Submission to Wellington City Council on Draft Cycling Policy

To: transportplanning@wcc.govt.nz

More people cycling, more often

 

21 September 2008

Patrick Morgan

 

Thanks for the opportunity to have a say in this important matter.

 

Cycling is a solution, not a problem

I believe more cycling will make a vital contribution to solving many of our biggest challenges: mitigating climate change, reducing oil dependence, promoting a cohesive community, economic progress, quality of life, and health issues. It's also a lot of fun.

 

I congratulate the Council on producing a draft cycling policy. I urge Council to aim much higher.

 

Proposed aim is too limited

1. Do you agree with the proposed aim of the draft Cycling Policy - to make Wellington safer and more convenient for those who choose to cycle?

 

I partially agree. I think we need to go much further: our top priority should be "more people cycling, more often".

 

The safety in numbers effect shows that "a motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling." (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/205)

 

In short: more walkers and cyclists equals safer walking and bicycling.

 

The draft cycling policy aims at improving safety, but does not aim to increase cyclist numbers. It is inconsistent with the Regional Land Transport Strategy and the New Zealand Transport Strategy 2008.

 

The Regional Land Transport Strategy "seeks to improve the level of service for cycling throughout the region" and achieve "increased mode share for pedestrians and cyclists".

 

The New Zealand Transport Strategy aims to increase walking and cycling to 30% of all trips in urban areas by 2040, almost double the present figure.

 

I believe that solely advocating for cycling improvements will not deliver the targets set by the Government. It is time to stop talking about cycling and start doing something about it.

 

The best ways to improve safety for people who cycle are to:

1. Reduce traffic volume

2. Reduce traffic speed
   (Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers (US); Kirby, T, Newland Road Safety Demonstration Project, Presentation to Planning Safer Streets Conference, London, 2007)

 

then focus on the 4 Es of transport planning:

1. Encouragement - increase cyclist numbers

2. Engineering - build quality cycling infrastructure

3. Education - of motorists and cyclists

4. Enforcement - good laws, enforced fairly.

 

DECISION SOUGHT: Inclusion of specific targets for increasing cycling in Wellington.

 

 

2. To what extent do you agree with the six objectives (shown in Table 1) of the draft policy?

1. To improve cycle safety throughout Wellington

2. To improve convenience of cycling in Wellington

3. To improve the experience of cycle trips to and from the central area

4. To improve the experience of cycling trips made to and from suburban centres

5. To improve the experience of cycling trips made to and from educational centres

6. To improve the experience of cycling trips made for recreation

 

I agree. And the best ways to achieve these objectives are to reduce traffic volume, and reduce traffic speed.

 

DECISION SOUGHT: Inclusion of specific targets for reducing traffic volume and speed.

 

 

3. There are a number of policies proposed (shown in Table 2) that will assist in achieving the aim and objectives of the policy. To what extent do you agree with these proposed policies?

 

Policy 1.1 Every opportunity to make the city as safe as possible for cyclists must be explored - agree.

 

Policy 1.2 Cycle-friendly traffic-calming measures will be implemented as required to moderate motorists' speeds - agree

Policy 2.1 Adequate cycle parking facilities will be provided in key areas where practicable - agree

 

Policy 3.1 On main corridors, cyclists will have an option of riding free of general traffic

by using dedicated cycle facilities where practical or by using dedicated bus lanes
- qualified agreement. Well-designed dedicated cycle facilities are far superior to sharing bus lanes. According to transport expert Gil Penalosa, the test of cycling infrastructure is "would you let your eight-year-old use it?"

The solution proposed to improve the regional links to the CBD - shared bus and cycle lanes - are not acceptable for all cyclists. Only the most experienced cyclists will use those lanes. WCC will be catering only for those who already ride, resulting in minimal increases in cycling, which won't deliver the targets set at the regional and national levels.

Policy 3.2 Every opportunity must be taken to make improvements to the cycle network (refer Appendix 1) to make the routes safer and more convenient - agree

Policy 3.3 Those who choose to cycle will have provision for securing their cycle near their destination in the central area - agree

 

Policy 4.1 Cyclists will have provision for securing their cycle near their destination in suburban centres - agree

Policy 4.2 Every opportunity should be taken to ensure cycling is a viable option for short trips to and from suburban centres - partially agree. Cycling should be viable for any trip in Wellington. Appendix 3 of the Cycling Policy shows that almost everyone lives within 7 km of the CBD, equivalent to a 30 minute ride.

Policy 5.1 Every opportunity should be taken to ensure cycling is a viable option for short trips to and from educational centres - partially agree. Cycling should be viable for any trip in Wellington.

Policy 6.1 On-road recreational cycling is a legitimate and supported use of the road network - agree

Policy 6.2 Opportunities should be taken to ensure cycling is a viable option for short trips to and from key recreational areas and facilities - partially agree. Cycling should be viable for any trip in Wellington.

4 (a)There are a number of possible actions that could be taken under each of the objectives to assist in delivering the aim of the draft Cycling Policy. To what extent do you agree with these proposed actions?

Proposed Actions

 

1.0 Adopt / Promote / Advocate

1.1 Adopt best-practice guidelines for cycle network and route planning - agree

1.2 Regulate for lower speed limits in local streets to provide alternatives to busy main roads where appropriate - agree. And a 30km/h limit is appropriate on every local street.

1.3 Promote road safety campaigns targeting both motorists and cyclists with a focus on reducing cycle injuries - agree.

1.4 Promote awareness campaigns on the responsibilities of all parties for both shared cycle/footpaths and bus lanes - agree.

1.5 Facilitate a forum where industry and community representative can come together to discuss cycling issues. This group would assist in planning and delivering road safety and travel planning initiatives - agree.

1.6 Facilitate the creation of an internet-based regional journey planner, which will enable people to personalise individual journey maps - agree.

1.7 Continue with the area-based SaferRoads programme or Neighbourhood Accessibility Planning programme to maximise walking and cycling opportunities in suburban areas - agree.

1.8 Advocate for accessible public transport options for cyclists, eg carriage of bikes on buses - strongly agree.

1.9 Require cycle safety assessments as part of resource consent applications for new developments (especially for multi-units and central area) - agree, for all areas.

1.10 Adopt school travel planning programme, rolled out in all schools across Wellington with the initial focus on primary schools but extended to include intermediate and secondary schools in the future - agree.

1.11 Promote the use by schools of the online regional journey planner which will enable people to personalise individual journey maps - agree.

1.12 Promote, encourage and support the use of the Safer Routes to School programme and school travel plans - agree.

1.13 Work with tertiary institutes to develop organisational travel plans - agree.

2.0 Plan / Investigate / Develop / Undertake

2.1 Develop cycle parking requirements for central area buildings - agree.

2.2 Determine a suitable methodology for assessing levels of service and assess all routes identified in Appendix 1 - agree.

2.3 Undertake an ongoing review of signalised intersections to understand where advanced stop boxes could assist - agree, and I'm happy to help.

2.4 Undertake a study to identify the gaps in cycling routes to the central area including difficult and dangerous intersections - agree, and I'm happy to help.

2.5 Identify opportunities to provide cycle routes on the main corridors on quieter parallel routes to the main trafficked roads - agree.

2.6 Undertake a study to identify the gaps in cycle routes to suburban centres including difficult and dangerous intersections - agree.

2.7 Undertake a feasibility study for providing public cycle parking at key areas in the city - disagree. We don't need a feasibility study, we need more parking stands. I have been talking to Council staff since 2002 on this matter, and am happy to help pick suitable locations.

2.8 Undertake a feasibility study for providing public cycle lockers - agree.

2.9 Undertake a review of signalised intersection to understand where marked diamonds highlighting signal loops could assist - agree, and I'm happy to help.

2.10 Undertake an audit of common routes to and from school to determine barriers and issues affecting cycling - agree.

2.11 Undertake analysis to determine options to correct issues identified in audit including identifying likely costs. Prioritise works in a way that creates the potential to reduce car trips to and from school - agree.

2.12 Undertake a study to identify the gaps in cycle routes to recreation centres and off-road recreational areas, including difficult and dangerous intersections - agree. Refer to http://tiny.cc/61hPV for a map of problem areas.

2.13 Coordinate planning and delivery with the Open Space Access Plan to connect communities and recreational nodes - agree.

3.0 Provide / action - some actions will depend on the outcome of the investigation

3.1 Provide cycle-friendly sump-grates on the cycle network and on cycle-friendly routes (refer Appendix 1) - agree.

3.2 Provide regular sweeping of cycle network and cycle-friendly routes - agree, but

don't think this is a $250,000/ year priority.

3.3 Provide bus lanes that recognise the needs of cyclists - agree, as long as they are a minimum 4.2 metres wide, in line with NZ best-practice guidelines.

3.4 Provide bus lanes on key commuter routes as set out in the Council's Bus Priority Plan, and accommodate the needs of cyclists in the design and operations of bus lanes - agree, as long as they are a minimum 4.2 metres wide, in line with NZ best-practice guidelines.

3.5 Provide advanced stop boxes at signalised intersections where required- strongly agree

3.6 Provide coloured designated cycle lanes - agree. Suggest use of stencils on green backgrounds

3.7 Provide improvements to the road network to remedy gaps in the cycling network and to address difficult and dangerous intersections - agree. Refer to http://tiny.cc/61hPV for a map of problem areas. Strongly suggest $500,000 per year is needed to address the issues.

3.8 Provide alternatives to main trafficked routes on quieter alternative routes - agree.

3.9 Provide additional cycle parking facilities in key identified areas - agree. I am happy to help pick suitable locations.

3.10 Provide public cycle lockers, showers and changing facilities at key locations where feasible - agree.

3.11 Provide way-finding signage suitable for cycling - agree.

3.12 Provide painted diamonds at intersections to highlight signal loops and promote how to use them - agree.

3.13 Provide where possible a suitable road surface on key cycling routes as identified in the key cycle routes map - agree.

3.14 Provide additional cycle parking facilities at key suburban destinations - agree. I am happy to help pick suitable locations.

3.15 Provide improvements to the road network around suburban centres to address difficult and dangerous intersections - agree. But $25,000 /year isn't going to go far. Suggest $100,000 per centre as for schools.

3.16 Provide way-finding signage with approximate cycle times to key suburban destinations - agree. I can help provide this information. Refer www.mapmyride.com/

3.17 Provide street improvements as identified to improve routes to and from school ie for safe crossing points and traffic-calming as identified in the school travel plan - agree

3.18 Provide a dedicated parking warden to address school parking issues - agree

3.19 Provide infrastructural improvements where the experience of cycling to and from campuses is compromised and has been identified in Organisational Travel Plans - agree

3.20 Provide a suitable road surface on key recreational cycle routes - agree. But $25,000 /year isn't going to go far. Suggest $100,000 per route.

3.21 Provide improvements to the road network around recreation centres and off-road recreational areas - agree. But $10,000 /year isn't going to go far. Suggest $50,000.

3.22 Provide improvements to road edges on non-key routes - agree.

 

 

4 (b) Funding to implement the proposed actions will be sought through the Council's Long-Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP), and the Council may not wish to or be able to fund all of the initiatives. In order for the Council to determine which projects are most important we have prioritised the actions. To what extent do you agree with these priorities?

 

I have read the Cycling Policy but cannot see where actions are prioritised. Please clarify.

 

5. Is there anything you feel has not been adequately covered by this draft policy?

 

Targets

Targets need more work. I suggest the Policy includes numbers, e.g. Target 1: what is the current crash rate and what rate do we aim at, and by when? What is the current perception of cycle safety and what perception do we aim at? Same comment for other targets: an improvement in satisfaction surveys is too modest a target.

 

We ought to have a target for completion of the cycle network. The cycle network is incomplete, and there is no target set for completion of the network.

 

Funding gap

The policy is too poorly funded to achieve any of its objectives to any degree. I believe that the Council should take strong action to promote cycling, which will mean a commitment to serious funding.

 

Great Harbour Way

It is urgent to address the problem of inadequate cycling infrastructure along the harbour shore between Petone and Wellington, which is a vital segment of the Great Harbour Way around Wellington Harbour. A route on the seaward side of SH2 and rail track between Petone and Kaiwharawhara should be investigated and implemented as soon as possible.

 

Road user priority scheme

I would like to see the policy include, or include plans to advocate for, a road user priority scheme such as that adopted by the City of York in the UK. This scheme gives priority to walkers and cyclists in planning decisions. This is appropriate, since shifting from car use to walking and cycling benefits everyone - particularly other car users through reduced congestion; conversely, a shift to greater car use has adverse effects on everyone. Thus, walkers and cyclists warrant priority in planning decisions.

 

Designing cities around people, not cars

The City of York has won numerous awards for developing an integrated transport network that does not rely on private cars and meets local air quality objectives. An integral part of that strategy promotes sustainable active alternatives to the private car that are both convenient and reliable by using public transport, walking and cycling.

York was one of the first local authorities to adopt a hierarchy of transport users when making decisions related to land use and transport and in implementing transport measures.

The order of priority is:

1. Pedestrians

2. People with mobility problems

3. Cyclists

4. Public transport users (includes bus, coach, water, taxi and rail)

5. Powered two-wheelers

6. Commercial or business users (includes deliveries and heavy goods

vehicles)

1. Carborne shoppers and visitors

2. Carborne commuters

Source: Edwards P, Tsouros A. Promoting physical activity and active living in urban environments: the role of local governments. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2006: 8.

http://www.york.gov.uk/content/45053/64877/64891/Local_transport_plan/Lo....