SUBMISSION ON 
PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL’S
DRAFT ANNUAL PLAN 1999/2000
and
REVIEWED LONG TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY

CYCLE AWARE PALMERSTON NORTH
and
MUSA ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OFFICER

CONTACT NAME FOR CAPN SUBMISSION:

Christine Cheyne, ph 356-3588 (h), 350-4300 (w)

ABOUT CAPN

Cycle Aware Palmerston North (CAPN) was formed in early 1998 to promote cycling in Palmerston North. Its aims include:
•	to promote cycling as a healthy, environmentally friendly and convenient form of transport;
•	to working for improved conditions for cyclists and cycling;
•	to educate cyclists in good road technique, and other road users to be aware of cyclists; and
•	to present the case for cycling in public debate and to relevant authorities.

CAPN is linked to the national organisation Cycle Advocates' Network (CAN), which brings together the various local groups, and works at a national level for commuter cyclists.  The Cycle Advocates’ Network is part of Cycling Support New Zealand (CSNZ).  These links provide vital channels for the exchange of information about best practice in relation to the promotion of cycling.  Cycle Support New Zealand (CSNZ) was formed in 1997, to bring together all groups involve in cycling; including CAN, Cycling NZ (racing), the mountain bikers, BIANZ (retailers) and manufacturers. Its aims are similarly to promote cycling in NZ and work towards a "National Cycling Strategy".

We would like to begin by thanking PNCC Councillors and officers for their efforts over the term of the previous annual plan to establish links with CAPN and for the progress implementing the decision to appoint a Cycle Officer.  With that appointment we look forward to greater progress with promoting cycling and enhanced communication between ourselves as cycling advocates and Council as facilitator of a cycling-friendly city.

1.	REVIEWED LTFS

It is difficult for CAPN and other submitters to make meaningful submissions on the reviewed LTFS given the lack of detailed analysis in the document.  Aside from a request for more accurate and precise information, we can make only very general comments.  Our particular focus will be on the proposal to establish a roading LATE given the obvious impacts on cyclists as road users.

It seems very ironic that PNCC would be opposed to central government’s plans for the commercial management of the country’s roading network on the same grounds that will apply to the establishment of a roading LATE.  The Council indicates that it is concerned that with the likely changes to roading management “there will not be adequate opportunity for input on community and social issues to the decision making process that affects our local network.  Decision making could be biased toward efficiency in revenue generation as opposed to meeting community needs.”  With the establishment of a roading LATE there will be the same likelihood that decision making will be biased toward efficiency in revenue generation and reduced capacity for citizens to influence the management of the asset.  Where is the detail about the benefits to road users (including cyclists and pedestrians) and the community the LATE will serve?

We cannot meaningfully engage with the proposals in the reviewed LTFS because while  it gives the dividend (profit) from LATEs there are only vague indications of the structure and other aspects of LATEs.  This expected dividend appears to be another assumption and will also be derived from the charges imposed on users of particular infrastructure.  The assumed greater transparency associated with commercial management of assets only arises if users of services are charged directly and specifically for their actual use, rather than a uniform charge.  However, it hasn’t been confirmed that user charges will be applied.  Where they are applied and a dividend is subsequently paid to a local authority, presumably that will be used to fund further projects which don’t necessarily benefit all citizens universally and equally (cross subsidisation of Council’s expenditure then occurs from users of infrastructural assets).

Quite apart from the weak analysis underpinning the financial benefits of commercial management of LATEs, we have major doubts about the merits of a Roading LATE.  If there are good reasons for Council to maintain the local roads (as stated on p28) then these are precisely the grounds on which a LATE must be rejected.  Traffic management is a key aspect of local governance, central to quality of life.  This should not be transferred to a LATE which has specific commercial objectives.  We see no detail in the reviewed LTFS as to how Council will exercise its governance role and facilitate the provision of necessary and desirable roading infrastructure when it has placed responsibility for the roading infrastructure in a board of directors which has commercial objectives. 

The same concerns that have been expressed about the provision of amenities such as footpaths, trees, berms, lighting, etc., should roading companies be established, applies to the establishment of a roading LATE.  

CAPN considers that an integrated and sustainable transport plan requires provision of both roads and non-road pedestrian and cycle routes.  Will the roading LATE be required to have an integrated traffic plan?  What are the associated compliance costs and transaction costs?  Will a roading LATE implement the Bike Plan? Will user charges imposed by a roading LATE be imposed on cyclists,  pedestrians, joggers and roller bladers?  Answers to these sorts of questions will provide the necessary level of detail on which a sound assessment of the proposal to establish LATEs can be made.  That detail is needed now, and shouldn’t be deferred until subsequent consultation about the establishment of LATEs.

In short, much more detail is needed in order to make an informed submission.  Until such detail is available, no further decisions should be taken and if it is the case that business units are being established without public consultation this needs to be clearly acknowledged.  Citizens should have clear information about the ramifications of the establishment of these business units.

In short, CAPN rejects any move to establish a roading LATE.  We request that Council provides rigorous analysis of any proposals for commercial management of roading infrastructure for citizens when consulting like this on such an issue.

2.	DRAFT ANNUAL PLAN

CP1: Square Redesign, CP70: Traffic Management Plan, and CP75: Local Area Traffic Management

The separation of these three programmes means that transport planning is unco-ordinated and different road users will come into conflict with one another.  Transport planning must be integrated.  

In redesign of the Square, the philosophy should be “people first” and the practice should be to reduce motor vehicle movements to enhance the area for people who move through the area.  CAPN therefore requests that priority be given to reducing car parking, targeting available parking at those with limited physical mobility, and increasing cycle parks.  Most importantly, this Capital Programme should be integrated with CP70 and CP75.  It should not be separated out from the wider focus on Traffic Management.

CAPN is opposed to the use of speed humps for traffic calming.  Humps can be problematic for light two-wheeled vehicles (bikes and mopeds) and are uncomfortable for everyone.  We recommend the use of chicanes which are less risky for cyclists. Ideally, if the City Council is serious about its environmental policy and seeks to be seen to be promoting cycling, chicane bypasses for cycles would be provided.  Such bypasses avoid the possibility of cycle/motor vehicle conflict at the chicane squeeze point.

We are pleased to see some commitment to incorporation of cycle/pedestrian needs into the TMP.  In addition, we consider that high priority should be given to encouragement of and expansion of public transport in transport planning. 

CP52: Improvements for People with Disabilities
Along with the Disabled People’s Assembly, CAPN strongly supports the provision of access from the Esplanade to the riverside walkway.  This should be extended eventually to take in the length of the walkway/bridleway, with barriers remove barriers.  A separate submission will be made by CAPN in consultation with DPA on this issue.

CP67: Crash Reduction Study and CP68 Crash Reduction Implementation
Cyclists are far more likely to be injured (and worse) in any crashes with motor vehicles.  Traffic calming should be a top priority in all areas where there are crashes or excessive speeds and other hazards (in particular, angle parking and parking on cycle lanes) which endanger other road users.  In particular, the following streets are places where cyclists (and frequently pedestrians as well) feel particularly vulnerable: Fitzherbert Ave, Rangitikei Street, King Street, the ring road system, the Botanical Road/Tremaine Ave/Gillespie Line intersection.  Many of the interventions associated with traffic calming will be appreciated by residents on those streets and by pedestrians.

CP79: Palmerston North City Bike Plan.
CAPN endorses this Programme.  We would like to see more publicity and promotion of the Bike Plan.  It does not appear to be widely publicly available.  More articles on the Bike Plan in the Square Circular would be useful.  It is important that existing and potential cyclists, as well as other road users, are aware of the City Council’s commitment to promoting cycling as part of the effort to achieve integrated and sustainable transport planning.

CAPN considers that the success of the Bike Plan to a large extent will be a reflection of the quality of liaison with cyclists and cycling advocates. We see the establishment of the liaison group as a high priority.  A key goal for Council should be to increase the numbers of cycle journeys in the city.

CP82: Pedestrian Crossing Upgrade: 
As a firm advocate of integrated and sustainable urban transport, CAPN supports this Programme.  The "raised" platforms at Massey University are tiled to look like pedestrian crossing and are official pedestrian crossings. This should be the case in the CBD.

CP85: Offstreet Parking Development: 
CAPN is opposed to this programme.  We urge Council not to proceed with further offstreet parking development until there is a comprehensive Traffic Management Plan.   That Plan will determine the location and even the need for such parking. When considering the provision of parking facilities, facilities for cyclists must receive the same if not greater attention.  

CP86: Cycle/Pedestrian River Crossing:
CAPN strongly supports the allocation of funds for the construction of the cycle/pedestrian bridge in the 1999/2000 financial year.  In our submission on last year’s Draft Annual Plan CAPN recommended that the construction of the new cycle/pedestrian bridge should be considered as a millennium project for PNCC.  We would like to reiterate that suggestion.  It would be a fitting project with long term benefits into the next millennium, and consistent with the many hundred submissions made in support of this project at the time of the public consultation on the 1998/99 Draft Annual Plan.  

CAPN is extremely disturbed at the inadequacies of the analysis and the subsequent conclusions of the just-recently released Feasibility Study on the Cycle Pedestrian Bridge.  The lack of time between the public release of the Feasibility Study and the deadline for submissions on the Draft Annual Plan is of great concern.  Information that is critical to Council’s decision-making about this item in the Draft Annual Plan has not been available to citizens until just a few days before the deadline for submissions.  Most citizens will have had no opportunity to consider that information which would very likely influence public submissions on this matter.

The reasons for moving quickly to construct a cycle/pedestrian bridge include: 

i.	the need to halt and reverse the decline in cycling

ii.	the reduced width of the existing cycle path as a result of four laning
	
iii.	health/safety of pedestrians (some who have children in strollers), people in wheelchairs, cyclists, and rollerbladers
	
iv.	the delay in constructing a second bridge
	
v.	the need for more than one river crossing (other cities, for example, Wanganui, Gisborne, Hamilton) have multiple crossings, providing enhanced recreational use of their riverbanks (e.g. walking, cycling circuits).

A dedicated cycle/pedestrian bridge will take some of the cycle and pedestrian traffic currently on Fitzherbert Ave, the bridge, and the approach to Massey University and the CRIs where the existing facilities for cyclists and pedestrians are often congested. Traffic from central suburbs, West End, Riverdale and Awapuni in particular will be more likely to use the proposed bridge if located in the vicinity of Ruha Street  It needs to be reiterated that cyclists remain at risk from vehicles (many of them heavy) which travel on Fitzherbert Ave at speeds often greater than 50kmh at close proximity to cyclists who often have to move out of cycle lanes.  The cycle lanes have no spare capacity at peak hours.

A dedicated cycle/pedestrian bridge will also encourage discouraged cyclists and pedestrians and provide a recreational facility for many different groups (roller bladers, wheel chair users, children and parents with pushchairs, people walking dogs, etc.

Any rigorous assessment of the costs and benefits of a dedicated cycle/pedestrian bridge must incorporate some analysis of the health benefits, environmental benefits, and road maintenance savings resulting from reduced vehicle use.  We expect that this will be provided by the feasibility study and look forward to that information.

CP87: Ferguson St/Fitzherbert Ave Intersection
There is a serious problem here where southbound cyclists from the Square or the western end of Ferguson St are channelled into the centre lane on Fitzherbert Ave. When improving this intersection, it is essential that a Give Way be installed for southbound motorists turning into Fitzherbert Ave from Ferguson St east.  The cycle lane needs to be clear marked along the length Fitzherbert Ave heading south from the Square to Ferguson St and then across the intersection and continuing along Fitzherbert Ave.  In any redesign of this intersection, we would like Council staff to seek further advice from CAPN.

3.	REASONS FOR COUNCIL TO PROMOTE CYCLING

In our submission on the 1998/99 Draft Annual Plan we outlined four key reasons why CAPN seeks a much greater commitment to the promotion of cycling in Palmerston North by the City Council.  With the election of a new Council it is timely for us to restate those reasons.

3.1	Leadership

	The Council’s promotion of any activity in the City signals that such activities are beneficial to residents individually and collectively.  If the Council is concerned to foster a healthy environment, promotion of cycling must be a primary objective.  

	To date, we have not seen significant efforts or leadership in this City towards the development of environmentally sustainable and integrated urban transport systems.  Palmerston North City Council should seek to become a ‘beacon council’, showing the way to other local authorities.

3.2	Efficiency 

	To the extent that cycling substitutes for vehicle use, an increase in cycling means a decrease in private motor vehicle use (as most journeys are by private transport), and therefore a reduction in wear and tear on roads and in demand for parking facilities.  For this reason, CAPN argues that Council should have, as part of its urban transport planning and recreational planning, the goal of both encouraging and increasing cycling.  The short termist view may be that there is no quantifiable ‘return’ for Council’s investment in projects and facilities to increase cycling.  We would like to encourage a long-term perspective of the benefits of Council promotion of cycling.

	CAPN recommends that in all Council documents, including the Annual Plan, relevant Asset Management Plans, and other planning and policy documents, all references to transport and traffic facilities should include specific mention of cyclists, where cyclists are users of facilities.

3.3 	Environmental Benefits

The environmental damage and unsustainability of car-based transport have led central and local governments in many parts of Europe and North America to promote cycling.  With traditional transportation planning resulting in significant deterrence to cycling, those governments are now seeking to reverse the decline in cycling where it has occurred.

As environmental quality comes under relatively less pressure in New Zealand with its less dense population, it is possible that some political and civic leaders consider it possible to ignore the need for integrated and sustainable urban transport.  However, in the Auckland region with its high rate of growth, such a course of action is increasingly untenable.  So too, provincial cities like Palmerston North cannot disregard the benefits (most immediately in terms of reduced noise and air pollution) from discouraging private car use and encouraging cycling. 
CAPN encourages PNCC to be innovative and also to recognise that attitudes and perceptions are important areas of influence by elected representatives and city management.

3.4	Recreational Benefits
Throughout our submission we have been at pains to emphasise that cycling is often the preferred recreational activity of the City’s residents.  To achieve the City Vision of making this City an exciting place to play we need vastly improved facilities for recreational cyclists who include people of all ages, individuals and families, and people with every kind of bicycle.  In short, cycling is enjoyed by a very diverse group of Palmerston North citizens.  Unlike many of other forms of recreation promoted by the City Council, cycling is a leisure activity that all members of a family can engage in at the same time; it is relatively cheap, and it is environmentally-friendly. The Council now needs to enhance the safety of cycling through provision of dedicated cycle facilities.

4.	DISINCENTIVES TO CYCLING

Lack of adequate provision for cycling in traditional transport planning has been noted already as a factor leading to a decline in cycling.  Any reduction in cycling will be detrimental for a number of a reasons, mostly obviously, the negative environmental consequences and the pressure of having more cars use the bridge and on the available roading and parking facilities.  Here we identify what cyclists consider to be two major disincentives to cycling - ones which the Council is in a position to address easily, promptly and at minimal cost:

1.	danger and nuisance from vehicles
Earlier in our submission, we alluded to a number of ways in which cyclists’ safety can be improved.  Another concern is the nuisance and danger created by cars which park on cycle lanes.  There is at best minimal enforcement of non-parking on cycle lanes on Fitzherbert Ave.

2.	lack of adequate safe and sheltered cycle parks in the CBD
	With only minimal expenditure it would be possible to construct a sheltered cycle park near the George St entrance to the public library. That area does not have adequate parks for cycles and it is timely to consider testing the interest in a cycle park which is designed along the lines of a bus stop shelter with a bike stand.

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS
	
1.	Provision of access for cyclists, wheelchairs, etc to riverside walkway.
	
2.	Construction of the cycle/pedestrian bridge in the 1999/2000 financial year.
	
3.	Development of more cycle parks, including sheltered parks in the CBD.
	
4.	Establishment of liaison group for monitoring implementation of Bike Plan.
	
5.	On-going consultation with CAPN.
	
6.	Enforcement of non-parking on cycle lanes
	
7.	Use of chicanes rather than humps for traffic calming purposes with humps used only for pedestrian crossings.
	
8.	Demonstrated commitment to PNCC Environment Policy by initiatives to promote sustainable and integrated transport policies for the City.

Christine Cheyne 
for CAPN