CAN reps had a meeting
recently with Ministry of Transport (report will be
in next Chain Links) at which they tabled a draft document summarising the
key cycling issues as they see them. They are interested in getting
feedback from CAN members on the draft.
You'll note that the issues are generally 'big picture' ones - MoT are not
so interested in the smaller day-to-day details that cyclists are often
concerned with, more in the key principles that underlie them.
1. There is increasing public and political importance of the need to more effectively and efficiently meet the needs of the cyclists and to acknowledge the benefits of cycling. Key issues include managing the safety interface with vehicles, and an equitable allocation of funds.
2. This paper identifies the issues raised by the cycle sector. We aim to discuss the issues with cycle sector representatives and feedback the results of these discussions to finalise the issue identification process. Results from these discussions will contribute to the review of road policy and the development of the New Zealand Transport Strategy.
3 In February 2000, a New Zealand Cycling Strategy Foundation Project, Interim Position Statement, was released. A copy of this paper was given to the Minister of Transport by Cycle Advocates Network (CAN) on 2 March 2000. The Interim Position Statement provides background research and information on cycle policy practice in New Zealand and internationally. The paper is intended to provoke discussion and does not reflect the views of any cycle organisation. The paper will contribute to a draft ‘New Zealand Cycling Strategy Foundation Document’ to be presented at the National Cycling Conference to be held in Palmerston North on 14 & 15 July 2000. The aim eventually is to have developed a National Cycle Strategy.
4 Integrated transport planning is defined as the development of broader transport policy, where the provision of infrastructure and safety management services considers all modes together. Cyclists say there has been a motor vehicle and public transport bias in transport to date. Consequently walking and cycling have an unrealised potential as private transport options.
5. An integrated approach would include analysis of the costs and benefits that can be identified and measured for all modes together. Cycling benefits, including improved public health and reduced energy use, have not been taken into account. The authors’ site British research claiming the health benefits of cycling exceed safety risk by a ratio of 20:1. The suggested policy response is to develop an integrated strategy across government agencies with an interest in promoting better health and transport safety.
6. Taking wider social benefits in to account can be problematic due to competing interests. For example, measures to increase cycle and pedestrian use through traffic calming has disbenefits through slowing motorists down. The policy issue is whether the current system allows trade-offs between conflicting objectives to made efficiently and transparently.
7. A number of operational safety policies are criticised. These include:
· Engineering practices and guidelines could be improved. There seems to be inadequate provision for cycle use in mainstream road design
· Shifting the current focus away from crash reduction to danger reduction (where the objective is to reduce the likelihood of a cyclist being involved in a crash, rather than reduce the number of crashes).
· Questioning the net benefits of compulsory helmet wearing. The main policy issues are whether the safety risk issues have been evaluated properly, and whether decisions are made from an integrated perspective taking wider social benefits into account.
· Attempts to increase cycle use and reduce safety risk by segregating cycle facilities do not work. International practice shows that effective strategies have included a combination of the “4 E’s” and car restraint.
· Other suggestions for consideration include on-road training for cyclists, licensing, and bike-mounted Police patrols.
8. Cyclists have common law rights of access, as do other road users including motorists and pedestrians. The Interim Position Statement cites a German initiative where all roads within a defined area may be granted the status of a pedestrian crossing (i.e pedestrian right of way over motor vehicles).
9. Crown entities and local authorities lack sufficient incentives to meet the demands of cyclists and pedestrians. For example, regional councils are responsible for public transport planning and funding and this creates a bias towards public transport as an alternative to car use. Insufficient consideration is given to cycling and walking as alternatives.
10. The LTSA lacks the resources to evaluate Austroads Part 14, and therefore this remains “in limbo” so far as official status in New Zealand is concerned.
11. Cyclist entitlements under a road user pay approach to funding, and the allocation of those funds between competing modes, is uncertain. The policy issue is one of apparent distributional inequity.
12. The meaning of “environment” under the RMA is interpreted to require measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on safe and convenient cycling accessibility. The Interim Position Statement suggests this criteria could take precedence over any CBA under land transport policy.
13. The CAN submission on BTBR supported the safety management proposals. However, they claim that road companies would lack incentives to observe safety standards for cycling as their focus would be to deliver services to those that pay – i.e, motorists.
14. The CAN submission promotes the development of a National Transport Strategy, which would, inter alia, set out standards for road design including provision for cycling.
Paul Roberts
Strategy Facilitator
May 2000