Hi all
Please use this page to send your comments about the submission. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to leave your comments.
The draft submission is available form Google Docs following this link:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddcptvd8_22dgtnpscf
If you wish to make changes to the document, please discuss the changes here first, and then ask me for a password to collaborate on the Google Docs document.
Best,
Andre
Submission to Greater Wellington Regional Council
NGAURANGA TO WELLINGTON AIRPORT DRAFT CORRIDOR PLAN
Cycle Aware Wellington
CAW is the cycling advocacy group for the Wellington region, with a particular focus on the bicycle as a means of transport and recreation. Our goal is more people biking more often.We have representatives on the Wellington Regional Cycling Forum and Wellington Regional Land Transport committee.
CAW has 100 financial members and 500 associate members.
We also speak for the 4000 people who sent submissions on the Draft Regional Land Transport Strategy 2007 stating: “The top priority for the regional land transport strategy ought to be vastly improved rail and bus services and facilities, together with much easier and safer walking and cycling.”
Since our inception in 1994, CAW has worked constructively with local authorities, business and the community on a wide variety of projects, including
· Go By Bike Day, Bike the Bays, Road Safety Week and other cycling promotion events
· Safety and bike skills training for police officers, transport staff, adults, and children
· Dr Bike cycle safety checks
· Working with the transport sector to improve safety for cyclists in Wellington
· Capital City Cycle Guide
Cycle Aware Wellington
PO Box 27120, Wellington 6141
www.caw.org.nz
email: info@caw.org.nz
“Our February 2007 survey found that only 45% of us get to work by car – while 28% take the bus, 10% walk, 7% cycle and 6% take the train. Use of cycles increased significantly from 2006 while users of buses declined.” source - WCC Annual Report 2006/07
CONCERNS TO CYCLISTS
1) The proposal includes a high quality and frequent public transport spine (page 11) and they propose to invest 14.6 million on that - and this is important for cyclists because the Draft Cycling Policy proposes the use of bus lane for cyclists as well. The decision we seek is that all bus lanes are designed taking in consideration the specific needs of cyclists, and this mean wide enough to promote safe acommodation of buses passing cyclists in between stops, and cyclists passing buses at bus stops. The minimum width required is 4.2m.
2) The proposal includes a fly over the Basin Reserve to provide grade separation of east-west traffic from north-south traffic, at a cost of 33 million (page 11). To a certain extent grade separation makes sense, but the tradeoffs are huge. Any "improvements" to increase road capacity across the basin will just result in increased traffic throughout the city. The decision we seek is that any expansion of road capacity on the Basin must take into consideration that the level of service to cyclists in these areas is very poor. There are also city wide implications of duplicating capacity on the Basin Reserve - this will just create more traffic in the surrondings, degrading level of service to cyclists on all adjacencies, and potentially well beyond. This project is not of interest to you cyclist.
3) Cobham Drive Roundabout: they propose to add an extra lane there (page 12), and they consider this as an "improvement". The decision we seek is that any expansion of road capacity on Cobham Drive must be accompanied by apropriate provisions for cyclists to negotiate the roundabout safely. The level of service to cyclists at the roundabout is very poor, and we would like to see the safety issues addressed rather than accommodation of increased road capacity, which will only worsen the level of service to cyclists. This project is not of interest to you cyclist.
4) The plan mentions Cycling Network improvements (page 13), but those are not budgeted for. It mentions that cycling improvements will be dealt with through the WCC Cycling Policy, but funding proposed for this policy is less than 273,000 a year - nowhere near the 262 million allocated to increasing road capacity. The decision we seek is that the Draft Corridor Plan allocates resources to cycling projects proportionate to the number of trips being done by cycle to the CBD, which is currently 2.5 % according to the most recent cordon count and other WCC estimates. We believe that it would be fair to expect that, if budget is available to all projects mentioned in the plan will be undertaken, at a total cost of 631 million, at least 15 million are allocated to cycling specific projects (or 2.5 % of that). Cyclists are tax payers as well - we would like to see our money applied to projects that matter to us.
5) The plan proposes allocating 1 million to assess duplication of Wellington Road and Ruahine Street, and potentially 43 million if the project is undertaken. The decision we seek is that any expansion of road capacity on Wellington Road and Ruahine Street must be accompanied by apropriate provisions for cyclists to negotiate the stretch before duplication for motorized traffic is undertaken. The level of service to cyclists in these areas is very poor. Ruahine Street is 70km/h, and there are aproximately 20,000 vehicles a day there. All traffic engineerig manuals and standards and best practice suggest that this combination of speed and traffic volume, in order to acommodate cyclists needs, must be dealt with through provision of a segregated cycle path - no road expansion should be considered without provision of AT THE VERY LEAST a cycle lane, if not a segregated path, shich would be more difficult due to space trestrictions. There are also city wide implications of duplicating capacity on Wellington St and Ruahine Road - this will just create more traffic in the surrondings, degrading level of service to cyclists on all adjacencies, and potentially well beyond. This project is not of interest to you cyclist.
6) The plan proposes allocation of 5 million to assess duplication of Mt Victoria Tunnel, and potentially 175 million if the project is undertaken (page 15). Duplication of the Tunnel capacity will just create more traffic in the surrondings, degrading level of service to cyclists on all adjacencies, and potentially well beyond. This project is not of interest to you cyclist.