The Wellington City Council this week started holding community meetings over plans to introduce cycle lanes across large parts of Wellington, with the aim of making cycling safer.

The move has been backed by an editorial from Green Party MP Julie Anne Genter, an adviser to Mayor Celia Wade Brown, who claims bike-only lanes could lift the percentage of people cycling from about 2.6 per cent in 2006 to 7 per cent – on par with Portland Oregon.

She argues that by replacing on-street parking with safe cycle lanes, about $20 million could be saved on infrastructure costs, and we would reap other benefits, such as congestion improvements and lower fuel use.

We have agreed with Genter in the past on proposals to scrap mandatory parking provisions, but on this, we are decidedly more wary.

We have yet to see the cost-benefit analysis on this proposal, but some of the areas we would like to scrutinise closely include topology and climate. Research published in the American Journal of Public Health shows geography and weather play a far greater role in determining peoples’ choice of transport mode than urban design.

Genter dismisses Wellington’s hills, claiming electric bikes will solve that, but then why not advocate for electric scooters or motorbikes as another alternative to cars? These forms of transport use existing roads and do not require additional infrastructure investment.

Portland, it should also be noted, is comparatively flat compared to Wellington.

Genter also ignores weather in her editorial. As an avid cyclist, this correspondent can attest to how refreshing commuting to work by bike on a fine day can be. However, such days are few and far between.

In other words, just because you build cycle lanes does not mean people will necessarily use them. This was seen in Sydney, where official figures show the number of bike commutes have dropped 5.9 per cent since 2001 despite significant and disruptive investment in bike lanes.

Another factor to consider is who pays for this infrastructure? Non-freeway roads are funded out of fuel levies and rates. Cyclists rightly do not pay road levies because their impact on road infrastructure is minimal, but will that continue to be fair when we reshape the urban infrastructure to accommodate them specifically?

That said, our concerns could be unfounded. Genter and the Wellington City Council could be correct in the assertion that cycle lanes will be a net benefit to the city. All we ask is that they back their claims with a thorough economic analysis to ensure that tax payer funds are being spent efficiently.

Forgive us if we remain sceptical until then.