If you need a printable version of this file, please download the attachment.

Cycle Aware Wellington 

Submission to Wellington City Council 

DRAFT CYCLING POLICY 

CYCLE AWARE WELLINGTON WISHES TO MAKE AN ORAL PRESENTATION COVERING THE CONTENTS OF THIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 

ABOUT CYCLE AWARE WELLINGTON 

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. 

CAW speaks for its 700 members.

We also believe to represent an estimated 14,000 Wellington residents (7 % of the population) who claim to have travelled to the CBD at least once a week using a bicycle in 2006, according to WCC Residents Satisfaction Survey (Wellington City Council 2007). 

We also believe to represent 40,000 Wellington residents who have cycled in Wellington in 2006, according to WCC Residents Satisfaction Survey (Nielsen, 2007). 

We also believe to represent the aspirations of 75 % of Wellington residents, who have ranked "Improvements to the cycling network" as the the most favored of all short term projects included in the Ngauranga to Airport Draft Corridor Plan, according to  Research New Zealand's Public Opinion Survey (Kalafatelis and Raggett, 2008)  

We also speak on behalf of the 3,000+ people who sent submissions on the Draft Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study, stating their support to walking and cycling. 

We also speak on behalf of the 1,354 people who have signed the petition "Bike Freely programme in Wellington" in May 2008, who have requested an asessment of the possibility of creating a public bicycle rental scheme in Wellington (Wellington City Council, 2008)  

We also speak on behalf of 798 people who have petitioned Wellington City Council against the removal of the cycle lane from around Greta Point (Wellington City Council, 2008a). 

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 

•

This submission was prepared by: 

[Name and Address of Person preparing Submission] 

Andre Cymbalista 

andrecymb@yahoo.com  

3/23B Maida Vale Rd, Roseneath 

Wellington 6011 

04 384 7048 

021 77 3839 

Cycle Aware Wellington 

PO Box 27120, Wellington 6141 

www.caw.org.nz 

email: info@caw.org.nz 

QUESTION 1 - DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED AIM OF THE CYCLING POLICY - "SAFER AND MORE CONVENIENT FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO CYCLE"? 

Level of agreement: 4 

We don't agree with the exclusion of targets to increase cycling numbers. 

We contend that the WCC Draft Cycling Policy is inconsistent with the Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy and with the National Transport Strategy, both of which include specific targets for increasing cycling. 

The Regional Land Transport Strategy 2016 targets of particular relevance to the implementation of this policy are: 

"Increased mode share for pedestrians and cyclists: Active Modes account for at least 15 % of region wide journey to work trips" (Greater Wellington Regional Council, 2007 p. 26) 

The National Land Transport Strategy also has targets for increasing cycling: 

"Increase walking and cycling to 30 percent of total trips in urban areas by 2040 (Ministry of Transport, 2008 p. 6)" 

The Council's reluctance to increase cycling numbers seems to be based on the perception of cycling as dangerous, and in particular on the assertion (p.7 of the cycling policy) that reported injuries are increasing at a higher rate than cycling numbers. However this may be misleading - the cycling numbers are based on cordon counts of commuter cycling, while accidents also relate to recreational cycling, which has increased greatly in the last few years. 

We contend that the Draft Cycling Policy aims are not inclusive enough. We would like to see this policy aimed at "improving safety and convenience for all potential cyclists" - and not only for those who choose to cycle. As of today those who choose to cycle are just a minority, mostly man in their 25 to 40's. We contend that cycling should be an option to everyone, including children and the elderly, and obviously women, and not only those who already cycle. 

QUESTION 2 - TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE WITH THE OBJECTIVES (SHOWN IN TABLE 1) OF THE DRAFT CYCLING POLICY? 

Level of agreement: 3 

We would like to acknowledge WCC for choosing objectives that cover a wide range of commitments with a variety of types of cyclists and types of trips. This is very positive. 

We would also like to acknowledge WCC for the focus of the objectives being on "improving the experience" of cycling in a variety of contexts. And this is really positive too. 

However, we find it a little bit concerning that WCC hasn't taken notice of best practices already adopted in other cycling policies, so as to include targets that are more commonly found in other policies, such as: 

We also have SERIOUS DOUBTS in regard to the proposed methods to evaluate progress in each of the objectives. We believe that the targets proposed are, in general, extremely vague. We also believe that the targets are sometimes inconsistent or insufficient to ensure the fulfillment of the Policy's objectives. 

In regard to Objective 1 - To improve cycle safety throughout Wellington 

We believe that the proposed objectives are just too vague. It is not enough to say that there will be a "reduction in the cycle crash rate" - it is also important to declare by how much. 

The plan should address specific hazards for cyclists. It is good that the council is proposing to address the issue of drain grates, which risk trapping cycle wheels. However an urgent issue for cyclists are kerb extensions, which improve safety for pedestrians crossing roads, but force cyclists to share a narrow gap with motor traffic. The policy should require that cyclists needs are taken into account in implementing kerb extensions. 

In regard to Objective 3 - To improve the experience of cycling trips to and from the central area 

An example of an area where urgent action is required to improve the experience of cycling to and from the central area is the north/south route to Brooklyn and the Aro Valley. Cyclists needs have not been considered in the creation of the Victoria and Willis one-way systems, and the intersection  of these with the Inner City Bypass. Willis and Victoria streets need filtering cycle lanes and advanced stop boxes to enable cyclists to travel straight ahead and make right turns from these one way systems, and there needs to be provision for cyclists to safely and efficiently get from Victoria St to the Brooklyn Road and the Aro Valley.

QUESTION 3 - THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POLICIES PROPOSED THAT WILL ASSIST IN ACHIEVING THE AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE POLICY. TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE WITH THESE PROPOSED POLICIES? 

Level of agreement: 4 

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

It is too vague - what does "explore" means? We would rather see the word "explored" substitute by "implemented according to the cycle network implementation plan". 

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

In principle it is good, but it is also too vague. We would rather see this policy worded differently: "Cycle-friendly traffic calming measures will be implemented to moderate motorists' speeds according to the schedule of works listed on the cycle network implementation plan". 

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

In principle it is good, but it is also too vague, and limited to parking. We would rather see this policy worded differently: "A thorough assessment of cyclists needs will be conducted with a view to determine which complementary facilities are required in each destinations, according to the cycle network implementation plan".  

Complementary facilities to be considered in the cycle network plan should include: parking facilities located near destinations, security of bicycle parking, showers, baggage lockers, water, toilet, shelter, shops, phones, and public bike rentals.  

We are also unhappy with the choice of words "where practicable". Should be written "where necessary, according to the cycle network implementation plan". 

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. 

We are again unhappy with the choice of word "where practical". Should be "where necessary, according to the cycle network implementation plan". 

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

Agree in principle, but Appendix 1 is too vague. Appendix 1 should be a proper cycle network implementation plan, including a schedule of all the works that are necessary to be implemented in order to complete the cycle network. It is not enough to say the "Every opportunity must be taken". You must also be more specific in regard to which are those opportunities. 

The policy should be written more or less like this: "Improvements to make the cycle network safer and convenient will be implemented according to the schedule of implementation of the cycle network plan". 

Policy 4.2 - Every opportunity should be taken to ensure that cycling is a viable option for short trips to and from suburban centres. 

Policy 5.1 - Every opportunity should be taken to ensure that cycling is a viable option for short trips to and from educational centres. 

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. 

Again: which are those opportunities? Please be more specific. The policy should be written more or less like this: "Improvements to ensure neighborhoods offer an adequate level of service for short trips to and from suburban centres will be implemented according to the schedule of implementation of the cycle network plan" and "Improvements to ensure an adequate level of service on trips to and from educational centres will be implemented according to the schedule of implementation of the cycle network plan." and "Improvements to ensure an adequate level of service on trips to and from recreational areas will be implemented according to the schedule of implementation of the cycle network plan." 

It is also vague that the Draft Cycling Policy does not define what is "viable". 

QUESTION 4a - THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POSSIBLE ACTIONS THAT COULD BE TAKEN UNDER EACH OF THE OBJECTIVES TO ASSIST IN DELIVERING THE AIMS OF THE CYCLING POLICY. TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE WITH THESE PROPOSED ACTIONS? 

Level of agreement: 5 

We believe that the range of actions and the proposed implementation plan was developed without any consideration for the best practices adopted in the development of cycling plans in New Zealand. 

We are extremely concerned with the inadequacy of the methods utilized to develop the implementation plan. 

An evidence of this weakness is provided by certain items included in the implementation plan. These action items should have been completed BEFORE the development of the implementation plan, and we find it extremely concerning that the council intends to approve the cycling policy without having completed the following action items: 

Action Item        Description 

2.2    Determine a suitable methodology for assessing the level of service and assess all routes identified in Appendix 1 

2.3    Undertake a review of signalised intersections to understand where advanced stop boxes could assist 

2.4    Undertake a study to identify the gaps in the cycling routes to the central area including difficult and dangerous interesections 

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

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

2.7    Undertake a feasibility study for providing public cycle parking at key areas in the city 

2.8    Undertake a feasibility study for providing public cycle lockers 

2.9    Undertake a review of signalised intersections to understand where marked diamonds highlighting signal loops could assist 

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

2.11 Undertake analisys to identify the gaps in cycle routes to recreation centres and off-road recreation areas, including difficult and dangerous intersections 

We are not satisfied that the timeframe for completion of this activities extends to 2015. In our view, THOSE ACTIONS MUST BE COMPLETED IN 2009-2010, because without doing these actions you cannot even consider having a proper implementation plan. Those actions will result in an appropriate implementation plan. Therefore, those items should be a priority before all others.  

QUESTION 4b - FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT THESE ACTIONS WILL BE SOUGHT THROUGH THE COUNCIL'S LONG TERM COMMUNITY PLAN, AND THE COUNCIL MAY NOT WISH TO 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? 

Level of Agreement: 5 

We believe that priority should be given to the action items that should have already been completed even before this Draft Cycling Policy goes out for consultation, and these are items: 

2.2.  

2.3. 

2.4 

2.5 

2.6 

2.7 

2.8 

2.9 

2.10 

2.11 

We think it is impossible to evaluate actions and priorities before having completed items 2.2 to 2.10. 

Therefore, we suggest that funding is allocated as follows in the first year: 

Items    Priority    Cost 

Notes and Observations 

1.3    A (unchanged)    $: Unchanged 

You cannot accomplish much with 10,000 - you won't even scratch the surface. In order to undertake thse kinds of campaigns with some level of efficacy you need BIG BUCKS - much much more than you have budgeted. We believe that it can be a waste of money - unless the campaign is targeted at just one category of drivers (for example, bus drivers). 

1.4    A (unchanged)    $: Unchanged 

Same as 1.3 above 

2.2    Increase priority form D to A    $: see note below 

2.3    A (unchanged)    

2.4    A (unchanged) 

2.5    A (unchanged) 

2.6    A (unchanged) 

2.7    Increase priority from C to A 

2.8    Increase priority from C to A 

2.9    Increase priority from B to A 

2.10  Increase priority from B to A 

2.11  Increase priority from B to A 

Funding for these actions are GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATED. The combined cost os those actions should probably be in the range of 50,000 to 100,000 - possibly more than that. It is unlikely that WCC is able to undertake these actions without hiring consultants. Most of the cities in New Zealand hire consultants to do these kinds of activities. If WCC decides to do it internally, then we recommend that AT LEAST one full time staff dedicated to the task - if not more.  

3.5    A (unchanged) 

3.6    A (unchanged) 

3.7    A (unchanged) 

3.15    A (unchanged)   

It is alright to do the most emergencial works in 2009-10, but you should have presented a plan with the specific projects scheduled for 2009-2010. It is impossible to compare the priorities if we don't know what is planned.   

3.13    Decrease from A to E    

3.2    E (unchanged) 

The amount allocated to these activities is completely disproportionate. This costs aproximately 60 % of the cycling budget, and this is totally unacceptable. The council should be doing this activity anyway, with budget from elsewhere. This is a road maintenance activity, with benefits for all road users, and not only cyclists. Cyclists are just a minority of users, and the cycle network is just a fraction of the road network, so there is no reason why this should come from the cycling budget - particularly considering that most of the need to sweep and resurface is caused by motorized vehicles, and not cyclists. This is completely against the principle of user-pays. 

QUESTION 5 - IS THERE ANYTHING YOU FEEL HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY COVERED BY THIS DRAFT CYLING POLICY 

THE LACK OF A CYCLE NETWORK PLAN 

There are certain issues that we agree with this policy, and others that we do not, and there is no reason why things shouldn't be this way. But before we start discussing those, we would like to call your attention to an issue that concerns us most: the development of a Cycle Network Plan. 

We have analyzed the contents of Draft Cycling policy, and we noticed that the Cycle Network Plan is incomplete.  

We find the omission of a Cycle Network Plan very surprising, particularly considering that this process is extremely well explained in the widely available publication "Cycle Network Route Planning Guide" (Land Transport Safety Authority, 2004). 

According to this guide, a Cycle Network Plan should include a map of the primary cycle route network (included in this policy) AND a schedule of the cycle infrastructure projects required to develop it (not included in this policy). 

For this reason, it is difficult for us to comment on a policy that lacks such an important component. 

Therefore, the decisions that we seek are the following: 

6. DO YOU WISH TO MAKE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS  

Great Harbour Way - an example 

Wellington has a unique opportunity to promote a high standard cycling/walking route around the harbour, following the shoreline as far as practicable. This should form part of the cycle network, and the cycling policy should include funding to address issues with the Great Harbour Way such as the lack of a good quality cycling/walking route from the Hutt Valley to Wellington, inconsistencies in the cycle facilities around Evans Bay, lack of identifying and directional signage, etc. 

Map of Wellington Blackspots for Cycling 

We would like to call your attenttion to the Map of Wellington Blackspots, developed by the collective of Wellington Cyclists, which is available from the following URL: 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=1067961450849613... 

The image bellow was extracted from the above URL: 

Each plot on the map represents a blackspot. Attached to this submission you will find a description of each of the blackspots. 

REFERENCES 

Greater Wellington Regional Council (2007), Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2007-2016, retrieved from http://www.gw.govt.nz/story_images/4381_WellingtonRegion_s8698.pdf on 9 September 2008. 

Land Transport Safety Authority (2004), Cycle Network Route Planning Guide, retrieved from http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/road-user-safety/walking-and-cycling/cycle-netwo... on 1 September 2008. 

Ministry of Transport (2008), The New Zealand Transport Strategy 2008, retrieved from http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Downloads/NZTS-final-PDF.pdf on 9 September 2008. 

Nielsen (2007), Commentary on HIghlights from Survey of Wellington Residents, retrieved from http://www.wellington.govt.nz/about/overview/pdfs/rss07.pdf on 1 September 2008.  

Kalafatelis, E. and Raggett, N. (2008), Draft Report Public Opinion Ngauranga to Wellington Airport Corridor Survey of the General Public and Business Community, prepared by Research New Zealand for Greater Wellington Regional Council, Transit New Zealand, and Wellington City Council, downloaded from http://www.gw.govt.nz/story_images/5532_n2a_survey_s11073.PDF on 1 September 2008. 

Wellington City Council (2007), Wellington City Council 2006/2007 Annual Report. 

Wellington City Council (2008), Bike Freely Program in Wellington City (e-petition), retrieved from  http://www.wellington.govt.nz/haveyoursay/e-petitions/ep/details/23 on 1 September 2008. 

Wellington City Council (2008a), Greta Point Cycle Lane Removal (e-petition), retrieved from http://www.wellington.govt.nz/haveyoursay/e-petitions/ep/details/28 

on 1 September 2008. 

Map of Black Spots for Cycling in Wellington (2008). Several authors (collective work), available from http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=1067961450849613...