all of the four options due to the fact they are all safe options for myself and my children, however, I chose Option D as I like the angle parking in the shopping area.”

“At least Option D would keep our car parks and our village going.”

“I would not be opposed to an alternative option comprising Option B in the residential zone and Option D in the business zone.”

There were, however, some submitters concerned about the retention of angle parking from a cyclist safety perspective (due to visibility issues when cars exit these parks) and the narrower footpath that would result.

The impact of angle parking on footpath width was noted as a concern by some, particularly for pedestrians, as was the loss of outdoor seating for cafes and restaurants.

“Option D is ok as well, the main difference from C being that the business area retains angle parking – which in turn removes a lot more footpath space in that section. This choice goes contrary to a lot of input I saw of people wanting a nicer village centre to walk and linger at.”

“But I do not think angled parking should be retained in the business zone at the expense of severely reduced pedestrian zone width. A wide pedestrian zone makes for a lively urban area, NOT lots of parking.”

Car parking concerns
Although a number of submitters were positive about angle parking being retained in the business zone with Option D, others pointed out that this design also removed car parks from The Parade as per options A to C.

Revert option (including Option E)
For a description of Option E see Appendix 3.

The 10 most frequent codes tagged to comments for the Revert option are as follows:

Table 21. Revert Option: highest frequency preference comment codes

Theme category	Number of mentions by
submitters	
Number of car parking spaces positive	266	
Safety positive	184	
Cost positive	169	
Roadside positive	151	
Traffic lane width positive	94	
Parallel parking positive	81	
Cycle lane buffer zone positive	72	
Visibility positive	39	
Parking proximity to services positive	39	
Safety negative	20	

The most frequently coded comments for the Revert option (including Option E) were almost all positive. This is a reflection of the general strong support for a Revert option, and also the fact that

Option E did not appear on the submission form as an option and therefore (unlike Option A) was not a “visible target” for submitters who supported other options. A number of supporters of Option E submitted a template 8 point explanation of Option E provided by the Island Bay Residents’ Association (see Appendix 3), and coding this template submission each time has contributed to a high frequency for some code categories.

The number of car parking spaces available for the Revert option was strongly supported (including retention of parks in the business zone), followed by the safety and perceived low cost of this option, and also general support for a roadside option.

Car parking positive
The return of car parks was the most cited positive of the Revert option. Often this was referenced to benefits for businesses along The Parade and people being able to access shops and services. This support for car parks was also sometimes expressed as a criticism of all the other options and the current design, and a reflection on the positives of parking before the current cycleway was introduced.

“The reduction in Parking under the other schemes is going to destroy local business which are vital for the growth of the community.”

“…there was sufficient parking & without this local businesses & the Medical Centre are suffering greatly.”

“Back to the way it was we can't afford to lose more car parks which will happen with your so called enhancements in Option A.”

“A majority of the businesses have selected Option E and they should know (if anyone does) how their foot-traffic will be significantly reduced by the removal of 57 residential and business district car-parks.”

Safety
The perceived safety benefits of the Revert option were commonly articulated by submitters. Submitters reported feeling unsafe driving on The Parade with the current layout. These submitters reported feeling safer before the changes. Although safety comments were often quite general, some cyclists said they felt safer travelling along The Parade before the changes.

“Should be put back to how it was. … I have used the cycleway in its previous form multiple times a day over many years and found it safe and easy to use for all users (cyclists, drivers and pedestrians).”

“Option E. I would like The Parade returned to how it was. I felt safe driving.” “Because the way it was before was much safer all round.”
“Would like the cycleway returned the way it originally was. Safer for the Island Bay
Community.”

“Back to the original please. Make it safer for everyone.”

“Put it back to original design safe practical and wide enough for my kids to cycle for 20 years.”

“…Option E is preferred. I used to cycle down The Parade to school every day and never once felt threatened in the original design. It was safe.”

Cost positive
A Revert option was perceived to be significantly cheaper than other options, and preliminary costings by the Island Bay Residents’ Association showing a significantly lower cost than other options were widely cited. Reverting was also seen as a way to stop throwing “good money after bad” for ratepayers.

“Put it back to how it was originally including reinstatement of all removed parking and bus stops, and stop wasting rate payers money.”

“Paint it back, all other options are a waste of money.”

Roadside positive
There was strong general support for a roadside cycleway amongst supporters of a Revert option. Submitters related this to the past design and expressed that this worked very well for cyclists, residents, motorists, shoppers, and local businesses. The current experience of a kerbside option that many perceived as dysfunctional (unsafe, confusing, and aesthetically unpleasing) was often contrasted to the previous roadside design.

“I would like the Parade in Island Bay to go back the way it was before all these changes were made. It was easy to use for all of the family, as you had to respect everyone who used the road.”

“Parked cars have no place sitting out in the middle of the road as they are now. It is stupid, dangerous and creates a very narrow pathway for vehicles, especially buses. Should never have been allowed.”

“Option E rebuild it to what it was, it was a relaxed and generous road with space for everyone. We need to keep the trees and the parking places without restrictions.”
“Option E, or something along those lines. I.e. Roadside cycleway clearly painted.” “Option E – return to original design. Safer, aesthetically superior, retains and reclaims
cultural and community values of Island Bay, more car parks, cheaper, faster!"

Traffic lane width and angle parking
There was a lot of support among these submitters for returning to a spacious road and preserving angle parking. As noted, the original traffic lane width was perceived to be safer for all users.

“Island Bay Parade was probably the most pleasant road to drive along in Wellington. Wide enough for car parking, cyclists and motorists to happily co-exist.”

Retain option
The 11 most frequent codes tagged to comments for the Retain option are as follows:

Table 22. Retain option: highest frequency preference comment codes

Theme Category	Number of mentions by submitters
Safety negative	157	
Visibility negative	54	
Safety positive	53	
Traffic lane width negative	30
29	
Number of car parking spaces - negative		
Kerbside positive	26
24	
Cost positive		
Parking proximity to services negative	18	
Kerbside negative	17	
Cycle lane buffer zone negative	7	
Cost Negative	7	

Those who commented on the current cycleway mentioned: the negative safety aspects; the reduced traffic lane width; the inadequate number of car parking spaces and; visibility being poor. By contrast, there was also a sentiment amongst some submitters for keeping the existing cycleway as it was safe or cost-effective going forward.

Safety and visibility
Submitters addressed the current cycleway as being unsafe, with visibility a particular concern. In contrast, however, some submitters noted that the current layout was safe or safer than the previous layout. Some felt there needed to be better protection of cyclists through enhanced separation.

“I am a regular visitor to Island Bay and have found the cycle way to cause a number of issues and inconveniences. … Cyclists passing by are very difficult to see and therefore become a danger and increase the risk of an accident.”

“My concern as a cyclist with the current cycleway is visibility to traffic coming from side roads when entering intersections.”

“Coming out of the main driveways on the Parade is so dangerous and difficult. We are unable to see anything with the cars parked in the middle of the road.”

“When I used to cycle down to the beach with my children (when they were learning to cycle) before the current cycle-way was installed, my children were too nervous to ride on the roadside, but choose the footpath. Which of course I was nervous about with cars pulling out of driveways. I'm really enjoy seeing how many parents and children are now using the cycle-way. I also find it great to cycle on as a regular cyclist.”

“I use the cycle path myself and with my two children. I am very pleased with the safety of the current configuration.”

“I like the current design where bikes are protected from cars, and are not travelling in roadside lanes. Roadside lanes do not give cyclists enough protection from traffic. My

family and I cycle on the Parade regularly and the current design is an improvement on the old design.”

General comments
If a submitter did not specifically state which option they were referring to in their comments, or made a general comment, their comments were coded in a “general” category. The table below shows the frequency of comments linked to codes in the general category.

Table 23. General comments coding frequency

Code category	N	
Roadside positive	62	
Roadside negative	52	
Kerbside positive	333	
Kerbside negative	31	
Traffic lane wide positive	46	
Traffic lane wide negative	2	
Traffic lane narrow positive	3	
Traffic lane narrow negative	7	
Footpath wide positive	16	
Footpath wide negative	1	
Footpath narrow positive	4	
Footpath narrow negative	2	
Cycle lane level with footpath positive	111	
Cycle lane level with footpath negative	18	
Cycle lane level with road positive	21	
Cycle lane level with road negative	6	
Cycle lane buffer zone positive	80	
Cycle lane buffer zone negative	3	
Parallel parking positive	16	
Parallel parking negative	8	
Angled parking positive	57	
Angled parking negative	26	
More parking spaces positive	41	
More parking spaces negative	2	
Less parking spaces positive	27	
Less parking spaces negative	80	
Visibility positive	42	
Visibility negative	7	
Safety positive	370	
Safety negative	12	
Parking proximity to services positive	26	
Parking proximity to services negative	8	
Cost positive	11	
Cost negative	30	

The dominant themes among general comments were related to the importance of safety and a preference for a kerbside cycleway.

“For safety, it is important that cyclists and motorists are separated, and "grade" separation is even better.”

“In regards to cycling infrastructure, safety is the primary concern.”

“As a cyclist and motorist having a cycle lane at footpath height increases safety and visibility.”

“It is very important to me that the cycle way is separated from road traffic for safety reasons. I live in Island Bay and have 5 children. I would not let them ride on the parade if the cycle way reverted to sitting alongside the traffic.”

“Cycleway is an absolute positive. But better to integrate bikes with pedestrians than with vehicles - better safety etc.”

“Safety was the most significant issue identified by the 'Love the Bay' process. This is best achieved by a kerb-side cycleway.”

“I think kerbside is really good for encouraging the less confident riders to get out and ride.”

“I look forward to seeing an improved kerbside cycle way and a vibrant island bay centre to follow.”

Other prominent themes were positive comments about the idea of the cycle lane being level with the footpath; a cycle lane buffer zone, and angled parking. A possible reduction in the number of parking spaces was something that was generally viewed negatively; however, some submitters noted that a compromise on the number of parking spaces was justified for an improvement in safety for users.

“The cycle way should be separated and raised for safety. Also parking around the shops is critical to me using the shops. The parks are always full and any reduction in these will affect my use of the shops. I will go somewhere I know I can get park.”

“Separation of cycles from vehicle traffic will significantly improve the safety for children and inexperienced riders. These areas represent where future growth in cycling will be and need to be encouraged and supported to ride in a safe manner. Having the raised lane also increases the demarcation for passengers exiting vehicles (to avoid stepping into path of riders)”
“Nice to have bikes away from road and car doors that can open and take out cyclists.” “Raised safety medians that keep bikers safe from parked car doors opening. That is
important.”

“The cycle lane needs to be protected from traffic and from car doors opening.”

“The parking lines should be removed to allow more parking, not less. There is no need to remove any more carparks.  The business area should remain angle parking.”

“Losing angle parking in the village (almost a third of the carparks directly outside local shops) and another 40 down The Parade isn't an enhancement. Those businesses, medical services and community facilities dotted right down The Parade are vital to our communities and access not just on foot, bike or bus but also by car, is very important to their sustainability and the vitality or our community. Access to parking for shops and medical services is already a struggle during certain hours after losing 34 parks already.”

“Parking at shops is already in high demand. Reducing parking will impact shopping, reducing commercial viability of retail at Island Bay likely to lead to reduction of retail opportunities and therefore the unique nature of Island Bay.”

Other themes included: keeping the traffic lane wide, increasing the number of parking spaces, and increased visibility.

“Put unmarked car parking back against the kerb, no markings equate to more car parks.”

“Restore car parks in shopping area”

“The Parade was a wide street accommodating both cars and cyclists before.”

“The Parade is the gateway to the south coast, it should be wide and welcoming, and not the obstacle course that it is at the present.”

“Improve visibility on the road.”

Preference comments from informal submissions
The 94 informal submissions were analysed using the same coding framework as the formal submissions. Three people did not provide any within-scope comments. The coded results for the remaining 91 submissions showed a similar pattern to the formal submissions. These are presented at the level of positive or negative comments about the various options:

Table 24. High level mentions of options by sentiment

Positive	Negative

Option A
Option B	15
11	14
14	
Option C	11	14	
Option D	10	16	
Option E	47	2	
Existing	8	16	
  Anotheroption 		20 		- 		

Note that 20 informal submissions that were positive about Option E gave no further detail.

Option summaries

This final section summarises the key submitter information about each option: how popular it was, what types of submitters particularly liked it, and what submitters had to say about it – both positives and negatives.

Table 25. Summary of submitter response to options

	Roadside options	Kerbside options	
	Option A	Revert	Option B	Option C	Option D	Retain	

Design summary	Roadside cycle lane -
original layout without enhancements.	Reverts cycleway back
to the roadside layout that existed before the current cycleway. Includes mentions of Option E, and “paint it back”.	One-way separated
kerbside cycleway - road-level cycle path (current layout with enhancements).	One-way separated
kerbside cycleway- cycle path level with footpath (current layout with enhancements).	One-way separated
kerbside cycleway- cycle path level with footpath and with angle parking (current layout with enhancements).	Leaving it as it
currently is – kerbside (without enhancements).	

Preference	4th of 4 original designs (Borda count)
5th of 7 options (Borda count including A to D, Revert, Retain and Others)	

1st of 7 options (Borda count including A to D, Revert, Retain and Others)	2nd of 4 original designs (Borda count)
3rd of 7 options (Borda count including A to D, Revert, Retain and Others)	1st of 4 original designs (Borda count)
2nd of 7 options (Borda count including A to D, Revert, Retain and Others)	3rd of 4 original designs (Borda count)
4th of 7 options (Borda count including A to D, Revert, Retain and Others)	

7th of 7 options (Borda count including A to D, Revert, Retain and Others)	

Popular with		Residents of The Parade and Island Bay
18 to 29-year-olds
40+ years old
Residents and local business owners
Regular visitors		Wellington suburbs (excluding Island Bay)
Under 18s
30 to 39-year-olds
Occasional visitors			

Positive feedback	Roadside layout
Safety
Visibility	Number of parking
spaces
Safety
Cost	Kerbside layout
Safety
Height of cycle path
(level with road)	Safety
Kerbside layout
Height of cycle path
(level with footpath)	Safety
Kerbside layout
Angled parking	Safety
Kerbside layout
Cost	

Negative feedback	Safety
Roadside layout
Number of parking
spaces	Safety
Kerbside
Cost	Number of parking
spaces
Cost
Height of cycle path (level with road)	Number of parking
spaces
Cost
Height of cycle path (level with footpath)	Number of parking
spaces
Cost
Footpath width	Safety
Visibility
Traffic lane width	

Table 26. Summary of Option A (preference and feedback)

Option A	

Preference	4th of 4 original designs (Borda Count)
5th of 7 options (Borda count including A to D, Revert, Retain and Others)
20% ranked as first choice of Option A to D
9% ranked as first choice of 7 option categories	

Popular with	Aged 60+ years – ranked 3rd (Borda count)
People who live on The Parade – ranked 2nd (Borda count)	

Positive feedback	Roadside layout
Safety
Visibility
Traffic lane width
Cycle lane buffer zone (also referred to as safety strip)	

Negative feedback	Safety
Roadside layout
Number of car parks
Cost
Traffic lane width	

Table 27. Summary of Revert (preference and feedback)

Revert	

Design summary	Reverts cycleway back to the roadside layout that existed before the current cycleway.
Includes mentions of Option E, “paint it back”, “return it to the way it was”, and “IBRA proposal”.	

Preference	1st of 7 options (Borda count including A to D, Revert, Retain and Others)
51% ranked as first choice of 7 option categories	

Popular with	Aged 18–29-years and 40+ years – ranked 1st (Borda count)
People who live on The Parade, and in Island Bay – ranked 1st (Borda count)
Residents, regular visitors, and local business owners – ranked 1st (Borda count)	

Positive feedback	Number of parking spaces
Safety
Cost
Roadside layout
Traffic lane width	

Negative feedback	Safety
Kerbside
Cost
Number of parking spaces
Roadside layout	

Table 28. Summary of Option B (preference and feedback)

Option B	

Preference	2nd of 4 original designs (Borda count)
3rd of 7 options (Borda count including A to D, Revert, Retain and Others)
18% ranked as first choice of Option A to D
9% ranked as first choice of 7 option categories	

Popular with	Aged under 18 years, and 30-39 years – ranked 2nd (Borda count)
People who live on The Parade, feeder suburbs, Wellington suburbs (total), and locations outside of Wellington – ranked 3rd (Borda count)
Occasional visitors. Ranked 2nd (Borda count)	

Positive feedback	Kerbside layout
Safety
Height of cycle path (level with road)
Cycle lane buffer zone
Footpath width	

Negative feedback	Number of parking spaces
Cost
Height of cycle path (level with road)
Safety
Traffic lane width	

Table 29. Summary of Option C (preference and feedback)

Option C	

Preference	1st of 4 original designs (Borda count)
2nd of 7 options (Borda count including A to D, Revert, Retain and Others)
47% ranked as first choice of Option A to D
22% ranked as first choice of 7 option categories	

Popular with	Aged under 18 years, and 30-29 years – ranked 1st (Borda count)
People who live in feeder suburbs, all Wellington suburbs (excluding Island Bay), and locations outside Wellington – ranked 1st (Borda count)
Occasional visitors – ranked 1st (Borda count)	

Positive feedback	Safety
Kerbside layout
Height of cycle path (level with footpath)
Cycle lane buffer zone
Footpath width	

Negative feedback	Number of parking spaces
Cost
Height of cycle path (level with footpath)
Safety
Traffic lane width	

Table 30. Summary of Option D (preference and feedback)

Option D	

Preference	3rd of 4 original designs (Borda Count)
4th of 7 options (Borda count including A to D, Revert, Retain and Others)
15% ranked as first choice of Option A to D
7% ranked as first choice of 7 option categories	

Popular with	All ages – ranked 4th (Borda count)
People who live in Island Bay – ranked 3rd (Borda count)
Residents, occasional visitors, and local business owners – ranked 3rd (Borda count)	

Positive feedback	Safety
Kerbside layout
Angled parking
Number of parking spaces
Height of cycle path (level with footpath)	

Negative feedback	Number of parking spaces
Cost
Footpath width
Angled parking
Height of cycle path (level with footpath)	

Table 31. Summary of Retain (preference and feedback)

Retain	

Design summary	Leaving it as it currently is – kerbside (without enhancements).	

Preference	7th of 7 options (Borda count including A to D, Revert, Retain and Others)
2% ranked as first choice of 7 option categories	

Popular with	Aged under 18 years, 18-29 years, and 40-49 years – ranked 6th (Borda count)
People who live in Island Bay, and in Wellington – ranked 6th (Borda count)	

Positive feedback	Safety
Kerbside layout
Cost
Traffic lane width
Roadside layout	

Negative feedback	Safety
Visibility
Traffic lane width
Number of car parking spaces
Parking proximity to services	

Appendix 1. Submission analysis method
This section describes the approach taken by the Research and Evaluation (R & E team) to collate and analyse the consultation data, as well as the public release of all individual submissions. An independent reviewer was engaged to provide an external review of this work and the processes for internal and external review are described.

The following diagram summarises the key points in the analysis process and the role of internal and external review.

Figure 4. Flow diagram of method (summary)

Process	Internal review	External review

Submission open (31 July 13 August)
Submissions accepted until final cut off time of 5pm, 14 August

Development of research protocol, including:
code frame for comments
method of analysis
process for multiple submissions.

Protocol was developed, reviewed, and agreed to by R
& E team.

Protocol was reviewed by external reviewer. Feedback integrated into final protocol.

Data entry of paper submissions.

Accuracy check of data entry against paper form.

Accuracy check of data entry against paper form.

Final check of data including:
checking for duplicates
checking data quality, and submissions moved to  informal .

Internal check and agreement by R & E team of all submissions removed as duplicates, or moved to informal .

Coding of preference comments based on peer reviewed code frame.

Five key coders initially group coded a cluster of submissions for interrater reliability.

All coders had random submissions checked for accuracy.

A random sample of coded submissions sent to external reviewer for check.

Data analysis and reporting of submitter profile, option preference, and preference comments

Report reviewed by members of R & E team.

Report reviewed by external reviewer. Feedback integrated into final report.

Acceptance of submissions
Paper submissions were accepted if they were marked with any date up to and including Monday 14 August to ensure those posted by the cut-off date of Sunday 13 August were included in the formal submissions. Submissions post-marked after this (from 15 August onwards) were not accepted. In total five paper submissions were received post-marked after Monday 14 August and therefore not accepted.

As some paper submissions were delivered to the Council on Monday 14 August (this was pre- arranged) and the online submission form was left open until 9am on Monday 14 August, all online submissions and emails received between 9pm on Sunday 13 August and 5pm the following day were included.

Data entry
Three types of submissions were received: an electronic submission form (N=3108), hardcopy form (N=655), and emails/letters (N=94). Hardcopy submissions were manually data entered in full into a master spreadsheet using the original online submission survey form. Internal and external checks of data entry accuracy were conducted.

All legible text was typed into the record for each submission including references to Option E. If attachments accompanied a submission, hardcopies were scanned and linked to the submission record, and electronic attachments were similarly linked to the submission record.
An internal peer review of the accuracy of data entry was undertaken before the dataset was finalised. Informal submissions are described below and analysis of this group is noted separately in each of the
three results sub-sections: submitter profile, submitter preferences, and preference comments.

Duplicates
Once the full electronic record of all submissions was finalised, removal of multiple submissions (duplicates) from a single person was undertaken. The four steps to identify and verify duplicate submissions were:

Step one: Identification of duplicates in the ‘your name’ field.
Step two: identification of duplicates in the ‘your email address’ field.
Step three: Identification of duplicate addresses in the ‘your street address’ field.
Step four: For online submissions, identification of duplicates in the network ID field which related to the IP address of the submission.

The following process was followed when duplicate submissions were identified, to determine which duplicate submission to include and which to discard:

If one submission was incomplete the complete submission was kept and the incomplete submission(s) discarded.
If both an online and paper form were submitted and completed, the online submission was kept and the paper submission discarded.
Submissions received at a later date overrode earlier submissions.

Where there were explicit instructions by submitters (eg “Please disregard my earlier submission”), these were followed.

Once duplicates were identified three key team members reviewed the list together, going through the steps outlined above to make the final decisions on which of the duplicates would be discarded and which would be kept. Each individual case was discussed until the three team members reached consensus. All duplicates were recorded along with the reason they were identified as duplicates, a record of which was kept and which was/were discarded, and the reasoning for each of these decisions based on the research protocol developed by the R & E team.

Seventy submissions were found to be duplicates and removed from the analysis.

Informal submissions
Ninety-four informal submissions were included in the analysis. Most (75) of these came from email correspondence during the submission period, and 19 were received through the formal submission channels.

There were a total of 95 emails received during the submission process that expressed some preference or opinion on the cycleway options. People who emailed received a message back encouraging them to submit a formal submission.  In instances where a person both emailed and made a formal submission, the email was discarded. Seventy-five emails contained code-able comments, and were from people who did not submit a formal submission.

The 20 emails that were removed comprised:

15 from individuals who also made a formal submission
3 duplicate responses
2 that referred to other submissions.

A further 19 submissions received online or through the hard copy form were marked as informal submissions. These either contained suspicious or missing demographic details (e.g. name or address), or did not record any preference.

Data analysis
The data analysis occurred across the three elements of the consultation: submitter profile, option preference (options A–D) and preference comments, including preference for Revert (including Option
and Retain (including Option F) options.

Submitter profile
Submitter profile results for the categories of residence, connection to Island Bay and age were calculated by summing frequency counts of the submitter responses in each category. Residence was derived from the street address provided and where a suburb but no street name was provided, these were included in the frequency counts by suburb. Where relevant, certain location measures included in the analysis were derived from street address and/or suburb (eg all Parade addresses were separated out, as were addresses in feeder suburbs).

Comparisons were also undertaken of the submitter profile to the wider population and population age profiles.

Submitter preferences
As submitter preferences were derived from two parts of the submission form (the preference ranking section for options A to D and the preference comments section allowing for amended options) data analysis integrated these two avenues for expressing preferences.

Ranking section A to D
The preference ranking section allowed submitters to rank any number of the four provided options. A single tick/ranking counted as a first preference for the option in question. Failure to indicate a preference between two or more options (hardcopy only) discounted this response from this aspect of the ranking analysis. Only three submitters failed to rank, and the options mentioned were included in the open coding of preferences as positive towards the relevant options. A nil response for this section was recorded as “no rank”.

A Borda count method was used to determine the overall popularity of each option by integrating different ranking values. Borda count ranking weights the popularity of options by assigning a descending number of points for first-ranked through to fourth-ranked preferences. In this process a first rank was worth four points, a second rank was worth three points, a third rank was worth two points, and a fourth rank was worth one point. The total number of points for each option therefore gave an assessment of relative popularity that integrated different preferences for each option.

Comments Section Ranking
The preference comments section invited the public to submit feedback on their preferences and also put forward any “amended options”. This section became an avenue for the expression of support for reverting the road back to its original layout (including Option E); retaining the cycleway as it is now (also referred to as Option F); and all other options (including minor and major amendments to the proposed options, or completely new proposed options).

Option E
On 31 July the Island Bay Residents’ Association proposed a fifth option, “Option E” (see Appendix 3 for a description).

Although Option E was not part of the submission form, it was dealt with as follows:

If Option E was mentioned anywhere on the form it this was coded as “Option E specifically”.
If a comment referred to or strongly inferred Option E but did not explicitly mention it (eg “IBRA proposal”, “As per meeting”, “Option 5” ), this was recorded as “IBRA/Reps/Strong inference”.
If an option to revert the cycleway back to its earlier form was described by a submitter (ie
similar sentiment to Option E), this was coded as “Revert/restore”.

A combined Revert category of numbers 1, 2 and 3 above was established to deal with these three types of comment.

This category numbers 1937 total positive mentions, and 50 negative mentions. How these numbers were constituted is outlined in the following table.

Revert preference components	Positive mentions	Negative mentions	
	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	

Table 32. Components of Revert option

Mentions Option E specifically	1230	64%	12	24%	
Infers Option E	228	12%	6	12%	
General revert/restore comment	479	25%	32	64%	
Totals	1937	100%	50	100%	

Option F
Alongside public communication from the Council that Option E would be recorded as a legitimate preference, it was also advised by Council that submitters could articulate a preference to retain the existing layout. This preference was called Option F. As with Option E, this option did not appear on the submission form, so any references to it were made by submitters in the comments section.  As with Option E, if submitters did not literally mention Option F but expressed this sentiment, this was coded to a ‘Retain’ category inclusive of Option F.

Analysing preference for Options A to D, Revert, Retain and other options
The report compares the support for Revert (including Option E), and Retain (including Option F) with the initial options A to D. To achieve this, positive comments for Revert or Retain were ranked either as a first preference, where there were no other preferences identified, or a subsequent preference if a person produced a ranking response in the comments section. In practice, very few people ranked either of these two additional options alongside other options, so they were in almost all cases ranked as a first preference for the purposes of the Borda count analysis. In cases where submitters ranked options A to D but then signaled a stronger support for Retain or Revert options in their comments, this commented preference was given a first rank, and other ranked preferences were demoted accordingly.

Having two avenues for preferences to be articulated is not ideal from a methodology perspective because submitters did not have the opportunity in the ranking section to rank the full set of formally recognised preferences. Options E and F were not described to submitters. Option E as a new option was relatively undeveloped (including its budget and feasibility) compared to options A to D.  Therefore it is unclear as to how informed submitters were about Option E including those who voiced a preference for it. If Option E had been described to all submitters, it is likely that it would have attracted further negative comments from kerbside supporters (as Option A did). The details provided to the public about Option E (see Appendix 3) are basic and lack detail. Many submitters cut and pasted these details in the comments section, which led to potentially inflated coding of some sentiments towards Option E.

The lack of a pre-determined process to rank all options, and a lack of content for Options E and F has had an unknown effect on the Borda count results for all options. Hence, interpretation of the comparisons between results for options A to D and the additional Revert and Retain options needs to be undertaken with some caution because of the way the consultation process moved ahead of the submission form outline and content.

Preference comments
Preference comments arose from the invitation on the submission form to provide more information about a selected preference or preferences, to critique an option, or provide an amended option. As noted above, this section was also used to derive ranking results for Revert (including Option E) and Retain (including Option F) options.

The following coding framework was developed to categorise and analyse comments relating to specific options, including attachments to submissions which in some cases were lengthy. Many submitters provided positive and negative comments on more than one option. The categories initially used in the coding framework were from the design objectives present in the Love the Bay process  and the design features expressed in the four options put together for consultation. Code categories were added iteratively during initial coding.

Table 33. Preference comments coding

Option	High level for or against
for each option	Reason for support/non-support of each
option (positive and negative codes are distinct)	
A	General positive	Roadside cycleway positive / negative	

B	
General negative	  Kerbside cycleway positive / negative 		

C		Traffic lane width positive / negative

Footpath width positive / negative	
D		Height of cycle path positive / negative	

Revert (including Option E)		  Height of cycle path positive / negative 		

Retain (including Option F)		Cycle lane buffer zone positive / negative

Parallel parking positive / negative	
Angled parking positive / negative

Number of car parking spaces positive / negative Visibility positive / negative
Safety positive / negative Cost positive / negative Other please specify

If comments were not tagged to a particular option (eg “this is the best option by far” or “I just want the safest option for all”) or were completely general in their nature, these were coded in the “general comments” without reference back to the ranking results. Coding the comments in this way reduced the number of subjective assessments by the analysis team of the link between preferences and comments, and improved inter-rater agreement.  General comments are considered separately in the preference comments section. The general comment codes were as follows:

Table 34. General comments coding

Note – positive and negative codes are distinct
Roadside positive / negative Kerbside positive / negative
Traffic lane wide positive / negative Traffic lane narrow positive / negative Footpath wide positive / negative Footpath narrow positive / negative
Cycle lane level with footpath positive / negative Cycle lane level with road positive / negative Cycle lane buffer zone positive / negative Parallel parking positive / negative
Angled parking positive / negative More parking spaces positive / negative Less parking spaces positive / negative Visibility positive / negative
Safety positive / negative
Parking proximity to services positive / negative Cost positive / negative

The following topics were out of scope and therefore not coded. These were, however, noted and discussed by members of the analysis team, and where appropriate, mention is made of this feedback in the results sections.

Other cycleways – eg Berhampore
Other infrastructure:
bus stops
pedestrian crossings
speed bumps
Process comments – anything to do with the consultation process or people involved
Comments relating to other options that ratepayers’ money/the money should be spent on
Comments relating to individuals’ actions
Abusive personal comments against individuals

Preference comments coding process
After the initial coding framework was developed the five main members of the coding team coded an initial cluster of comments together to search for missing codes and test inter-rater agreement. The coding framework was updated as the team worked through this cluster. After this process each coder worked on their own, checking back with other team members as necessary where they were uncertain of how to code a particular comment. Early on in this process all coders stopped and peer- reviewed a proportion of other team members’ work. Any issues identified were recorded alongside the suggested amendments. The peer reviewer then discussed these with the original coder and a wider group discussion was undertaken of the main implications for the rest of the coding work. Previously coded comments were then revisited as necessary to update the coding to maximise inter- rater consistency and the overall quality of the coding work.

Coding themes were analysed by key options: A, B, C, D, Revert (including Option E), and Retain (including Option F). Codes were ranked for frequency and the top 10 are presented in the findings. For each option, the most prominent themes are discussed in some detail and illustrative submitter comments are reported. Where patterns of code results differ between options, these differences are discussed. Key themes from coding of general comments are also presented.

Public release of submissions
All formal submission data was released to the public on 22 September on the Wellington City Council website and in hardcopy at the Wellington City Central Library and Council Offices. Hardcopy submissions and attachments were scanned and released in batches in PDF format and online submissions were also released in batches in a PDF form.

Wellington City Council decided not to release the names and addresses of submitters. The Council received community feedback that some individuals felt unsafe having their views about this issue known publicly. Hardcopy submissions had these details manually blanked out.

If a submitter was personally abusive to an individual, affected names were removed from the public submission record. If individuals were criticised in their public role around this issue, these comments were preserved in full.

External Review
Christchurch-based research company Research First was engaged to provide external review services to the project, in addition to the internal reviews that were undertaken at each step of the process. Research First provided feedback at several stages, focused on:

the method of analysis
data entry and coding accuracy
analysis and results.

The table below identifies the points at which feedback was received from the reviewer, the focus of this feedback, and the nature and response to feedback by the Council’s Research and Evaluation team.

Table 35. External review feedback areas

External review area	Guiding questions for the reviewer	Feedback and results

Quality assurance of the analysis method	
Will the analysis framework yield robust defendable results?	
Where there are irregularities with submissions, is the process for dealing with these ethical and robust?	
Are there sufficient quality control processes in place to ensure accuracy in entry and analysis?	
What needs to change to enhance the quality of the method?	

Research protocol submitted to Research First.

Feedback received for adjustments to protocol and practice:

Clarify eligible submission criteria
Note slight difference in submission forms (online versus hard copy) and look for differences in the analysis. If differences are found, note these as errors.
Clearly describe process for data cleaning and inter-data entry reliability
Clearly describe process for inter­

External review area	Guiding questions for the reviewer	Feedback and results

Quality assurance of a selection of submissions

Peer review on the final report (including revised draft after initial feedback).

Has the data for hardcopy submissions been entered correctly?

Have irregular submissions been dealt with as per the original method?

Have open ended comments been coded accurately?

Is the method accurately and clearly described?

Are the demographic information about submitters been presented accurately?

Have irregular submissions been handled appropriately and is their status effectively represented in the final report?

Are there robust, logical relationships between the method, data, findings and conclusions?

Have the objectives of the consultation been met in this report’s presentation of findings?

Have any limitations with the data, findings, and conclusions been clearly presented?

coder reliability
Carefully select and describe ranking methodology

Data entry and first coding check feedback (100 PDF hardcopy submission forms submitted for review. Research First checked R and E team’s data entry and coded the forms using the R and E team’s coding framework).

Two new code categories suggested: Bus stops and parking location. Bus stops out of scope and parking location partly dealt with through code Parking proximity to services, and otherwise out of scope.
No errors in data entry.

Second Coding check feedback

(100 coded submissions submitted for review). There were 15 queries received and these were itemised as leave, adjust, adjust and check other entries for the same issues. All necessary amendments to the coding dataset were undertaken as a result of the feedback received.

Draft report feedback (key points): Technical details dominate. Response:
Placement of method section as an appendix. Clearer and more prominent summaries of results. Added a method summary diagram.

Executive summary too detailed. Response: reviewed and added a key results section.

Raised potential issues with Borda Count method. Response: Amendments to be clearer about the use of this method and limitations.

Can more results be visualised?  Response: Added a graph of preferences to show the key preference results visually.

Preferences – Having options A to D results as the first section is confusing. Response: Removed reporting of results for options A to D only so all results compare the options inclusive of Revert and Retain options.

Too many preference comment quotes, section requires revision to make more concise. Response: Removed some quotes and tightened up this section generally.

Appendix 2: Description of options A to D
Source: wcc.govt.nz

Option A – roadside cycle lane - original layout with enhancements

Prior to the construction of the Island Bay Cycleway, The Parade south of Medway Street had kerbside parking, a cycle lane next to the parking, and traffic lanes separated by a central flush median. Option A proposes a layout that, as close as safely possible, reflects the original design. Changes have been made to reflect the requirements of the 2016 post-construction safety audit and peer review, and current NZTA and engineering safety guidelines that the original design did not include. It is these requirements that preclude a return to the exact original layout. Changes also extend the cycle treatment along the length north of Medway Street to the Dee Street roundabout, which the original design did not include. No reduction in  the current pedestrian footpath width is expected.

This option requires the conversion of the angle parking to parallel parking within the shopping area between Medway Street and Avon Street, and removal of the flush median.

Removal of some 40 parking spaces in the residential area is designed to address the safety issues identified with visibility and vehicle manoeuvring to and from The Parade at driveways. Within the shopping area, the conversion to parallel parking will remove some 17 spaces in order to support a consistent cycleway design along The Parade.

The indicative cost for Option A is $4.1 million.

Option B – one-way separated kerbside cycleway – road level - current layout with enhancements

This option retains the status quo layout of a kerbside cycleway at road level. Design refinements include a raised concrete traffic island between the cycleway and parked vehicles, parking removal to address safety concerns at driveways, and extension of the cycle treatment along the entire length of The Parade to the Dee Street roundabout. No reduction in the current pedestrian footpath width is expected.

Removal of some 40 parking spaces in the residential area is designed to address the safety issues   identified with visibility and vehicle manoeuvring to and from The Parade at driveways. This option requires the conversion of the angle parking to parallel parking within the business area between Medway Street  and Avon Street, and removal of the flush median.

Within the shopping area, the conversion to parallel parking will remove some 17 spaces in order to support a consistent cycleway design along The Parade.

The indicative cost for Option B is $5.2 million.

Option C – one-way separated kerbside cycleway – above road level

This option also provides a separated kerbside cycleway, with the cycleway above road level, either at mid- height between the roadway and footpath or at footpath level. A kerb will separate the cycleway vertically from the roadway (and footpath if at mid-height), and horizontal separation for cyclists from parked vehicles is provided by a 1.0m safety strip. Kerbside parking removal to address safety concerns at driveways, and extension of the cycle treatment along the entire length of The Parade to the Dee Street roundabout is proposed.

Removal of some 40 parking spaces in the residential area is designed to address the safety issues identified with visibility and vehicle manoeuvring to and from The Parade at driveways.

This option results in a reduction in the existing pedestrian footpath width to 2.4m on the west side of the residential area. Within the shopping area, the west side pedestrian footpath reduces to 5.2m width, the east side increases to 3.5m width. This option requires the conversion of the angle parking to parallel parking within the business area between Medway Street and Avon Street, and removal of the flush median.

Within the business area, the conversion to parallel parking will remove some 17 spaces in order to support a consistent cycleway design along The Parade.

The indicative cost for Option C is $6.0 million.

Option D – one-way separated kerbside cycleway – above road level, with angle parking

This option is similar to Option C, providing a separated kerbside cycleway, with the cycleway above road level, either at mid-height between the roadway and footpath, or at footpath level. A kerb will separate the cycleway vertically from the roadway (and footpath if at mid-height), and horizontal separation for cyclists from parked vehicles is provided by a 900mm safety strip. Kerbside parking removal to address safety

concerns at driveways, and extension of the cycle treatment along the entire length of The Parade to the Dee Street roundabout is proposed.

Removal of some 40 parking spaces in the residential area is designed to address the safety issues identified with visibility and vehicle manoeuvring to and from The Parade at driveways.

This option retains the existing eastern side kerb line and footpath widths. This option results in a reduction in the existing west side pedestrian footpath width to 1.6m, and provision of a 1.0m flush median between traffic lanes within the residential area. Within the business area, the west side pedestrian footpath  reduces to 3.4m width, and the majority of the western kerbside angle parking remains between Medway Street and Avon Street.

Within the business area, the retention of angle parking, and provision of a consistent cycleway design along The Parade will require the removal of 2 spaces.

The indicative cost for Option D is $6.2 million.

Appendix 3: Description of Option E

What follows is a verbatim description of Option E, constructed by the Island Bay Residents’ Association:

Reseal The Parade. Approx cost $280,000 based on council figures for 2016 where it spent
$9.5 million resealing 68km of road.
Move the bus stops back to where they were, this involves breaking up the kerb extensions the council put on and re-kerbing approx half a kilometre of The Parade.
Put unmarked car parking back against the kerb, no markings equate to more car parks.
Clearly paint using green or another colour a cycleway on the roadside of parked cars, increasing the width by 0.5 of a metre from the original cycleway design.
In the shopping centre retain the current shared space and car parks.
Look at reducing the speed limit along The Parade.
Remove the speed humps around the shopping centre and lower the height of the pedestrian crossings.
Retain pedestrian crossings on The Parade.

To be confirmed but and indicative costing would be no more than $750,000.