NEW ZEALAND CYCLING STRATEGY FOUNDATION PROJECT

INTERIM POSITION STATEMENT, FEBRUARY 2000 – SUMMARY

The Project

The New Zealand Cycling Strategy Foundation Project is funded by the IPENZ (Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand) Transportation Group, and supported in kind by Hamilton City Council.

International expertise and a New Zealand Study tour of seven cities are summarised in the Interim Position Statement, which will form the basis of consultation.   The draft Foundation Document, to be prepared in June, will be presented for further consultation to the conference `Making Cycling Viable’, Palmerston North, 14^th/15^th July 2000.   The project will be completed by September 2000.

There is substantial interest in whether New Zealand should have a National Cycling Strategy, especially since Australia and some European countries have adopted such strategies.   There is a wide divergence of views on the issues, which is why this project seeks to facilitate discussion before any work on a Strategy itself is considered.

The Interim Position Statement

The Interim Position Statement is structured around `State of the Art’, a summary of international expertise, and `State of the Nation’, comprising a study of practice as exemplified in seven New Zealand cities.

Historical Overview

Transport policy and planning developed around the motor car through the first half of the 20^th century because, although a `minority mode’, it was considered the transport mode of `the future’.   Car based transport planning reached a peak in the 1960s, with a number of landmark national policy documents urging major road building in conjunction with protection of `environmental areas’.   Key concepts, such as that of a through/ local traffic `road hierarchy’, belong to this time.

Cycling was absent from this thinking – assumed to be `yesterday’s transport’ - but the `oil shocks’, and global environmental concerns, saw a strong surge of interest in planning for cycling in the late 1970s.   Studies such as the Geelong Bike Plan (Victoria, Australia, 1977) set the pace, and policies based on the `4 E’s’ (Engineering, Encouragement, Education and Enforcement), and the concept of a `cycle route network’ were widely replicated throughout developed world cities.  

This separate development meant cycle planning and engineering were not `integrated’ into the transport planning `mainstream’.   It also meant that cycling advocates led developments, which only subsequently received professional and governmental endorsement.    Most cycling expertise remains outside the professional mainstream, in specialist conference networks such as `VeloCity’ (Europe) and `ProBike’ (North America).  

Issues

Expertise is summarised around a number of issues to facilitate discussion.   The range of perspectives encapsulated will sometimes be controversial to some audiences, but it is hoped this will translate into constructive discussion.   Further contributions, with supporting arguments, are welcome.

Issues identified include the following:

* The `Four E’s’   Still relevant?   What balance between `Engineering, Encouragement, Education and Enforcement’?   They predate `integrated’ multi-modal transport planning, and the rising importance of preventive health – is this a problem?

* The `Cycle Route Network’ Concept   Cyclists have the same journey needs as motorists and so their needs are best met by the arterial and collector roads of the general network, but there have been attempts (e.g. Canberra) to aim for comprehensive networks of segregated paths.   These have been criticised for substandard design, not serving destinations, and by implication diminishing cyclists’ rights on the general road system.   Cycle route networks based on `side roads’ in older grid-based cities have also shown disappointing results, with neither an increase in cycling, nor a reduction in cycle crashes in many cases.

* Short Distance Movement   Since cycling is particularly suited to short distances, area-based speed and traffic reduction measures such as `Woonerven’, `Home Zones’ and `Safe Route to School’ may be a more appropriate strategy than reliance on longer-distance `cycle routes’.   If we need both, how do they relate to each other?

* Engineering Practice   Cycling design manuals have suffered from coming later and therefore not being integrated with general material.   They have tended to only be consulted when `cycling facilities’ are being designed – a long way from the Geelong Bike Plan ideal that `every street is a bicycle street’.   1990s thinking such as the `Five Point Hierarchy of Measures’ has given priority to traffic and speed reduction and intersection design, and `Cycle Audit and Cycle Review’ processes have put the focus back on the road system as a whole.

* What is `Safety’?   Crash statistics do not reliably indicate cyclist safety.   measured by distance, they overstate the danger, because slower-travelling cyclists are exposed for longer, and because fewer people will cycle (leading to fewer crashes) the more dangerous the road situation is.   With cycling’s preventive health benefits outweighing the safety risk by about 20:1, any measures which put people off cycling are counter-productive in real terms.   `Danger reduction’, through such measures as traffic speed reduction, may be a better way forward that simply trying to bring the crash rate down.

* `Risk Compensation’ and Helmets   `Risk compensation’ means measures which protect people – ranging from seat belts to bike helmets – may be compensated for by more risk-taking.   Cycle helmets are recent, and are still unknown in many of the most `cycle-friendly’ countries such as the Netherlands.   Helmet encouragement and compulsory wearing laws, often in reaction to harrowing specific injury cases, seem an uncontrovertibly effective way of significantly increasing the safety of cycling, but helmet advocates often do not address the serious professional concerns that such strategies may be counter-productive in terms of real safety, or the claimed crash reductions may have arisen from other factors.   The way helmets are marketed also needs to be addressed to counter `risk compensation’ and a message that `cycling is dangerous’

* `Integrated’ Transport Planning   The move from `car-based’ to `multi-modal’ transport planning may not be as radical as it seems – often it only extends to public transport, keeps the old focus on longer distance motorised travel.   Even when there is more cycling than public transport use, the term `private transport’ is often used as a shorthand for `car use’, and `public transport’ the alternative on which public views are sought.   Travel patterns have changed a lot since the 1960s, and today’s increased flexibility of time, location and purpose of journeys – acknowledged to undermine the public transport’s potential – may means cycling (and walking) have an understated potential as `private transport’ with the versatility of the car but without its costs and adverse effects.

* Funding Allocation   Transport funding decision methodology measures travel time and crash costs and benefits to great sophistication, but many of the benefits accruing from cycling (and walking) little or not at all.   More research is needed in a vast range of new areas but in some areas the benefits are well established, like preventive health.   The idea that `cyclists don’t pay for the roads so shouldn’t have much spent on them’ fails to recognise that road charges were only ever introduced to pay for costs imposed, not benefits received.

* Motoring and Cycling `Culture’ and Behaviour   Cyclists’ rights on the road are usually the same as motorists, meaning the correct manoeuvres are the same, but trying to behave in this way – e.g. occupying the centre of a lane, often necessary at intersections and roundabouts – is unexpected by motorists.   The Road Code and much road safety publicity doesn’t tell cyclists how to manoeuvre, or motorists where to expect them, so general exhortations to `take care’ or `watch out’, though well-meant, are of limited use.   Joint working by cycling and motoring organisations, and `Share the Road’ campaigns, are a way forward, and bike-mounted Police patrols can help sensitivity to cyclists’ needs.

* Off-Road Facilities to Start More People Cycling?   Research has shown that people coaxed to start cycling through attractive off-road facilities are less likely than others to continue cycling for general needs, but such facilities may be worth promoting for their own sake, especially given tourism transport growth.

* Preventive Health Benefits   have grown in importance as reasons for more cycling.   Agencies like the Hillary Commission now stress `gentle and frequent’ exercise, and target `couch potatoes’ rather than `potential sports-people’.   However, cycling as part of everyday transport – which people are more likely to continue longer term – is not prominent in preventive health literature.   The impression that road-based cycling `is dangerous’ – re-inforced by the message from safety agencies – may be a reason, which runs counter to the positive `life-enhancing’ message about cycling from preventive health agencies.   An overall `cycling health and safety’ strategy is needed, recognising how much the health benefits outweigh the safety risks.   

* Cycling/ Pedestrian Sharing   Cycling/pedestrian sharing may work well in shopping streets and off-road paths, but professional opinion is divided.   We must take care not to simply transfer risk to an even more vulnerable group, pedestrians.

* Land Use Planning   Higher urban densities correlate with more cycling, but how does one influence the other?   Can more `connected’ road networks help?

* Is Cycle Planning and Engineering `Professional’?   Cycle planning and engineering are almost entirely missing from professional training, leading to widespread ignorance of `best practice’, and reliance for advice on lay cyclists, who don’t have a professional background.   How can this expertise be integrated into mainstream training and continuing professional development?

* Global Concerns   Overseas aid and developing countries are embracing rapid motorisation, ignoring cycling, which continues even when admitted to be a concern.   Is the oil going to run out, and if so will this mean more cycling?

New Zealand Experience

The survey of New Zealand experience showed wide differences between local situations.   A photographic sample shows the under-development of cycle engineering, and often difficulty in integrating it with overall road design – mirroring the state of cycle planning itself.   Looking at policy development, `cycle facility’ design, local and national cycling advocacy, and Council – advocate relationships, some locations are more `advanced’ than others, and there is a strong desire to learn from each other.   Much cycling engineering is embryonic and of `unofficial’ status.  The potential role of the Road Controlling Authorities’ Forum, Cycle Steering Committee, the two main cycling advocacy organisations, Land Transport Safety Authority, Transfund NZ, the IPENZ Transportation Group, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA), are briefly touched on.

The Way From Here

However, the perspectives different bodies have and the part they could play in any National Cycling Strategy is the focus of the next part of the project.   Responses will be sought from the Interim Position Statement – by way of points of agreement, points of disagreement, and supporting arguments – for incorporation in the draft Foundation Document itself.