Submission on the Regional Land Transport Strategy 2008 - 2015

Here is the final presentation to the Committee.  It was well received I think - there were quite a few questions, and the general tone was sympathetic.   The CCC presentation supported our request for a policy/ method providing for the development of cycle routes (which was rejected in the Officer's report)

DRAFT CANTERBURY REGIONAL LAND TRANSPORT STRATEGY 2008-2018 

PRESENTATION IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSION BY SPOKES

Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today.  My name is Robin Delamore, and I am the Submissions Co-ordinator for Spokes Canterbury.  Spokes Canterbury is a local cycling advocacy group with approximately 900 members that is affiliated with the national Cycling Advocate’s Network (CAN). Spokes is dedicated to including cycling as an everyday form of transport in the greater Christchurch area.  

I want to start today with a reference to a recent policy paper called “Making cycling irresistible” published the School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University in the USA that shows how the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany have made bicycling a safe, convenient, and practical way to get around their cities.   The paper indicates that the key to achieving high levels of cycling appears to be the provision of separate cycling facilities along heavily travelled roads and at intersections, combined with traffic calming of most residential neighbourhoods. Extensive cycling rights of way in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany are complemented by ample bike parking; full integration with public transport, comprehensive traffic education and training of both cyclists and motorists, and a wide range of promotional events intended to generate enthusiasm and wide public support for cycling. In addition to their many pro-bike policies and programs, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany make driving expensive as well as inconvenient in central cities through a host of taxes and restrictions on car ownership, use, and parking. Moreover, strict land use policies foster compact, mixed-use developments that generate shorter and thus more bikeable trips. It is the coordinated implementation of this multifaceted, mutually reinforcing set of policies that best explains the success of these three countries in promoting cycling.  

For comparison, the paper portrays the marginal status of cycling in the UK and USA, where only about one percent of trips are by bike. The situation in NZ and Canterbury is more akin to that in the UK and US rather than in the Netherlands, Denmark or Germany. Currently, cycling provision in the greater Christchurch area is occurring on a piecemeal and uncoordinated basis, and it is our view that a significant increase in cycling is unlikely to occur unless integrated approaches along the lines identified in the paper are adopted, and there is greater investment in cycling infrastructure, facilities and promotion.   

While there is support in the RLTS for a modal shift in favour of walking and cycling, there appears to be a major disjunct between this support and the implementation section 5.2 (TRIP).  The TRIP is predominately focused on investment in roading, along with some public transport projects.  It appears that almost all the investment promoted by the strategy will be for these projects, with cycling and walking provision relegated (apart from a couple of references to SH bridges) to a few general statements and a minimal level of funding in each area.  This indicates to us that the RLTS (and the supporting documents) doesn't really have any strategic vision about how and where cycling provision should occur, and how an increase in cycling is to be achieved  I

n terms of the total spend identified in the Strategy and the TRIP the long term direction appears to be largely “business as usual” (i.e. providing for more cars).   Funding for walking and cycling is currently derisory, particularly when their combined mode share is compared with proposed investment in roads to support private car use, and this needs to change. 

We consider that there is a real danger that the RLTS will end up as another set of platitudes about cycling and walking unless it is underpinned by a clear vision of what needs to be done to achieve an increase in these activities, and a commitment to invest in cycling infrastructure and support services (such as education, promotion, and facilities). In our view there has been an overemphasis on planning for cycling to date, and insufficient emphasis has been given the implementation of integrated and co-ordinated provisions for cycling in Greater Christchurch and the wider region.  This is reflected in the actual decline of 0.5% in people cycling to work in Canterbury since 2001 (Census, 2006). 

 To address these issues we would like to see:

 ·         a new Goal inserted in the RLTS that addresses inefficiencies and inequities in funding between modes and ensures planning and resources are directed towards those modes that are most effective and efficient in providing for a sustainable transport system. 

·         longer term targets in the RLTS that set benchmarks for achieving the goals, and that are consistent with the targets in the draft National Transport Strategy. 

·         A new policy or method after 1.2.6 that provides for the development (as opposed to planning for) of attractive, safe, and convenient cycling routes in urban areas with priority to be given to strategic locations and linkages that will encourage greater participation in cycling by commuter, utility, and recreational cycling. 

·         And of course, meaningful implementation provisions for making cycling irresistible in the TRIP. 

Our submission seeks a number of other points, but the four matters listed above are the key ones that we want to impress on you today.  I

 will now briefly speak to these matters in the context of the evaluation and recommendations in the Officer’s report.   

Vision and Goals (Report: Page 22) 

We do not agree with the statement in the Report that the TRIP contains significant packages of activities to deliver the RLTS vision in respect of cycling and walking.  That is why we have sought the insertion of a new Goal 8 that addresses inequities in funding between modes.  In our view this is an appropriate statement at the goal level because it would have a significant bearing on the achievement of the RLTS vision.Targets for 2011 (Report Page 23) We remain of the view that longer term targets that set benchmarks for achieving the goals of the RLTS are required, and that these should reflect those in the draft National Transport Strategy.  The evaluations states that the current targets were set in the 2002 RLTS based on 1996 census data.  In our view the targets in the draft RLTS should be based on the most up to date data, and be consistent with the vision and goals of the RLTS.  The current targets appear to be neither. 

Cycling Policy 1.2 (Report Page 30) 

We have requested a new policy providing for the development of cycling routes in urban areas.  Such an approach would be entirely consistent with ECAN’s own “Cycling in Canterbury: strategy for the development of a regional network of cycle routes” and the Christchurch City Council’s “Cycling Strategy”. 

We therefore have difficulty in understanding the reasoning behind the evaluation and the rejection of our request.   To state, as the evaluation does, that “The RLTS therefore cannot have a robust policy in this regard as much is determined at the local level” does not make sense to us, particularly when (for example) Method 1.2.7 states Provide convenient, secure and covered cycle parking at retail, commercial and community facilities and at transport interchanges, where demand warrants and especially where it enables multi-modal journeys. This appears to be a “robust policy” notwithstanding that it will be implemented at the local level.  It is the very lack of action in providing for safe and convenient cycle routes at the local level, and for effective provisions for cycling generally that we are trying to address through this policy. 

Under the current Policy 1.2, development of cycling routes is listed as a planning method, but not as a physical method.  While we would prefer to see an additional policy providing for cycle routes along the lines we have suggested, an alternative would be for this wording to be included as a physical method under Policy 1.2.

Have discussed this with Matt. I am able to attend the hearing and will work on some presentation material this weekend (was away last week. I have the Officers report, which recommends that almost all our submissions be rejected, so will need to work on reason why his conclusions are wrong. Unfortunately the report doesn't seem to be online.

In relation to where the NZ Transport Strategy is mentioned (twice) re new 30% walking and cycling target by 2040. A Strategy exists now but it is up for review. It should therefore say the "draft NZ Transport Strategy".
No worries if it is submitted. The website says time is up in 40 minutes and in another place that it was due at 5pm today.

Well done everyone. Important document to submit and a very busy time of the year!
Regards
Fiona

Have a good break Robin...you deserve it!

Andrew Couper

Hi Robin,
This reads well. Very good submission.
Axel Wilke
Spokes membership secretary