Christchurch City LTCCP

Well done Robin. The clapping at the end said it all. The support is definitely there. A huge thank you to Spokes Secretary, Nigel for organising the crowd attendance, he has worked really hard putting it out on the networks. (Lets make sure we vote Nigel in at the AGM Monday week)
I counted 40 people directly in my view, and there were at least another 5-10 hidden behind CTV camera area. So about 50 people there in the audience. [Andrew you and I always get different figures but I counted twice!] There were a few late arrivals, actually on time but the presentation started early. Next time we should give an earlier time, so all are seated before the presentation. Apparently will be aired on CTV tonight. Well done everyone.

The presentation to the LTCCP hearing seemed to go quite well, generally well received by Council (at least outwardly) with a number of questions. Many thanks to all the Spokes people who turned up in support - about 35 in total. A copy of the presentation given is attached to the original submission post. Note the last two slides were not used.

CCC LTCCP hearing draft presentation attached for comment - sorry about the file size.

Spokes CCC LTCCP submission hearing will be at 1.50pm on Mon 18th May. We have 10 minutes.

Spokes LTCCP submission is at http://spokes.org.nz/submission/2009/christchurch-city-ltccp-bad-news-fo...

I cannot open or download the final document - Spokes+LTCCP+submission_1_AM.doc 86 KB - and so unable to have a look. The link seems to be broken, nor can I fix the problem. There seems to be a %2b in the link rather than a + between spokes and LTCCP. Andrew, if your's is the last one, can you repair and upload the file again and delete this doc?

Also, is that correct, there appears to be nothing about CCC's LTCCP on the Spokes front page? I've been telling people to go there for more info!!

Great work, Robin and the several other contributors. I've done a little word-smithing and other minor changes. I'll upload the file and also e-mail my track changes to Robin.

I've just had a final read through the submission and it is looking good. Robin I see you have made a few changes in emphasis near the start along the lines we were talking about earlier - thanks for that.
I have nothing further to add - I think I will save my 'big picture' comments for another document, another audience.
Thanks everyone for your good work on this - remember to get a short individual submission in as well and ask for speaking time so that we can amplify the voice for cycling!

Hi
My comments below were pasted into word document that I have just sent Robin. But just so others know what I said see below. Need to spell check submission Robin as just noticed a couple of my spelling mistakes.
RE Southern Motorway
Existing comments:
The southern motorway cycle path, while desirable in the longer term, is not an immediate priority for improving the cycling environment in Christchurch, and should be funded as part of the overall motorway project by NZTA, not out of the Council’s cycling budget. Spokes considers that the proposed cycle path along the railway right of way from Addington to Hornby should be given priority for council funding over the proposed motorway path, as it would serve more people and provide an alternative to existing routes such as Blenheim Rd.

[FW: I am not sure about this, as I think the cycle railway right of way from Addington to Hornby should be a project in its own right (in project list below) not given as a possible substitute for the Southern Motorway Pathway. We want Council to renegotiate the agreement to fund the pathway with NZTA in light of new Government money for the Southern Motorway. I.e. NZTA should fund it entirely.]

Tram way
Existing comments
We do not consider that the proposed tram extension is a priority in terms of transport spending as does not have a public transport role. We consider that funding for the proposed extension should be re-allocated towards active and public transport. If council considers that the tramway extension is desirable from an economic or tourism perspective it should be funded from those budgets.

Fiona's comments to add:
There is evidence injuries to cyclists are occurring due to the way the existing tram tracks have been laid in particular in Armagh Street near Rolleston Avenue and by Victoria Park (Spokes Canterbury website has more information about this http://spokes.org.nz/webform/bike-crashes-on-tram-tracks]. We understand that one of Council's own Councillors, Bob Shearing has recently came to grief on these tracks while cycling, and he will hence be clearly able to articulate the issues to his fellow councillors. [not sure if should say Bob's name as abit personal perhaps just say A City Councillor]

Spokes Canterbury has previously presented to Council about the issue of the existing tram tracks in relation to danger to cycists. We reiterate to Council that tram tracks must be laid so that the number of criss crossing of tracks is minimised.

It was clearly shown in submissions to Council that the Public supported cycling in Cashel Street Mall. Spokes Canterbury wishes for council to consider as part of the Tram proposal that cyclists should be able to cycle where the tram currently goes including in non-motorised areas such as the City Mall, Worcester Street between Oxford Terrace and Durham Street South, and New Regent Street.

Adult and Children Cycle Training
New Comment to add
We support the Council's proposal to fund Adult Cycle Training. However, we note that for this training to be successful the infrastructure for cycling needs to support people returning to, or beginning to cycle. The CCC Cycle Safe programme for school children cycle training is what the NZTA Cycling Training guidelines has been modelled on, but does not appear to be stopping the trend of school children not cycling, as shown in recent CCC counts of cyclists. This is likely to be due to the cycling environment not being condusive to parents allowing their children to cycle due to increasing traffic volume and speed of traffic.

I have posted an updated Word version of the LTCCP submission (in track changes) incorporating peoples comments to date (as at 2.55pm on Tues). I have also pasted this revised version onto the web page above.

I have reviewed your submission Robin and congratulate you on the very high standard of both its content and style. A couple of suggestions.

Pg 1 Paragraph 3 - you could add "It is also clear from the councils own counts that citizen of Christchurch are keen to see these targets achieved and goals met with increaing numbers choosing to cycle use active or public transport."

Pg 2 Para graph 2 last sentence. "In our view, these targets are clearly at odd with the councils own counting. The targets are inaccurate and out of touch with reality of what is happening on the streets. As stated, the targets could even be interpreted as being deliberately distorted to justify not even trying to achieve the Community Outcomes of the LTCCP, the targets and goals in the RLTS, UDS, and draft TDMS and even to justify the cuts to the cycling budget the LTCCP contains."

Pg 3 New Para 4 "It has been suggested that up to 30% of peak hour traffic is related to the use of private car to transport school students to and from school. While the council is to be congratulated on the continued funding it will provide for such programmes as School Travel Plans along with other initiates to encourage the greater use of active transport and cycling by school student and their parents, the draft LTCCP has failed to show the vision and grasp the opportunity (and savings) that investment in improved cycling facilities would produce when parents have the confidence to allow children to independently walk, scooter or cycle to school. Reducing private vehicle use at peak times would also mean less money was needed for road improvements as existing roads would be able to cope."

Not sure if this helps.

I will be making a personal submission based on the results of parent surveying in the School Travel Plans that have already been completed.

Cheers

Keith Turner

I have to go to Westport for Wednesday and Thursday next week (at short notice), so will have to complete and send out the LTCCP submission before then, unless someone else wants to pick up this task. So can I have comments on the draft by Tues pm. please - sorry for the short time frame.

I have posted the draft LTCCP submission on the site. There is also a Word version attached. Comments, suggestions by Wednesday 15 April.

High-level Comments.

There is just a huge amount of information on the LTCCP. Where does one begin? It seems designed to discourage active involvement. As for the mayor's desire "to include more citizen groups which are not advocacy focused. Examples were sports & garden clubs, residents’ associations." These groups will have little time or enthusiasm for LTCCP analysis and review. Is he afraid that "advocacy" groups will be too knowledgeable and put up well-argued reasons for change? Is he trying to disenfranchise or discredit people who take the time to commit to the on-going viability of their city by collaborating through such groups?
Enough of a rave. My key issues for our submission on the LTCCP are rather high-level. I propose the following wording:
We should spend less on big CCC roading projects and this will free up funds for more people-friendly projects for walking and cycling. If the budgets cannot be balanced, then the first projects to cut should be .... (pick on some large non-state-highway roading projects). In addition, expenditure on the tram extension would be better spent on other areas and provides another opportunity for cost savings. The tram extension is not a valid public transport service - if it were, it would be heavily funded through NZTA subsidies.
Secondly, the cost of providing cycleways alongside the Christchurch Southern Motorway (CSM) should be borne by NZTA, not CCC. We understand that a contract has been negotiated between CCC and NZTA for this purpose, but now that the government has increased state highway funding and reduced national cycleways budgets, it makes sense for the national agency to fund both the road and the cycleway (and pedestrian path). The contract with NZTA should be renegotiated. If New Zealand can afford to build state highways, we can afford to ensure that they provide for walking and cycling, both alongside and across them. This should not be left to the local councils. State highways are funded at 100% by central government whereas the cycleways require significant funding from local councils. This is simply not equitable.

The Council maintains that the cycle budget has not been cut in the 2009 LTCCP. Here are some figures from the '06 & '09 LTCCPs.

From http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/LTCCP/2006-16/LTCCP2006-16_Vol1_p150-157.pdf

Page 157 2006 LTCCP
Cycle and pedestrian linkages - off-street in 000’s
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
971 1,073 1,178 1,242 1,312 1,418 1,521

Page 255 2009 LTCCP in 000's
Cycleways improvements programme
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
500 518 536 554 571 589 607

Southern motorway cycleway & auxiliaries
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
400 2,073 2,250 2,327 3,425 0 0

There are differences in how funds are allocated between the ’06 & ’09 LTCCP
In ’06 it is called “cycle and pedestrian linkages off street”, in ’09 it is “cycleways improvement programme”. More work could be done to try and make the figures more comparable, but the arguments would never end without having the actual detailed budgets, assuming they were specific and accurate.

In this comparison I am NOT including the CSM cycle/ped auxiliaries as they are very low priority active transport infrastructure only funded as a means to achieving this major roading project.I am also NOT including the funding for footpath and cycle maintenance. It is simply impossible to know how much might end up in cycle lanes, if any.

Total cycle funding for the ’06 LTCCP was $8,715,000, Total for ’09 LTCCP is $3,875,000 or $4,840,000 LESS. In either LTCCP active transport is woefully under funded and it is difficult to see what exactly is being done with the money. There are NO specific named cycle lane, path, way projects funded in either LTCCP.

All CCC cycle related planning documents call for a build out of the cycle ways network with contiguous cycle lanes, road user education, and active transport promotion among other specifics. The ’09 LTCCP does not specifically fund any of these activities.

S. Library LTCCP Community Forum 28.3.09 Notes

These forums are a way to get more LTCCP information and to meet staff. Attendance is encouraged to help focus submissions and to get specific questions answered. City staff were helpful and approachable.

In discussion with the Mayor prior to the start of the meeting he spoke highly of “deliberative democracy”, where citizens are selected at random, educated on a topic and their views considered. He was clear that a mutually respectful collaborative process yields better results then going it alone.

Mayor Bob Parker gave a very well presented Power Point presentation overview of the LTCCP. Almost worth attending for this alone. He stated that we must move past reliance on cars to active transport. The tourist tram has his whole hearted support as it is a model for light rail in Christchurch while also providing a world class tourist amenity. He envisions more trams as good public transportation. Cycle lanes have not been cut, there will be 27 k’s of new lanes in the bus priority routes. He sees intersection improvements not yet funded as next in line should funds become available. He is proud of this LTCCP as its projects are funded, unlike the last one, and rates increases have been kept to 4% annually. The process for producing it was an excellent one. He also mentioned the need to include more citizen groups which are not advocacy focused. Examples were sports & garden clubs, residents’ associations.

When asked how to get unfunded projects funded the response was to present solid arguments effectively.

In talking about the tourist tram and the CBD revitalization he stated “cars should not have a greater right then people”

The forum was an opportunity to meet with relevant city staff. Jane Parfitt is the “hard infrastructure” resource person, James Ryan and the Consultation Manager. A long list of questions have been sent to James and all will be posted here upon receipt.

Next Forums:

26 March 2009 Diamond Harbour Community Centre (Stage Room), off Waipapa Avenue, Diamond Harbour 4-6pm
30 March 2009 Linwood Service Centre, 180 Smith Street, Linwood 5-7pm
31 March 2009 Duvauchelle Community Hall, Duvauchelle 12-2pm
1 April 2009 Fendalton Service Centre, corner Jeffreys and Clyde roads, Fendalton 3-5pm
2 April 2009 Upper Riccarton Community and School Community Library, 71 Main South Road, Sockburn 4-6pm
6 April 2009 Papanui Service Centre, corner Langdons Road and Restell Street, Papanui 7-9pm