Cycling Around The World presentation series.

Location: CPIT Imagitech Theatre, Main Entrance, Rakaia Centre, Madras St Campus.

Time: 2:00 to 4:00pm.

Dates: Saturdays 11th, 18th, 25th February, and 3rd March.

Spokes in association with CPIT are presenting a series of cycling related talks to celebrate Bike Wise Month. Come and enjoy cycling around the world with various speakers as they share exotic adventures in distant lands. Talks are mostly about long distance cycle tours sprinkled with good urban design.

Ample parking and Imagitech Theatre is just inside the main entrance of Rakaia Centre Campus, see photos.

CPIT entrance and parking

Dates and times are confirmed.

Presentations may still be subject to change with more details to follow.

----------

11th Feb -

1) Cycling over the High Himalayas in India, from Ladakh to Manali (Margaret Clark).

2) It's not about the Tour: cycling for fun and transport in Toulouse, France (John Lieswyn).

3) Exploring Cuba by Bicycle (Margaret Clark).

----------
18th Feb -

1) Melbourne to Adeliade, then up to Darwin - 49 days on bikes (Caroline Davidson & Nigel Cook).

2) Via Claudia - Venice to Bavaria via the Alps (Robin Delamore).

3) San Diego across the bottom of USA to St Augustine Florida (Caroline Davidson & Nigel Cook).

------------
25th Feb -

Heaven for Now - North West China (Jane Shearer)

Cycling Heaven - Laos (Karey Meisner)

Hot as Hell - Sulawesi (Jane Shearer)

----------
3rd March -

1) TBA

2) The Adventures of Louise Sutherland - the first person ever to cycle right across Brazil,
through the Amazon Jungle. (Clare Simpson)

3) TBA

CCC Linwood Village Master Plan Notes

From:  http://www1.ccc.govt.nz/haveyoursay/ConsultationView.aspx?ConsultId=816

Drop-in sessions will also be held at the Aspire Canterbury Centre, 314 Worcester Street, on:

• Saturday 28 January 2012 from 12:30pm to 4:30pm; and
• Thursday 9 February 2012 from 2pm to 6pm

Email subs to: LinwoodvillageMP [at] ccc [dot] govt [dot] nz
 

Notes on the Linwood Rebuild Plan

This plan deals primarily with redeveloping the areas shops and some residential. The vision is European street scene with lots of on street parking. Cycling is given the short shrift typical to such plans. Linwood was an area in decline, this plan seeks to make it a healthy vibrant community.

CCC will work with the local landlords to try and convince them of the benefits of working cooperatively for a higher quality rebuild. The inducements to achieve this appear to be limited. Government has supplied a limited vision, the ‘free market' is to create the outcome.

Reading this plan from a transport perspective was disheartening. This plan falls so far short of what could be achieved. After the stress of all the quakes and the hope engendered by the support for cycling found in the Share an Idea process the community was ready for some real vision supported by action.

CCC has seized on "Slow Core", the practice of narrow traffic lanes, no cycle infrastructure and inadequate acknowledgement of the responses and interactions between road users now stressed by the constrained roading conditions foisted upon them. Public Transport is left to bully its way through and the whole thing is touted as safer due to the fact no one can go fast. Slow Core has its place, but is not the panacea CCC dreams of. It is cheap to deliver and in accord with CCC's ‘road calming' efforts.

This plan does not acknowledge Share an Idea's insistence on safe and inviting cycle infrastructure nor act on the adopted CCC Cycle Strategy. There is no cycle network, little, if any, cycle infrastructure, and there has been no consultation with the cycling community.

P 19 Summary of Consultation outcomes, among things people liked

"High levels of foot traffic and cycle activity in the village throughout the day."

P 22 "The options presented in the following section are concepts only, developed by Council staff to provide the property owners with ideas and a starting point for discussion. Initial drafts and further options are provided in Appendices 3 and 4."

Fig 14 Artists impression at bottom of page shows cyclists, but no cycle lanes or parking. There may be advance stop boxes. ‘Slow Core' type increased congestion planning.

P 23   Fig 15 shows parking behind stores fronting on Stanmore road

Fig 16 shows street scene with cycles, but again no infrastructure save possible advance stop boxes.

P 24 Many of the existing sections do not have room for parking and rely on on street parking. CCC may work with landlords to resolve. 2-3 story construction with residential over commercial likely.

P 25 under Key Concepts these are the total on transport

" Buildings built up to the street edge.

Support good levels of car parking without impacting on the street environment.

 Increase building height without impacting on the street.

 Create clear site lines and the ability to move through the block.

 Manage vehicle movements to ensure pedestrian safety and access.

 Provide vehicle crossing points that are sufficiently clear of intersections."

P 30 Project S1

"Site description

Stanmore Road and Worcester Street are part of the city's secondary road network. Stanmore Road is classified as a `collector road', intended to distribute traffic within and between immediate neighbourhoods. It is increasingly used as a north‐south vehicle link. Worcester Street is a `local road' providing access to local properties rather than providing a main link between places. Over time, changes to Worcester Street within the Central City have reduced its traffic flow. The draft Central City Plan signals further changes are likely to Worcester Boulevard and could extend as far as the Village. Two city‐bound buses currently service the centre (No. 60 Parklands via Worcester Street and number 21 Ilam/Mt Pleasant via Gloucester Street)."

Fig 24 shows Stanmore Road with a wide landscaped centre median, on street parking, narrow traffic lanes and no cycle lanes whatsoever. It is a nightmare. The text points out that there is adequate off street parking and on street parking may be limited to 10 minutes to assure steady turn over. "Slow Core" is the goal to make for safer pedestrian movement. Nb: Stanmore Road is a collector road; it will be a clogged road.

P 31 The paragraph above ends page 30, this one starts page 31

"Walking, cycling and public transport are particularly important modes of transport for people living around the Village. The local population has significantly fewer cars than other Christchurch households, with 22 percent of households not owning a car. There are also high numbers of physically disabled, sickness and invalid beneficiaries living in the area. The quality of bus waiting spaces does not currently support the needs of the local community."

Key Concepts "

 Maximising space on footpaths, particularly on the sunny side of the street.

 Narrowing traffic lane widths on Stanmore Road to slow traffic.

 Strong streetscape elements that define the Village and highlight entry and exit points.

 Improving bus waiting spaces with shelters, seating and good lighting, based on CPTED

recommendations and real time information.

 Cycle parking that is easily accessible and visible from the street.

 Manage vehicle movements to ensure pedestrian safety and access.

 Provide vehicle crossing points that are sufficiently clear of intersections.

 Shorter on‐street parking periods.

 Retaining the taxi waiting space.

 More art/colour/mosaic within the streetscape.

 Account taken of changes to Worcester Street/Boulevard signalled in the draft Central City Plan.

 Street treatments that consider the elderly and people with disabilities."

This is followed by figures depicting possible options on the next two pages. Both are somewhat indistinct overhead aerial shots with lines depicting the changes to be made. The first is ‘central median' the second is untitled. Neither appears to offer cycle or PT infrastructure. Both have ‘key features' copied below. There is no follow up text or cross section views.

P 32 ‘Central Median' "Key Features

 Central median with trees, lights and street banner poles (Stage 1).

 Informal pedestrian crossing points.

 Retention of the existing kerb alignment and pavement width for much of the street.

 Kerb build outs at intersections.

 Street trees in pavements."

P 33 Untitled  "Key Features

 Mid block pedestrian crossing point.

 New kerb alignment and increased pavement width to allow for street furniture and activity.

 Kerb build outs at intersections.

 Street trees in the pavements (location and number to be determined in detailed design stage)."

P 34 Fig 25 depicting plan for Super Value car park includes a bike rack! This is not mentioned in the supporting text. Fig 26 depicting the new car park shows no cycle infrastructure.

P 64 Cost to implement either of the options to be less than $1 million, the cost of the two options above.

 Selwyn Street Shops Master Plan is open for submissions. You can get the draft at http://www1.ccc.govt.nz/haveyoursay/ConsultationView.aspx?ConsultId=817

Submissions can be sent to: SelwynMPlan [at] ccc [dot] govt [dot] nz and is due by 17 February.

Please send comments or drafts to newsletter [at] spokes [dot] org [dot] nz or attach a file here.

Here are some basics around which the submission will be constructed.  With respect to summary document, Spokes recommends:  

Built environment (page 9)1.       In the artists impression, it is evident that the proposed rear car parking results in undesirable instances of motor vehicles crossing the footpath.  Consider shared parking resources rather than vehicle crossings for each site to eliminate or minimise the number of turning vehicles which may conflict with pedestrians and cyclists.

Street and movement (page 10). 

1.       The summary document describes marked cycle lanes but then the plan view at the bottom of page 10 does not show marked cycle lanes, only a general traffic lane line and parallel parking markings. 

2.       The cross sections suggest indented car parks between landscaped kerb extensions with trees and pedestrian crossing facilities, but the plan view does not.   

3.       Southbound vehicles turning onto Coronation travel too fast for slower northbound cyclists to be able to accelerate from a stop; consider a low-speed design roundabout instead.

4.       Consistency in terminology – use “separated cycle lane” not “segregated cycle lane”

5.       Consistency in general traffic lane widths between alternatives shown – should be 3.0 m traffic lanes without centreline (total 6.0 m) with the saved space distributed as follows:o   Separated cycle lane alternative – 0.4 m savings (per lane) given 0.3 to make 1.8 cycle paths and 2.1 footpatho   On street cycle lane alternative – 0.2 m savings (per lane) given to the indented car parks / landscaping to minimise car parking encroachment on the proposed 1.8 m cycle lanes

6.       Selwyn St south approach lanes to Brougham (northbound)o   Consider physical separation of kerbside cycle lane using bollards, flags or kerbs to prevent left turning motor vehicles from blocking the cycle lane approacho   If physical separation is not utilised, ensure that the mixed left and through general traffic lane is no more than 3.0 m and the cycle lane is 1.5 m to minimise two-abreast informal queuing of motor vehicles.  A good example is Antigua St north approach to Moorhouse (southbound), and a bad example is Strickland St south approach to Brougham (northbound).

7.       The proposed parallel offset kerbs on the southbound departure from Brougham result in sharp angles for the cycle lane which are not best practice; as with all traffic lanes, cycle lanes should have smooth curves.  A good practice example is Lyttelton St south of Lincoln Rd, where rather than parallel offset kerbs the entire kerb line is angled and the cycle lane alignment is smooth.