Submission to:		Palmerston North City Council

From:			Cycle Aware Palmerston North

Date:			8 April 2002

Re:			Draft Annual Plan 2002-03

Preamble
Cycle Aware Palmerston North (CAPN) is a cycling advocacy group.  Our aim is to bring about improvements for cyclists and an increase in numbers cycling.  For several years we have made draft annual plan submissions highlighting the need to provide for the needs of cyclists.  CAPN is a member of PNCC’s Cycle Advisory Group and a member of Cycle Advocates’ Network (CAN), the umbrella organization of cycling advocacy groups in New Zealand.  We encourage you to find out more about cycling advocacy by visiting the CAN website: www.can.org.nz

1.	Funding for Bike Plan Implementation

Cycle Aware Palmerston North is very concerned that the Draft Annual Plan 2002/03 does not fund Bike Plan Implementation. While over $15 million is budgeted for roading, there is no guarantee that there will be improvements for cycling.  

The Bike Plan is a key document for guiding PNCC policies relating to cycling infrastructure and promotion of cycling.  We find it entirely unacceptable to remove funding for Bike Plan implementation and we have no confidence that theh necessary gains will be made for cycling in the absence of a well-formulated and wide-ranging strategy which is what the Bike Plan is.  Let us not forget that prior to 1998 the Council’s efforts to promote cycling and implement appropriate infrastructure were ‘mainstreamed’ as part of the roading budget.  That was not at all successful and the need to ensure better planning and provision for cyclists resulted in the fomration of the Bike Plan Working Party and culminated in ithe Bike Plan.

Cycle Aware Palmerston North has frequently raised our concerns about the Council’s failure to implement the Bike Plan.  We were very heartened to learn of the appointment of the current Cycle Planning Officer after the position had been vacant for many months and we feel that rather than abandon the Bike Plan renewed efforts should be made to meet the targets in the Bike Plan.  We wish to publicly acknowledge the contribution of Aaron Phillips and we request that when finalising the Annual Plan Council ensures that the Bike Plan is adequately funded. 

We call on the City Council to urgently re-instate funding for the Bike Plan as a key part of its efforts to make Palmerston North a safe, healthy place to live.  We remind Councillors ot the three borad objectives of the Bike Plan:
Objective 1	Physical infrastructure in place by 2004 which encourages cycling and ensures the safety and convenience of cyclists.	
Objective 2	An adminsistration and funding system which allows the needs of cyclists to be met.	
Objective 3	A  community which is informed and educated about the benefits of cycling.	

It is suggested in the Bike Plan that the quantum of funding dedicated to cycling facilities and promotion in Palmerston North should be somewhere between that adopted by Christchurch and Hamilton City Councils.  In early 1998 the figures for the two cities were $780,000 and $125,000 respectively.  In the 2000/2001 year the funding for Bike Plan implementation was $150,000.  The funding should by now be well-over $200,000 (i.e. substantially more than the $187,500 in the unfounded Roading and Parking Programmes) and should be supplemented to offset the impact of previous years when funding was not spent at the recommended level.

The Bike Plan is most important as the City Council needs to show leadership and needs to monitor progress in promoting cycling.  The Bike Plan provides a set of indicators by which performance may be measured as the principal means of measuring progress on the priority objectives.  It is very regrettable that after nearly 4 years, so few of the Bike Plan targets have been met.  It would be easy for observers to conclude that the Council has no commitment to its own policy, and that it is ambitious on goals, but ambivalent on action.

It is important that all the work that went into the development of the Bike Plan be reflected in the outcomes that were intended. .Progress on implementation of the Bike Plan for the needs to be monitored.  It is important that monitoring and reporting be done in a rigorous manner (i.e. carefully measuring progress over time on key policies and actions and identifying the remaining work to be done and the resources needed for that) and in conjunction with stakeholders so that their perspectives and experiences of the policy being implemented are used in the design of monitoring and implementation.  Very few of the Bike Plan actions have been implemented and as a result the targets have not been met.  There is no shortage of well-considered infrastructure and educational projects that require resourcing.

2.	A second five-year Bike Plan 
Given the disappointing progress on implementing the Bike Plan which is for the five years from July 1998 to June 2003 we ask that Council begin to develop a second stage of the Bike Plan to be implemented over the 5 years beginning July 2003.  The Council should reestablish a Bike Plan Working Party which should review the status of implementation of the first Bike Plan (1998-2003) and should review the current arrangements for monitoring the implementation of the Bike Plan.  It is important that Council properly monitors implementation of this and indeed all its strategy documents and improve its performance where that is needed.  Much enhanced accountability is needed.  For example, the annual report should state clearly how the funding for Bike Plan implementation is used and where that is not used in any one year (as has often been the case) then additional funding needs to be provided in the subsequent year. 

3.	Cycle parking in the CBD
In all our previous submissions we have raised the issue of the inadequate cycle parking in the CBD.  The current standard of provision is in fact substandard.  The numbers of cycle parking stands is insufficient for demand in several locations; the stands themselves are often poorly located; and in several places the stands are unsafe and/or unusable.  This situation has continued despite Main St revitalization a couple of years ago.  We ask Council to ensure that the current redevelopment of the bus terminal includes sheltered and secure stands for cycle parking.  

The main improvements in the standard of CBD cycle stands in the term of the Bike Plan were in King St several years ago.  Unfortunately, other design features of the King St redevelopment mean that cyclists prefer not to use that street. The redesigned carriageway in King St, which is often occupied by large vehicles or backing vehicles, as well as the effect of the humps (which means that cars accelerate and decelerate more slowly than cyclists, and which creates a very bumpy ride for cyclists) mean that many cyclists now avoid King St altogether.  It is very discouraging for cyclists to be stuck behind stopping and starting vehicles, or to experience congestion due to queuing of vehicles, especially given harmful vehicle emissions.  The unevenness of the ‘car-slowing’ measures constitute a nuisance and a hazard for cyclists.

At present there is much greater scope for motorists to park outside the business or retailing premises they wish to visit than there is for cyclists.  We seek a situation where cycling is actively encouraged and promoted by making it more convenient and more safe than it is for people to bring a vehicle within the ring road.  (Having said that we are fully supportive of convenience for people who have mobility difficulties.)  To demonstrate a commitment to valuing and wanting to increase cycling Council should ensure that there is a reasonable supply of sheltered cycle parking facilities.

4.	Cycling infrastructure
The Bike Plan states on page 39:

It is important that the implementation of the Bike Plan be monitored to assure that the infrastructure developed is effective and that the status of cyclists is improving.  To achieve this outcome targets need to be set again the actions taken to implement the Bike Plan policies allowing them to be measured.

Very little active monitoring has been done by the Cycle Advisory Group but there was some monitoring of cycle infrastructure carried out as part of the PNCC City Vision Monitoring Report (2000) although nothing has been done since.  Increased provision of cycling facilities is one indicator in relation to which the Council (in the City Vision monitoring report) deemed itself to be successful.  We invite closer inspection of this issue.

It is useful to examine how “increased provision” is measured.  The following measures are reported:

1.	0.8 km of cycle lane in Esplanade (opened in October 2000). 
This is a facility that is heavily used by pedestrians and there was some conflict given the unexpectedly high pedestrian use of this “cycle lane”.  It was designed to provide an alternative route for cyclists because Council did not want cyclists on other paths in the Esplanade.  When cyclists did use those other paths pedestrians complained so Council constructed the new cycle lane to avoid the conflict.  The “cycle lane” is very popular with a wide range of users.  CAPN supports shared facilities but where these are required to be shared, then they need to be appropriately designed to accommodate the different users and the additional users.

2.	new Rangitikei Line overbridge which includes new cycleways, footpaths and lighting. 
This happened in response to a highly dangerous situation which a local councillor and some citizens had lobbied about for years.  The “cycleway” is not part of any integrated cycle lane or route and in fact is only on the overbridge itself and ends short of a major intersection which remains very unfriendly for cyclists (many of whom are school children).

3.	Adoption of Bike Plan. 
It is a little unclear why adoption of the Bike plan can be regarded as “an increase in facilities”.  It is, as the City Vision Monitoring report notes, "a strategy to provide a framework for future cycle planning and management”.  A strategy, while very important (and especially if it has well-defined actions for implementation which are regularly monitored) is not a facility or infrastructure.

In addition, under this measure of “increased provision of cycle facilities” the City Vision Monitoring report noted some things underway.  It mentioned that there has been a trial of green slurry for cycle lanes.  CAPN welcomes this initiative and seeks sufficient funding for a good quality slurry (rather than the poor quality that has been used) and for significantly more marking to be carried out.

Second, the City Vision Monitoring report referred to “plans to modify the Summerhill Drive flyover by extending the guardrail on the flyover”.  This is one tiny bit of infrastructure which mitigates an existing danger created by poor design.  It is not so much to be regarded as “increased provision of cycling facilities.”  It is now two yeas since the City Vision Monitoring report was published and this infrastructure is still very much only a plan and may not happen for some time yet.

There are other things are also mentioned following this item but it is difficult to see how they could be regarded as “increased provision of cycling facilities.”  These include:

i.	secondary study into the feasibility of a proposed cycle/pedestrian bridge over the Manawatu River (again, a study is not a cycling facility)
ii.	formation of a Cycle Advisory Group  (again, a group is not a cycling facility– and the Group has recenlty been disestablished)
iii.	development of a cycle monitoring programme (again, a monitoring programme is not a cycling facility)
iv.	investigation into parking controls and provisions in the District Plan (an investigation is not a cycling facility)
v.	investigations into the improvement of cycleways linking the City and cross river locations (again an investigation is not a cycling facility)
vi.	a maintenance contract established for the sweeping of the Massey University and CRI cycle tracks on a regular basis (again such a contract is a necessary feature of maintaining infrastructure when infrastructure is developed but it does not constitute a facility. 

Overall the development of cycling infrastructure is very disappointing given the progress that many other local authorities are making. 

5.	New government funding for promoting cycling 
In conclusion we wish to remind PNCC of recent government policy announcements in relation to land transport.  This is the time for PNCC to be visionary and develop facilities and infrastructure that represent best practice in terms of provision for and encouragement of cycling.  We think Palmerston North should aspire to be a New Zealand leader.  With the cuts to Bike Plan funding and the lack of commitment to achieving the Bike Plan targets there is a risk that Palmerston North is going to be left behind as other local authorities recognise the long-term and present importance of cycling a convenient, healthy and environmentally friendly mode of transport and take significant steps towards encouraging cycling.

Thanks for invitation to make submission; we look forward to your feedback
We thanks Council for the opportunity to make a submission and we would like to have written feedback on the specific points raised in our submission. 

C. Cheyne
Co-secretary 
CAPN
PO Box 961 
Palmerston North
Email: CAPN@bikerider.com