This is due in on Monday 7 May
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/137#form-message
Cycle parking is grossly inadequate. Cycle infrastructure is minimal and substandard.
This one needs to go back for a full redraft.
Spokes is glad to read that lower speeds in the village will be implemented. A 30 km/h limit will make for a safer and more inviting multi modal environment.
Please do not use paving surfaces which will present hazards for cyclists, especially when wet.
Traffic calming should not use people on bicycles as a means to enforce the speed limit. Build outs can create pinch points which place cyclists in danger. If they are to be used it will be important to remind drivers that sharing the road is required. Education, promotion and vigorous enforcement will be needed. Traffic signals which give cyclists a short head start should not be required if the cycle infrastructure provides consistent separation, but will be if the plans as drawn are implemented.
Please implement cycle infrastructure which can encourage the interested but concerned cyclists. Increase the cycle parking and make it easily expandable to meet the demand. Wedging half a dozen slots between two benches does not support multi modal transport choice.
The Coastal pathway through the village is a compromise too far. Completing the Coastal Pathway along the coast should be a part of this project.
Spokes notes that under ‘Principles’ there is no mention of shared road spaces, provision for all transport modes. This undermines the verbiage found in the section on ‘Traffic’. Under ‘Parking’ there is no mention of bicycle parking. The illustration on page 3 shows a single small cycle stand in the Village. The illustration for the Monck’s cave area offers no cycle parking.
This plan remains stuck in the past with car centred thinking. It is hoped that the final plans will overcome the shortcomings found here.
Spokes reminds Council that there are thousands of people who cycle regularly in Christchurch and as such are stakeholders in this project. The standard exclusion of cycle stakeholders in developing plans must cease. The many shortcomings of this plan again points out the need for a Cycle Advisory Panel and Cycle Champions on staff.
