Wellington Regional Cycling Forum Review Survey Results

[forwarded from a message sent by Ian Kirkman, coordinator of the Regional Cycling Forum] 

Regional CyclingForum Review Survey

I am pleased to announce that we had a verygood response rate on the recent survey we undertook in September to get yourfeedback on the objectives and functions of the Cycling Forum. We thankeveryone for participating and providing your valuable feedback. We havecompiled results of the survey below according to the survey layout.

Respondents were from the followingagencies and groups:

1. Regional Cycling Forum Objectivesfrom the draft Cycling Plan

There wasclear (100%) support for all three Cycle Forum Objectives as outlined in thedraft Regional Cycling Plan. Under each objective we also included examples ofactions that may fit and asked respondents for comment:

Commentson Objective a) - Provide opportunity for coordination, networking, informationsharing & promoting best practice 

•        I think the coordination / info sharing is lacking at times.
•        It was great to hear that Hutt City were to launch their cycling action plan at the last meeting but a little disappointing to find out about it at the meeting on the launch day rather than in advance. Also should we be developing a regional network priority list?
•        Coordinating cycling events and promotional campaigns
•        Totally agree about the signage comment.
•        Should "traffic calming" be a wider traffic engineering remit?
•        Promotion of council policies etc - Where do NZTA fit in that description?

• I totally support this objective and the example bullet points
• I certainly support the objective but wonder what powers the forum has to undertake any of the above. Signage and the cycling network seem to always come under some other jurisdiction and get pushed aside as things that can't be actioned by that group or its members.
• I support this objective, but I don't see it happening vigorously in the forum.
• I think most Councils in the Wellington region have cycling strategies as it allows them to access NZTA funding. The development of these strategies require key goals and policy direction. Consequently the emphasis on policy from GW is less important than implementation. Let's get the networks constructed!

Commentson Objective b) - Support collaborative projects, events andeducation/awareness activities 

• The regional cycling maps are good but need updating.
• Regional cycling signage is very important, so that local councils do not develop their own plethora of signs.

Commentson Objective c) - Inform members of upcoming opportunities to provide feedbackon plans and policy documents with implications for cycling

• Could the forum also submit itself on these plans and policies?
• Yes but only to the extent that those initiatives must be beneficial to our district. Otherwise I have little interest. Perhaps it would be better for the GW staff to present how the above will affect cycling in our respective districts and offer suggestion on how we as a region should respond.

Terms of Reference (ToR)

62%(13) supported amending the Terms of Reference to reflect the above objectives.  Two respondents did not feel itnecessary to change the ToR and two respondents felt that a sub group wasnecessary to draw up new ToR.

Additionalcomments

• The forum should also be a bit more strategic in setting regional cycling policies and goals from the RCAs the action.
• I think the Terms of Reference themselves are great - are they realistic for what the forum can achieve though?
• The forum often seems to focus heavily on the barriers to improving conditions for cyclists rather than thinking of workable solutions. I wonder whether there is a true desire to improve the situation or whether for some members of the forum they are simply fulfilling their roles by being there. 
• The current ToR broadly agree with the Draft Cycling Plan objectives. While it would be desirable to consider rewritting the ToR to give a more explicit link, this should not be done at the expense other work currently being carried out.

Frequencyof Meetings/Agenda Format

81%(17) felt the frequency of four meetings per year was just right while 19% (4)felt that there are too many.

ForumAgenda

86%(18) respondents are happy with the present agenda format. Three respondentsindicated a wish for a change to the agenda format and included the following suggestions:

• More time for cycling groups and clubs to have there say and share their members' views.
• Presentations or discussions on specific subjects. A possible format would be two presentations at half an hour each (20 min + 10 minutes for questions) and an hour on reports from agencies.

General  

Howwell does the current cycling forum meet your expectations?

What changes would you like to occur sothat your expectations are met?

45% (9) respondents indicated they wouldlike changes to the forum. Feedback included the following suggestions:

• more community input
• Sometimes discussion can prevent other business being raised. Possibly running the meeting an extra hour with lunch in the middle might allow for fuller discussion.
• I still think the main value of the forum is the exchange of information. It is not a statutory body but it can't be of considerable value as a means of influence.
• It would be nice to see real outcomes from the meetings. Improving the cycle network is undoubtedly the highest priority for cyclists. This will in turn improve cycle safety, increase awareness and encourage more cyclists on to the road. Given that there is no similar forum at the local authority level this is one of the only opportunities to discuss these issues but they are mostly dismissed as being irrelevant at the regional level. 
• It would be good if ALL the people who participate are really committed to make cycling a priority and to make cycling happen. Sometimes I have the impression that some participants bring resignation and cynicism to the meeting, and I find this totally inappropriate. This forum is for people who are interested in advancing cycling. If there are people there who are not supportive of cycling, they should just stay in their offices, and they should see that their organisation sends in someone else who cares.
• The safety of the region's everyday cyclists and children are not being supported. The chair of the forum is too focused on events and believes that safe facilities are not necessary i.e. that all people have the skills of regular/racing/competitive cyclist who ride in traffic everyday.
• At times it's the cycle interest groups vs. Council officers, I am not sure if that is good or bad. Perhaps the chair might guide discussion, I am not sure.
• There is a need to ensure that the Forum meetings remain an opportunity for presentation of ideas and projects without becoming mired in excessive detail. The Forum provides a good opportunity to make initial contacts that can be followed up by direct contact if more detailed discussions are required.
• Less specific concerns - issues raised at a regional level not a local level

What else would you like the forum tooffer?

• Every two years a site visit to look at recent projects around the region.
• Design Audit or problem solving role.
• I think the forum has the potential to be a much stronger advocate for cycling in the region. Given that the Regional Council seems to be much more pro-active than the City Council in addressing cyclists' needs, perhaps media releases and submissions on transport policies could be a way to send the signal to local authorities that things need to improve.
• The forum could in particular circumstance support cycle advocates in their quest to make cycling safe for all. The forum should ensure that the Regional Cycling Plan is being implemented.
• Always good to see/hear examples of good and bad. If bad, why and how would do better next time from a professional perspective

How does you organisation take intoaccount views expressed at the forum when making decisions?

• Unable to comment on behalf of the organisation.
• As a local authority, it is important to get views and opinions from across the board.  Not all expectations can be met, but listening to what is wanted is still an important part of the process.
• With regards to our education campaigns, input and feedback from the forum is taken into account when running existing and planning future cyclist campaigns, especially when there is a region-wide focus. In terms of engineering, WRSC play more of an advocacy role in relation to the views expressed.  Ideas and issues raised at the forum, by cyclists, engineers the police etc are discussed with Wairarapa TLA engineers where relevant.
• The forum provides an opportunity for formal and informal exchanges of information.  It provides a face and name for people to contact for the various organisations.  It also enables a sharing of information both ways.  The views expressed at the forum are one of many methods for getting feedback and information from the wider community and are given the same emphasis.  
• At present I'm not sure it does fully. Currently the forum has a consultative role but nothing more. So like other consultative opinions when valid / useful are actioned but the NZTA cycling strategy for Wellington will ultimately determine priorities / actions.
• As a consultant the forum gives us an opportunity to gauge the cycle community's views on engineering treatments/facilities that are being implemented in the region and whether they are meeting cyclists' expectations.  Where appropriate we use these views to promote cycle facilities to our clients.
• You are listened to, the item is discussed and if it is agreed, indirectly your views can be included in policy of the various organisations at a future date. If there is no agreement then your views may go no further  -- normal democratic process
• Issues that arise at the forum that are of high importance to local cyclists are raised on our group discussion board. Some of the views expressed at the forum are obviously in conflict with Cycle Aware Wellington views. e.g. - it is too expensive or difficult to fix problems.
• Yes we do
• When views were expressed that cycling is safe, you just need to get out there and cycle, we questioned that and it will be a topic at our CAN do in October.
• I don't tend to transfer forum discussion to my Council officers except as generalisations as yet.
• views are taken on board and passed onto the appropriate person to consider and action
• Safety concerns raised would be considered during any design work. In order for any comments about a plan or project to be considered the discussion at the forum would need to be followed up but a submission from the relevant party at the time that the public consultation was carried out.

Active Transport Forum

85% (17) supported the concept of an Active Transport Forum. An ActiveTransport Forum was supported by all the local and central government agencies.Cycling groups and clubs however generally saw little in common and no benefitin a combined forum.

Of those in favour of a combined forum, 11 (59%) supported a threemonthly cycle while five were in favour of six monthly and one three meetingsper year.

Fourteen thought that 3 hours was the right length with only threesupporting a four hour length.

Comments

• Would like to hear it discussed re the combined meeting of cycling/walking and then make a decision. If it meant a longer meeting it may turn some people off.
• In my opinion, walking and cycling issues are so separate that they should have their own forums. Certainly, they could both be on the same day but I can't see it being of much value having the cycling representatives at the walking forum and vice versa.
• Consideration should be given to reviewing the membership of cycling groups that attend to determine the size of the 'community of interest' that they represent.

Ian Kirkman

Active Transport and Road SafetyCoordinator

TransportStrategy Implementation