Please comment with your ideas, share and do make a submission! Due in by April 13. https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/125

 

Submission from Spokes Canterbury 

Submission Synopsis

• Appreciation for the Major Cycleways
• Acknowledge and compensate for the inequitable funding of cycling infrastructure over the past decades
• Revisit, improve and deliver the implied promise of Share and Idea and transport plans
• Expand & accelerate delivery of all the Major Cycle Routes and the Local Cycle Network
• Include funding for Travel Demand Management, TDM, Education and Promotion, motivate the police to prioritize enforcement
• Make well designed cycling infrastructure a standard part of all transport projects as is currently done with footpaths
• Bring cycle infrastructure design in house while designating Cycle Champions on staff and reinstating an empowered Cycle Advisory Panel of cycling stakeholders
• Include and fund cycle parking everywhere it is needed, commercial, bus stops, etc.
• Include completion of the Coastal Path link from Monck’s Spur to Shag Rock
• Include designation of the outer lanes on Memorial as bus and bike lanes
• Fund the cycle path behind the hospital shown on the Hagley Park Spatial Plan
• Oppose Otakaro and Regenerate’s projects for their neglect of the needs of people who cycle and the shortcomings of the Accessible City Plan, Transport Chapter

 

Discussion

Council is to be congratulated for the Major Cycle Routes, MCR’s. Once completed and connected up using the local cycle network people will be able to readily choose to cycle for transportation, recreation and improved health. We have already lost too many generations to car dependency through the lack of suitable infrastructure. It is vital that the suggested delays in delivering both the MCR’s and the local networks be reconsidered. The proposed $90 million increase to this funding should be fast tracked, not delayed.

 

The neglect of cycling infrastructure

Cycle infrastructure has been both neglected and promised for decades. Council offered a clear policy with the 1996 Cycling Strategy. Quoting Mayor Gary Moore from the 2004 Cycling Strategy “we remain committed to completing the cycle network and making cycling safer for all ages” Sadly, funding for cycling infrastructure continued its decades long stagnation at 1% or less of transport funding until 2014 when the MCR’s were initiated.

 

Broken Promises

The quakes were seen by many as a chance to rebuild for the 21^st century. Central government had their own ideas.

Share an Idea, SaI, found wide support for cycling and set the tone, but not the priorities for recovery and transport plans and strategies. SaI found overwhelming support for a green, sustainable city with Active Transport, AT, walking and cycling, and Public Transport, PT at its heart. Comments in support of these priorities dominated.

The many plans and strategies which followed were quick to feature AT in text, photos and illustrations. But the bulk of projects and funding in support were always to be sometime in the future, if mentioned at all. Government’s handpicking of stakeholders did not offer those in support of a future focused rebuild representation or weight in shaping plans or priorities. What cycling infrastructure was offered too often simply mixes pedestrians and cyclists in ‘shared spaces’ which do not meet the needs of people who cycle commute, pedestrians or advocates for people with disabilities. The needs of cycle commuters went unaddressed.

Council has continued the business as usual practices of naming as ‘stakeholders’ those who resist the changes most ratepayers sought in SaI. This has been to the detriment of progressing the ‘green city’ and cycle infrastructure many had thought was soon to be the new normal. [1]

Cycling infrastructure offers Council the least expensive longest lasting congestion relief available. On top of that it allows Council to follow through on its commitment to achieving net neutral emissions made in the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate Change committing to a net neutral Christchurch by 2050. This LTP is supposed to be where Council implements policies and commitments. It needs to do so.[2]

 

The Major Cycle Routes, true mode choice, Congestion Reduction and Education

Council is to be congratulated for the Major Cycle Routes, MCR, projects. In spite of hostile media coverage thousands of ratepayers are choosing to cycle. With central government providing up to 66% of the funding Council and ratepayers have a unique opportunity to adopt much wanted transport culture change and improve our infrastructure at greatly reduced costs. Council is encouraged to maximize the use of central government funding to provide cycling infrastructure.

While many have embraced these routes with uptake exceeding projections, NIMBY and ‘stakeholder’ resistance continues to hobble progress. This LTP offers further delay for both MCR’s and the local cycle network to connect them up, for cycle parking, for promotion, education and Travel Demand Management, TDM.

Delaying cycling infrastructure leads to increased costs from motorized vehicle wear and tear on the roads as well as pressure to expand far more expensive roading infrastructure. This is not good practice either financially or ethically.

Enabling interested but concerned cyclists requires making them feel safe. Delaying the MCR’s and the local cycle network condemns another generation to driving as normal, increases roading costs and compromises public health. Both the MCR’s and the local cycle network require greatly increased funding to meet both road user and Council expectations.

It is in Council’s self-interest to fund education to help business people and ratepayers understand how cycle infrastructure can lead to lower rates and increased economic activity. This effort needs to be funded and implemented.

(While the savings reported differ in every instance cycling delivers a far higher benefit to cost ratio.

The business case for cycling, worldwide studies, including NZ and Christchurch https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/

And Chch http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/75117984/The-business-benefits-of-bikeways

Every kilometre travelled by car incurs costs to the individual and society six times those of travelling by bicycle http://www.ademloos.be/nieuws/individual-and-social-costs-car-travel-more-six-times-those-cycling

“For every dollar we individually spend on walking, society pays just 1 cent. For biking, it’s eight cents, and for bus-riding, $1.50. But for every personal dollar spent driving, society pays a whopping $9.20… each kilometre cycled actually gains society 18 cents” http://www.metronews.ca/views/opinion/2017/01/03/math-myth-busting-our-worst-urban-planning-misconceptions.html

Cost benefit of cycling 20:1 https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/news-events-and-notices/news/news-2014/02/cycling-infrastructure-more-economic-than-for-other-transport.html

Cycle infrastructure returns $10-$25:$1 in New Zealand https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307250/

NZTA finds health benefit of cycling to be $1.60 per km http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/359/

“American cities embrace cycling to save money while building community, http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/how-cities-can-make-biking-safer Community led and supported change implemented by a mayor/champion through and open and transparent process brings walking, cycling and economic prosperity in spite of initial business community opposition.”

http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/social-issues/why-are-so-many-people-unwilling-to-share-the-road-with-bikes/ Christchurch based pent up demand met by MCR’s

 

Acknowledge that Cycling is a transport mode and Include it in all transport projects

In the budget documents one heading is ‘Roads and Footpaths’. This simply acknowledges those both are means of transport and must be developed together. Please grant similar status to cycling. The tarnished legacy of favouring cars over other modes has been institutionalized. This Council needs to reject that bias and set new standards.

Bring Expertise back in house

Council needs to reconsider the use of consultants developing cycle infrastructure. Christchurch has committed to a policy of broad expansion of the cycle network and should be rebuilding the institutional knowledge to deliver projects with in house staff that have the rich background of experience and familiarity with Council’s many activities and policies. The lack of effective integration of cycling infrastructure into projects is exacerbated by this use of contracted ad hoc teams. Quality suffers while costs escalate. Having experienced staff and Cycle Champions on staff can limit the need for redrafting. Council needs to direct the Executive to create and fill these positions with people who understand and are committed to what it will take to make Christchurch a ‘City of Cycles.’

The intent for the Transport Liaison group was to finally give community and cycling stakeholders a formal means to review, modify and refocus plans and policies. It has failed with meetings being one way communication from staff or ‘tours’ of various facilities. Getting down to the details to make projects work is what was sought, and has not occurred. Communication needs to be two way and empowered. Council needs both Cycle Champions on staff and an empowered Cycle Advisory Panel. This can save Council by producing better projects that do not have to be redone, either on paper or after construction. Council needs to direct the re-establishment and empowerment of a Cycle Advisory Panel.

 

Some Crucial Cycling infrastructure

These are just a few crucially needed projects.

The coastal pathway from Moncks Spur to Shag Rock is long overdue. The footpath was removed due to rock fall and has not been replaced. Completing this link can alleviate congestion on the road and on parking in Sumner. Please enable families to choose to bike to the beach.

Memorial Avenue needs cycle lanes. This is a main cycle commute and tourist route. Parallel routes are fine, but not a substitute for delivering infrastructure where the actual need is. A start would dedicate the outer lanes for buses and bikes and post a 30 km/h limit on them. This is an example of the transport culture change Christchurch needs.

 

Overcoming Institutional Hurdles

Otakaro is currently constructing Hospital Corner as an effective bottleneck to N/S and E/W cycling routes through the central city. Thanks to Ministry of Health underfunding of the hospital expansion the project did not assess or develop a transport plan to best serve both the hospital and the transport network. Otakaro’s plan successfully disadvantages motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, the disabled and patients accessing the hospital and outpatient facility.

One stop gap is to fund the Hagley Park Spatial plan proposal for a cycle route from Riccarton Ave behind the hospitals and exiting onto Rolleston Ave. Also required is assessment and mitigation of this project and the many shortcomings of the Accessible City Plan Transport chapter in failing to adequately provide for cycling, notably cycle commuting. Neither is proposed in this LTP. Both must be included. The past central government’s legacy continues to haunt the rebuild Cantabrian’s wanted.

Council’s specific questions relating to transport

“Have we got the balance right?
Looking across all the services, projects and activities that Council delivers, have we prioritised the right things?  Do you have a project or programme that you think should be reprioritised?”

Per our submission the MCR’s and local cycle network need prioritising, not delay.

What do you think of this plan for an average rates increase of no more than 5.5 per cent, reducing over the next 10 years?

Per our submission Council needs to lobby central government to honour their commitment to rebuild Christchurch. The proposed rates rises along with the shaky financial situation is not sustainable or prudent. If not successful Council needs to communicate clearly why rates rises are not feasible and why infrastructure will be at third world levels. Shifting people out of cars can reduce Council costs.

Do you think we should investigate other ways to raise funding?
A local fuel tax could help us to reduce rates. Would you support us exploring this option to generate more money for transport-related projects?

Yes. But give people genuine alternatives to driving. This will require:

• Getting ECan to improve bus service while cutting costs
• Providing a complete connected cycle network, MCR’s and local connections

What do you think of our approach to managing our transport projects, and how we’re prioritising the work?

Per our submission Council simply does not have the funds to continue maintaining and building a transport network based on individual motorized vehicles. Active and Public transport are the only realistic options and should be prioritised accordingly. Reconsider the overuse of consultants.

What do you think we should take into account when prioritising the work that needs to be done?
Do you think the priorities should be informed by the local Community Board?

Adopt a triage approach based on need, alternative options, climate change impact, resilience, sustainability and cost to benefit. Community Boards will need to explain and implement this approach.

Footnotes

[1] Accessible City Plan to be revisited with business stakeholders in the fore.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/90658214/christchurch-politicians-concur-an-accessible-city-plan-should-change  “Chief executive Karleen Edwards said the council and Crown development company Otakaro Limited recently met with business and property owners to discuss the impacts of implementing the plan… They highlighted emerging issues such as vehicle access to the central city, parking, traffic congestion, and the ability to drive right through the city.”

 

[2] Quoting from the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan, CTSP, 2012:

Page 9 “The community places a high value on transport and has asked for a significant change in the current transport system. The community indicated its preference to move towards a pedestrian and cycle-friendly city, where walking and cycling are enjoyable, safe and there are high-quality facilities… ” continued below

Page 18 “The current cost to a household of owning and operating motor vehicles costs the region around $1.3 billion each year.”

Page 30 “Creating an effective cycle network will require:

• Implementing the three parts of the cycle network (major cycleways, local cycleways and recreational cycleways).
• Improving cycling facilities.
• A targeted education and promotional campaign. ”

Quoting from the Draft Central City Plan 2011

Page 11 “Accessible city

A city easy to get to and around, supported by excellent walking and cycling paths, high-quality public transport, short-term free parking, a network of green two-way streets and an efficient and attractive ring road for traffic around Moorhouse, Fitzgerald, Bealey, Harper and Deans avenues.”

Page 29 “Easy to get around

1. Promote a city that is easy and safe to get around
2. Support a balance between walking, cycling, public transport and driving”

Final Central City Plan, December 2011

Page 87 “7.9.3 Policy: Cycling in the Central City

To provide a more safe and separated cycle network in the Central City, including conveniently located cycle parking facilities, and to actively encourage cycling as a means of transport.

Explanation and reasons

A network of high quality, continuous safe cycle paths will be developed in the Central City. Where possible, these paths will be separated from traffic. The cycle paths will link to the city–wide cycle network to provide improved access to the Central City. Appendix 4c in Part 8 Volume 3, shows the proposed Central City cycle path network. On these streets, where necessary, the provision of cycle paths will take precedence over providing on-street parking spaces.” Emphasis added.

 

The Central City Plan Technical Apdx 1 provided a summary of Share an Idea, SaI. Quoting from that summary.

Page 43-4 Nb:Street use and priorities Topic summary

“People want the Central City to be a cycle-friendly environment, with safe, separate off-road cycle lanes to encourage people to cycle. They also want a Central City free of cars, with pedestrians and other forms of active transport dominating the streetscape. Number of comments: 2364

• Pedestrians as the main focus of the Central City, even in regard to street use and priorities”

P 44-6 “Many comments about creating a cycle-friendly city, especially in reference to separate cycle lanes to make cycling safer…”

Page 54 “Thousands of people requested a vibrant and active Central City that appealed to families and offered ease of travel, with more pedestrian-friendly streets and safe cycle routes.”  Continued on next page

Various pages:  Landscape and Streetscape got 6,527 comments, many including cycling. This is also found in Rivers which called for cycle parking as well as routes. Rail which calls for bikes on trains/buses.

P129-30 “Cycle Topic summary

There is a desire to have safe and pleasant cycling as a real transport option. People don’t want cycling to be a secondary transport option. Many want more cycleways, with a preference for off-road lanes that are separated from other traffic. There is also a desire for initiatives to encourage cycling, such as secure and covered parking facilities, showers and free or cheap cycles.

The idea of the Avon river becoming an off-road cycle route was popular. Number of comments: 3833

• More cycle lanes – with a preference for off road and separated lanes…. Safe dedicated cycle lanes – NOT shared with buses or cars. Separation from pedestrians was also mentioned… Integrated cycle ways across the city so that people can cycle to the centre safely and easily…” continued on next page