Cycle Aware Wellington Inc.
Submission on the draft WCC Transport Strategy
About CAW
Cycle Aware Wellington Inc. (CAW) represents the interests of people in the Wellington region who use bicycles for transport or recreation. Formed in 1994, CAW lobbies local and regional government, police and other agencies for a better cycling environment. We operate the Dr Bike free maintenance checks, cycle skills training, and promotional activities such as Bike To Work Day.
This submission was prepared by the Committee of CAW. We are very happy to discuss any of the comments made in this submission further.
General Comments
CAW welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the draft Transport Strategy for Wellington City.
Wellington is a good city to cycle in. It is already called the 'mountain bike capital' of New Zealand. Wellington should be known as the 'cycling capital' of NZ. Cycle commuting in Wellington has almost reached the national average and is increasing, against the national trend.
The increase in cycling in Wellington has occurred despite the fact that investment in cycling by WCC has been very modest. CAW believes that Council has consistently underestimated the potential for cycling in the City, and has therefore never given cycling the place it deserves in its transport policies and practices. We wish to see the Transport Strategy reverse this.
We think the Council's vision for the city's transport system ("A transport system that enhances the city's vision and long-term sustainability") is fine. However, the draft Strategy has serious flaws that mean this vision will not be realised. Our main reservations about the Strategy are:
§ the context in which the Strategy is put is poorly described, focusing on economic issues and ignoring social and environmental aspects
§ it has no timeframe or measurable targets
§ it does little about the urgent need to reduce the use of private motor vehicles - if we are serious about sustainability, then this cannot be avoided
§ it does not take sufficient account of Government priorities in the NZTS, including the need to promote walking and cycling
§ it does not provide guidance on how the needs of various transport modes will be balanced, or on how the needs of the transport system are to be balanced with other aspects of life in the city
These reservations are discussed in more detail below.
Recommendations
CAW wishes to make the following recommendations:
1. Pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users should be placed at the heart of the Strategy.
2. Council should adopt a road user hierarchy as outlined in the body of our submission.
3. A commitment to the Inner City Bypass should not be part of the Strategy: it is an implementation project, which should be reassessed once the sustainability principles of the strategy are agreed.
4. Council should support improvements to rail rather than to the coastal highway (SH1).
5. The Strategy should commit Council to travel demand management.
6. Policies that limit commuter car parking should be continued.
7. Council should encourage weekend shoppers to walk or use bikes and public transport, instead of provide them with more car parking.
8. On-street car parking should be able to be removed where required to ensure adequate space for cycling and to facilitate connected cycling routes.
9. Links between cycling and public transport need to be improved.
10. Lower speed limits and traffic calming needs to be extended to the CBD, suburban shopping centres, near schools and on identified cycling routes.
11. Council should commit to increasing mode share for cycling to 10 % and reduce the level of risk experienced by cyclists.
12. The Strategy should ensure the proposed cycling strategy is implemented.
13. Existing cycle facilities need to be improved (especially Thorndon/Ngauranga area).
14. The Strategy should be consistent with the GW Regional Cycling Strategy and the draft National Walking and Cycling Strategy.
15. Bus lanes need to be signed for use by cyclists.
16. Council needs to consider all opportunities to install advance waiting boxes and similar facilities whenever general roading changes (e.g. resurfacing and remarking) take place.
17. The Strategy should include more detail of work already done on a cycle route network.
Summary
We would expect to see the key elements of the Strategy listed in this section reflect the priorities of the National Land Transport Strategy, which are:
§ congestion relief
§ improvements to public transport
§ promotion of walking and cycling
§ regional development and alternatives to roads
§ improvements to road safety
None of the key elements listed in the strategy relate to the promotion of walking and cycling. "Catering for all types of transport - car, bus, train, walking and cycling" does not give the level of emphasis on walking and cycling intended in the NZTS. A new key element should be added: "A greater emphasis on walking and cycling".
We oppose the inclusion of the Inner City Bypass (ICB) as a key element in the strategy. It is inconsistent to promote a project like this that cuts across many of the other principles of the draft Strategy.
Introduction
While this provides a useful summary of key aspects of Wellington's transport system, it makes no mention of effects of transport on the community such as air pollution (emissions exceed WHO limits in some parts of the CBD), CO2 emissions and climate change, noise pollution, water run-off and community severance.
The Strategy needs to acknowledge that some human activities that currently involve travel could be done without it. Reducing the need to travel is another way to reduce pressure on the network.
Linkages are mentioned to other Council strategies in primarily economic areas. There is no mention of linkages to strategies that relate to community, livability etc.
We would also expect the Strategy to mention the cost to the local economy of having around a quarter of its land area tied up in roads and parking, and discuss whether other uses for the land might be more appropriate or productive.
The draft National Walking and Cycling Strategy is omitted from the list of other strategies that this strategy must take account of. It needs to be included.
Vision
"Sustainability" a much-used word in the Strategy. Motor vehicles (especially private motor vehicles) do not fit within the definition of sustainability used in the Strategy (which is presumably based on the definition in the NZTS). Current use of motor vehicles is clearly unsustainable in terms of pollution, land use, climate change, use of non-renewable energy etc.
The Strategy must acknowledge this, and adopt measures that explicitly seek to reduce motor vehicle use, while promoting forms of transport that are more sustainable.
In its current form, the Strategy is essentially 'business as usual'. Emphasis is put on projects such as the ICB that are clearly not 'sustainable' (because by increasing capacity and reducing waiting times they will encourage motor vehicle use) while little thought has gone into how to give greater priority to cycling, for example.
Where we are now & required actions
We disagree with the statement "The level of access provided by the transport system is good across all types of transport". Despite cycling being on the increase in Wellington, there will be people who will not take it up while they perceive the transport system as being unfriendly to them (e.g. roads seen as unsafe, poor links with public transport). Walking and cycling by school children has declined sharply in the last two decades, partly because the roading network is seen by parents as unsuitable for these activities. For groups such as these, access to transport still remains a problem - choice of ways to get around is being limited by problems inherent in the way the transport system is currently managed.
The Strategy says a higher proportion of commuters use public transport or walk to work than in other NZ cities (p.6). We note that cycle commuting is just below the national average, and increasing. This is worthy of note, since Wellington is one of only two cities in NZ which has an increase.
According to the Strategy, travel times are increasing. It should be made clear what modes this applies to. We suspect the reference is to private motor vehicle users. What is the situation for pedestrians or cyclists?
Needs of different road users
The draft Strategy says WCC intends to continue with transport planning that "balances the needs of all types of transport: car, bus, train, walking and cycling".
We do not think Wellington's transport planning to date has been at all balanced, and would not like to see the current priorities continue.
There have been decades of under-investment in cycling that need to be corrected if people wishing to cycle are to have easy and comfortable access to the transport system. Continuing with the current priorities means continuing with de facto promotion of motor vehicle use.
Transport planning in the city should be re-prioritised to give more vulnerable users (and those who use the most sustainable, healthiest forms of transport) a central focus.
The Strategy needs to be more open about how trade-offs between provision for various modes will be made.
In its Transportation Strategy Review of 1990, York City Council (UK) identified four key objectives:
§ to combat congestion and contain traffic growth
§ to improve accessibility
§ to improve the market share of the less environmentally damaging forms of transport
§ to integrate traffic/transportation policies and planning policies
In undertaking measures to achieve these objectives, the council adopted the following 'road user hierarchy', or priority list:
§ pedestrians
§ people with disabilities
§ cyclists
§ public transport users
§ commercial and business vehicles requiring access
§ car-borne shoppers
§ coach-borne shoppers
§ car-borne long-stay commuters and visitors.
CAW requests that WCC adopt this road user hierarchy as part of the Transport Strategy.
Investment in supporting various transport modes
The pie chart on p.6 show that less than half of work journeys in Wellington in 2001 were by private motor vehicle and a third involved non-motorised modes or work at home. Yet of the WCC transport budget, the vast majority was spent on motorised modes.
We note that the investment required to support non-motorised modes (e.g. in terms of provision of footpaths or places to cycle) or to support public transport (in terms of providing road capacity) is much lower than for private motor vehicles, so a relatively modest re-prioritisation of spending towards non-motorised modes could have a proportionately big effect.
Investment in cycling facilities in Wellington is extremely low. Despite this, cycling has increased. If the Strategy's vision is to be achieved, a much greater investment in cycling is needed.
Road Network
In this part of the Strategy there's an implication that congestion in Wellington is a major issue. However, elsewhere (p.4) it is stated that the city has low levels of congestion.
We believe that what congestion there is in Wellington serves as a minor incentive for private motor vehicle commuters to use other modes. Any increase in congestion will increase the pressure for motorists to choose other ways to get to work, and increase the advantages of alternatives (e.g. bus priority measures, walking and cycling).
We strongly oppose the use of road building as a means of dealing with congestion, and are pleased to see that Council "does not intend to significantly increase road network capacity in the city in the medium term". International experience makes it very clear that increasing road capacity leads to an increase in car use and to the extra capacity being quickly filled.
The Inner City Bypass is intended to increase capacity, and is inconsistent with the intentions of the Strategy. CAW asks that it be dropped from the Strategy. Instead, there should be significant investment in encouraging and enabling the use of cycling, walking and public transport for journeys such as commuting and travel to school, thus freeing up road space for more essential motor vehicle travel such as commercial deliveries.
We believe that money would be better spent on improvements to the rail network (for both passengers and freight) than on enhancement to the coastal highway (SH1) and ask that WCC transfer its support to rail in this corridor. Improvements to SH1 (particularly if they involve increases in capacity) are likely to lead to more motor vehicles entering Wellington City.
Travel Demand Management
CAW strongly supports travel demand management, and asks that the Strategy commits the Council to using it.
We request that the following actions be added to the list of actions in relation to car travel:
§ Active support for and promotion of travel plans for Council staff and other employers in the city
§ Investment in comprehensive Safe Routes to School programmes to enable children to walk and cycle to and from school.
Parking
We strongly support Council activities that seek to limit the supply of commuter car parking.
We ask that Council invest in measures to improve access to the CBD by public transport, walking and cycling in the weekend rather than increasing the availability of car parking in weekends.
The Strategy says "In the central city in particular, there are many other demands for road space including carriageway and pedestrian use that must be balanced against the demand for parking spaces." We note that car parking needs to be balanced against the needs of cyclists using the road space, and ask that this be also recognised in the Strategy.
We have noted a real reluctance for Council to consider removal of on-street car parking to accommodate facilities that seek to make cycling safer and more attractive. This has led to substandard and unsafe cycle facilities being installed, or to plans for cycle facilities being dropped or severely trimmed back. CAW does not believe that balance has been achieved in this area.
It is people, not cars, that need access to shops and other businesses. We note that businesses in pedestrianised areas of the city do well, despite there being no motor vehicle access. And there are other ways for Wellingtonians to get to the shops than driving.
Other local authorities in NZ have removed car parking to make way for cycle facilities, and there are established and effective public consultation procedures that can assist with this.
There is no consideration of cycle parking in this section. The provision of good quality cycle parking in appropriate places sends a good signal that the city cares about cyclists.
We suggest that the list of actions Council intends to pursue in relation to parking be amended to include:
§ removal of on-street car parking where other demands require it (e.g. pedestrian or cyclist needs)
§ investigate a free and regular bus shuttle on the central city loop
§ improve the level of service in the CBD for public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians to encourage use of these modes
Public Transport
CAW supports nos 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the proposed actions in relation to public transport, with amendments.
We ask that no.1 be amended to read "Greater priority for public transport and cyclists along the spine of the CBD" and that "bus lanes" be amended to read "bus/cycle lanes" in no.2.
We question the neutral stance proposed on the issue of trolley buses. Trolley buses give Wellington a 'point of difference' and create a quieter environment with less air pollution. Council should be pro-trolley buses.
A further point should be added:
• improve links between public transport and cycling, including encouraging the carriage of bikes on buses and trains, and provision of good quality bike parking
Walking
CAW supports the provision of better conditions for pedestrians, who are generally quieter and less polluting than motor vehicles. As mentioned earlier, pedestrians should be given a high level of priority in the provision of transport facilities.
Pedestrians and cyclists are often seen as natural allies in the transport system, however there are distinct differences and possible conflicts between the two modes. For example, the provision of kerb extensions (to assist pedestrians crossing the carriageway) can endanger cyclists by creating squeeze points. We ask that those conflicts are acknowledged, and that an commitment to resolve such issues is given.
In addition, light phasing has a significant impact on the actions of pedestrians. Having to wait for long periods for the pedestrian crossing phase at traffic signals means that people end up crossing against the lights. It can be no coincidence that Wellington appears to have a big jay-walking problem. Unfortunately, jay-walking pedestrians are no better than car drivers at looking out for bikes, thus creating an extra hazard for cyclists. Cyclist-pedestrian crashes or near-misses are very unlikely to be reported, so there is likely to be little data on the scale of the problem, but anecdotal evidence from CAW's membership indicates that it is a real problem.
Cycling
The Strategy should read "A small but significant and increasing number of people in Wellington use cycling as a mode of transport".
We note that no serious work has been done to estimate the potential for cycling. Instead, this section recycles old prejudices about topography. There are plenty of hilly cities with high cycling figures, e.g. Swiss cities with a cycling commuter proportions of 15-18%. Like modern cars, modern bikes have a good range of gears that enable the cyclist to travel up hills by anyone with normal fitness.
The statement that the potential for cycling is limited by perceptions of safety, provision of infrastructure etc makes no sense. These things are precisely the barriers that can and should be addressed by this Strategy. Cycling's potential is not limited by perceptions of safety - it is limited by the Council's level of commitment to change the current set-up.
We note that the existing cycleways mentioned in the second paragraph are mostly inadequate due to compromises made when they were constructed. Those compromises almost always went against the interests of cyclists.
We note also that parking should not always take precedence over provision for cyclists (as at present). We would like to see a strong commitment to putting the interests of cyclists above those of private motor vehicle users made explicit in the Strategy.
Traffic reduction is key to encouraging cycling. Speed reduction is also essential, and we note with approval the intention to do area wide speed reduction in residential areas, though we think this should be applied in other areas too, e.g shopping centres and the CBD.
Under the second action point, regarding the development of a cycling strategy, there should be added the words "and implement it".
We suggest that the list of actions Council intends to pursue be further amended to add in the following actions:
§ Increase mode share for cycling to 10 % and reduce the level of risk experienced by cyclists.
§ Improve existing cycle facilities (especially Thorndon/Ngauranga area).
§ Identify a network of cycle routes in the CBD and suburbs.
§ Remove on-street car parking where required to ensure adequate space for cycling and to facilitate connected cycling routes.
§ Ensure co-ordination with the GW Regional Cycling Strategy.
§ Install traffic calming in CBD, suburban shopping areas, near schools and on identified cycling routes.
§ Sign bus lanes for use by cyclists.
§ Consider all opportunities to install advance waiting boxes and similar facilities whenever general roading changes (e.g. resurfacing and remarking) take place.
Freight Transport
As much freight as possible should be encouraged onto rail rather than onto the roads. The need to facilitate local freight movements around the city makes it even more critical to reduce the number of private motor vehicles clogging up the roads.
Consideration should be given to banning very large and heavy trucks from parts of the city (e.g. Lambton Quay, Willis St, some residential areas) and to restricting them to main arterial routes (e.g. Taranaki St, Waterloo/Aotea Quay).
Safety
We suggest that the list of actions Council intends to pursue in relation to safety has the following actions added:
§ Increase the use of safer modes (walking, cycling and public transport) and decrease use of dangerous modes.
§ Improve traffic management so that waiting times at traffic signals are shorter, so pedestrians are less likely to take a risk by crossing against the signals.
§ Reduce traffic speeds.
Appendix 1
There are many assumptions and missing pieces of information in this section. We find it very disappointing and inadequate.
Some key problems with this section are:
• There is information about roads, bridges and tunnels, but none about how many kilometres of cycleways or footpaths there are.
• The section marked 'VEHICLE OWNERSHIP' is clearly only about the ownership of private motor vehicles. That should be made clear in the title and in the caption for Figure 3.
• There should be some assessment of the bike ownership level. These figures should be available (e.g. from the LTSA's Household Travel Survey) even if they are fairly approximate.
• There appears to be an assumption that because car ownership is high, car usage will also be high. But owning a car does not necessarily mean that one uses it for all journeys. Many of the 32% of people who commute by public transport, bike or walking will own cars, but choose to travel by a mode more suitable for the purpose.
• Under the section marked 'SAFETY', it would be helpful if the casualty figures were expressed as percentages, so that a comparison with the percentage use of those modes could easily be made.
Appendix 2
While we have no objection to this section going into detail about pedestrian facilities, we think that it is unacceptable that there is no similar section describing cycling routes. There has been considerable work done by the Council in the past, identifying and investigating the feasibility of cycle routes and networks. Why has this work not been used?
Cycle Aware Wellington Inc.
PO Box 11-964, Wellington
Tel/Fax: 04-385 2557
The draft strategy can be found at http://www.wcc.govt.nz/policy/current/trans-strat/