Submission to: Palmerston North City Council

From: Cycle Aware Palmerston North

Date: 31 March 2005

Re: PNCC Draft Annual Plan 2005/06

Cycle Aware Palmerston North (CAPN) is a local community group that promotes utility (everyday) and recreational cycling. The current membership is 42 (some of which are family subscriptions). Our aim is to bring about improvements for cyclists and an increase in numbers cycling. We support other road user groups who experience difficulties similar to those experienced by cyclists (e.g. lack of safe and convenient mobility and access) and we support environmentally friendly modes of transport. For several years we have made draft annual plan submissions highlighting the need to promote cycling and provide for cyclists. CAPN is affiliated to 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

We note that an upgrade of Kelvin Grove road (701.26) is being brought forward. This is a very popular cycling route offering a quiet alternative to the main highway to Ashhurst and providing linkages to other popular cycling routes in the Bunnythorpe/Colyton/Hiwinui/Pohangina areas. Kelvin Grove road itself and all these other areas provide cyclists with more interesting terrain (being less flat). It is vital that the upgrade includes a sufficiently wide shoulder for cyclists. Road signs indicating the presence of cyclists in the area should also be installed as they have been on Old West Road.

We are opposed to the City Heart expenditure for the reason that basic infrastructure for cyclists which has been agreed in existing Council policy documents (the Bike Plan and the Transportation Management Plan) has not been funded at the agreed level. For example, the rate of cycle lane implementation has always been below the required 5km per year. Similarly, the Council has failed to adhere to the Bike Plan’s policy of having a Cycle Advisory Group to monitor Bike Plan implementation. One of the reasons for not having a Cycle Advisory Group was the cost. If Council cannot fund its existing policies then new initiatives should not be put forward. The Bike Plan was reaffirmed by the Transportation Management Plan adopted in November 2002 and the Bike Plan recognizes that a Cycle Advisory Group is a key part of achieving the goals of the Bike Plan. See our comments below on Bike Plan Implementation.

As per our comments above about Kelvin Grove road it is vital that the realignment includes a sufficiently wide shoulder for cyclists. The road is popular for cycling, both by those wanting to do mountain biking between the Turitea valley and Kahuterawa valley and also by road cyclists. With more and more subdivision in the Turitea valley it is important that residents who want to cycle can do so safely and also that more residents are encouraged to cycle. Low intensity residential subdivision such as the Council is allowing will never sustain public transport so walking and cycling are key transport alternatives to the private car. It is approximately 10 km from the end of the valley to the city (less to Massey) - a suitable distance for cycling.

It is vital that this upgrade provides adequately for cyclists – i.e. a sealed shoulder of an adequate width. This is a popular training area for cyclists given its proximity to the urban area and the appeal of the hilly terrain.

We welcome the preparation of a walkway/cycleway development plan and look forward to an opportunity to have input. We are supportive of the Te Araroa Trail proposal of a shared use path between Feilding and Palmerston North and believe it will be a superb asset for the two communities.

As with John F Kennedy Drive 4 laning it is vital that cycle lanes be provided. The view that cyclists should be discouraged from using arterials and therefore cycle lanes should not be provided is quite inconsistent with traffic engineering for cycling. Arterials are precisely the places where cycle lanes are needed, especially when, as in the case of Airport Drive and John F Kennedy Drive, there aren’t convenient alternatives.

We reiterate our previous submissions on roading as part of City Heart. In particular, we believe that to create a pedestrian and cycle-friendly environment, the legal speed limit must be reduced and cyclists must have convenient alternatives to going through the CBD when they don’t have business in the CBD. At this stage, there are still no suitable alternatives. College Street does not have facilities for cyclists such as cycle lanes or cycle sensors. Church Street takes people right into the Square.

As per the previous comment about providing cycle lanes on arterials, the Ferguson Street widening must include cycle lanes.

We support the allocation of funding for Bike Plan Implementation but wish to point out that the level of funding is inconsistent with the Bike Plan. The 2002 Transportation Management Plan recommended that the Bike Plan should be implemented, so it is inconsistent with that document as well to provide a level of funding much lower than what was anticipated in the Bike Plan. (As we noted in our submission on the Draft Annual Plan 2003/04, taking into account inflation, a level of funding consistent with the Bike Plan would be well over $300,000.)

We understand that this expenditure is allocated to Principal Cycle Network. We ourselves in previous Draft Annual Plan submissions and other submissions to Council have provided extensive suggestions for priorities for funding.

Last year we expressed concern at the declining funding allocated to Bike Plan implementation. It is disappointing that Council engages professionals and users to develop plans and policy documents for transport (such as the Bike Plan and the Transportation Management Plan) and involves its own staff in significant work to develop these council documents and then fails to implement them in the way intended.

Of particular concern to us is the failure to reinstate the Cycle Advisory Group. This Group should have been reinstated following the council elections. It is appropriate for Council to review the group (i.e. revise its terms of reference if necessary, revise the composition, revise the frequency of meetings, etc). However the word ‘review’ does not mean ‘disestablish’. If there were any basis for disestablishing the Cycle Advisory Group that should have been clearly articulated, and appropriate alternative arrangements for monitoring implementation and setting targets made.

We welcome the development of a new walking and cycling strategy, but until the Bike Plan has been superceded it remains the Council’s key policy document for cycling. We trust that there will be a greater commitment to the new walking and cycling strategy once that is adopted by Council. It is very discouraging for community groups like us who contribute our time and effort to achieving the Council’s goals in the Bike Plan when the Council abandons key commitments it has made.

Funding for Bike Plan implementation and for promotion of cycling should be at a much more substantial level. Such a level of funding is easily justified and would be consistent with government transport policy. We encourage PNCC to show leadership in promoting cycling on the basis that all people (and, in particular, ratepayers) – including non-cyclists - benefit from improved facilities for cyclists and increased numbers of people cycling. With more people cycling there is less congestion, road capacity is freed up and there is reduced wear and tear on roads. Private and commercial vehicle users benefit through reduced congestion. Moreover, the business sector benefit because reduced expenditure on transport by those who cycle and walk results in more disposable income that can be spent in the local economy. At a time when fuel prices are increasing steadily it is important that people have the choice of cycling and are not deterred by inadequate facilities.

Given that PNCC has failed to reestablish the Cycle Advisory Group we request that the Annual Plan for 2005/06 include funding for city cycle forums that Cycle Aware PN would host. We propose a similar level of funding to that given to DPA for the transport forums it has organised. We would include transport and recreational cycling issues in the forums and envisage having three or four such forums in the 05/06 financial year. In October 2004 we held a very successful Safe Cycling (and Walking) Solutions Forum. We are confident that with adequate resourcing and better publicity further events of this nature would be even more successful.

It is a major concern to us that redesign of these intersections is taking so long. Given that there has been such a lengthy delay we would like PNCC to undertake a wide publicity campaign about the correct driver behaviour in relation to cycle lanes at these intersections. At both Fitzherbert Ave/Te Awe Awe Street (north) and Fitzherbert Ave/Park Road (south) intersections vehicles frequently use the cycle lane. Despite the new Road User Rule we don’t see any improvement in behaviour and believe it is because there is little if any enforcement. As part of promoting cycling, PNCC has responsibility to carry out educational work and this is an issue needing urgent attention. PNCC should fund advertising the way it funds other advertising about transport. It should also liaise with Roadsafe Central (to undertaken further driver education via public education campaigns) and the Police (to ensure there is enforcement).

Te Awe Awe Street, which is on the principal cycle network, has been experiencing considerable congestion at the intersection with Fitzherbert Ave. Cycle lanes should be provided on Te Awe Awe Street from Albert to Fitzherbert Ave as an interim measure.

We would like to reiterate previous submissions about the need for intersections on key cycle routes (e.g. Massey/Fitzherbert Science Centre-City) to have cycle sensors, advance stop boxes and other features to ensure the safety and convenience of cyclists.

As mentioned in our submission last year we strongly support the inclusion of a clip-on on the downstream side of the Turitea stream bridge. We were pleased to see the LTCCP budgeted for traffic signals to be installed in 04/05 and are very concerned to learn that this improvement has been further delayed. Traffic signals are needed for safe pedestrian crossing and for safety of cyclists when they cannot use the Turitea stream underpass. During 2004 the underpass was not usable on several occasions for several days at a time. When the underpass is not usable, cyclists traveling from the city to the Fitzherbert Science centre experience an extremely hazardous situation given the high speed of vehicles and lack of visibility. It is our view that the speed limit should be lowered on Tennent Drive from Prendergast Road, not at the immediate approach to the bridge over the Manawatu River.

The city’s cycleways are an important part of its recreational facilities yet they tend to be viewed as a roading issue. Adequate recognition of the current level of recreational cycling and the potential for this to expand should be reflected in decisions about funding of recreation facilities and the implementation of the Outdoor Recreation strategy (661.25)

As we noted last year, key success measures need to be more meaningful. We would like to see a key success measure related to implementation of the principal cycle network (to be implemented by 2007).

We support the development of a Road Safety Strategy and would like to be involved in the development and implementation of the Strategy (p. 56).

We would like to present our submission at a hearing. Our preference is the evening but not Thursday 14 April.

Contact:

Dr Christine Cheyne, CAPN Co-Secretary

PO Box 735

Palmerston North

ph (06) 350-5799 ext 2816 (work)

email: [email protected]