Submission on
Fitzherbert Ave (Church Street-Ferguson Street) upgrade
20 October 2004
1. Introduction
This submission seeks to capture a range of concerns expressed by CAPN members. There has been quite a lot of comment on the proposed Fitzherbert Ave upgrade made to the CAPN email list, including from people outside of CAPN who receive our emails indirectly (e.g. because they are forwarded to people on other email lists). We have also encouraged individuals to make submissions. A couple of members attended the meeting on 6 October 2004 in the Council chamber. Four of us met with Glenn Connelly and other council staff on 12 October. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify issues and receive further information.
This
submission has been drafted in a relatively short amount of time –
having only just met with the officers on 12 October – and with
a lot of details still likely to change (e.g. parking layout,
location of bus stops, trees etc) and with some information requests
still outstanding. The submission should be seen as a supplement to
issues raised at the 12 October meeting and therefore read alongside
the notes of that meeting.
The 12 October meeting with officers began with a bike ride from Ferguson/Fitzherbert Ave corner to the Square, along Church St to Princess St, left into Princess and then left into Broadway around to the Civic Administration Building – to identify issues for a hypothetical commuter cyclist from the suburbs north of the Square and a hypothetical cyclist coming into the CBD for business. On this bike ride we experienced delays for cyclists at lights for cyclists and because of congestion, impatient drivers wanting to go faster than cyclists, and difficulties as result of cars reversing from car parks. If cycle commuting is to be encouraged these features of the commuter cyclists’ route need to be minimised.
The material made available to us prior to October 12 (the concept drawing, the covering letter and the material in the Square Circular and Evening Standard) does not have any features that seek to cater for cyclists. We are aware that the aim is to have a low speed zone in that section of Fitzherbert Ave (Church-Ferguson Streets) and the rest of the CBD but consider that for this to be achieved there must be a range of design features and other provisions, not just the proposed shared carriageway.
In 2003 when we met with the City Heart Project officers steering group Aaron Phillips stated that "Streets like Broadway have become slow speed streets; the average speed is about 20kph, that will happen around the rest of The Square if lanes are narrowed etc. The slower speed will reduce many of the problems for cyclists." As Council officers have noted, giving a single average speed figure is misleading.
We strongly advocate a posted speed limit of 30km/h throughout the whole CBD within the inner ring road to be implemented as soon as possible in 2005 and (in due course) features to achieve an operating speed limit of 30 km/h at all times. From the information we have been given both prior to and at the meeting, there is nothing to suggest that that there will be a lower speed other than at times when vehicular traffic is heavy.
We think that having a lower legal speed limit as Christchurch and other places have would be entirely consistent with Council's plans and is far more effective than simply "relying on all users to support the type of environment [Council] is trying to create and recognise the needs of other users."
Christchurch City Council is planning a low speed inner city environment where the legal speed limit is 30 km/h. Many other local authorities are looking at a maximum of 40 km/h for school zones and other areas and overseas 20mph is common. There should be much more effective leadership from PNCC on the speed issue. Low speed is vital for the safety of a range of users of the CBD not just cyclists.
3. Features to encourage cycling
Cycle lanes
The general consensus of our members is that the cycle lanes should be retained. A shared traffic lane for cycles and vehicles is something that people perceive to be a retrograde step especially because the cycle lanes are familiar and provide an important sense of safety from vehicles as well as convenience. Cycle lanes suit the range of cyclists – whether slow, confident, fast, young, older. There is space in the carriageway and it should continue to be shared in the way it currently is with cyclists. To provide a minimal level of safety a shared lane would have to be no more than 3m wide and would still not give cyclists the convenience that this part of the CBD must provide given that the convenience of the ring road has effectively been denied all but the most confident cyclists with the four-laning.
PNCC has indicated that cyclists are expected to use the Square and avoid using the ring road. Church St east of Fitzherbert Avenue is one of few parts of the PCN where there has been some partial treatment (namely cycle lanes). Cyclists coming into town from the eastern and western ends of Church Street and returning via Church Street are often doing so because they now are deterred from using the inner ring road. Such cyclists don't necessarily have business in the Square but they travel via the Square because of the four-laning of the ring road and the Council’s message that cyclists should use the CBD. However, cyclists do not want to be caught up in vehicle congestion. They have appreciated the cycle lanes on both sides of Fitzherbert Ave and want cycle lanes to be retained and extended all around the Square and also enhanced by having paths directly through the Square (from Fitzherbert Ave to Rangitikei St, and linking the west and east sections of Main Street, as well as from Fitzherbert Ave diagonally across to Broadway).
We are aware that cycle lanes are not always needed in low speed environments but generally that would be in quiet residential streets. The LTSA Cycle Network and Route Planning Guide on page 35 states that “Combinations of low speeds and high traffic are very rare. When these conditions occur, segregation may be desirable in order to minimise conflicts.” The LTSA Guide prefers segregation where traffic speed (85th percentile, km/h) is 40km/h or higher and where there are 5000 or more vehicles per day.
The Transfund “Fundamentals of Planning and Design for Cycling” course notes recommend that if the posted speed limit is 50 km/h or more and there are 6000 or more vehicles there should be cycle lanes.
We are not aware of any planning for increased use of public transport and if indeed there are more frequent buses travelling along Fitzherbert Ave (as we understand there will be in the next few years beginning with increased frequency of services to and from Massey in the near future) hazards and general unpleasantness for cyclists on Fitzherbert Ave are likely to increase if they are required to share the vehicle lane. We are fully supportive of increased public transport in the CBD as this represents much more environmentally friendly and cost effective transport infrastructure. Therefore the design of Fitzherbert Ave and the rest of the CBD needs to accommodate the needs of cyclists and public transport providers and users in a win-win way rather than forcing them into conflict.
Surface treatment
Surface treatment needs to meet the needs of cyclists as well as indicate a low speed zone. We favour things like coloured bricks (as outside the Convention Centre) to signal the low speed environment but paving should not cause added resistance for cyclists. This reinforces our view that separate cycle lanes be provided.
Signage
Signage is needed to indicate the presence of cyclists (given that this is a preferred route for them) and the low speed environment. One of the objections given by officers to having a posted speed limit is that a lot of extra signage is needed. However, 30km/h signs would be needed only on the arterials and Church Street and Broadway, King and Queen Streets (at the intersection of King and Queen with Princess St). If signs are needed to indicate low speed/shared use area then few if any additional signs would be needed if that is a posted speed. Indeed having a posted speed limit would possibly require less signage than would be needed to foster a low operating speed.
Traffic calming
The concept drawings do not indicate whether there will be raised pedestrian crossings. We would be opposed to these because, as we have pointed out previously, they are uncomfortable for cyclists and cause vehicles to accelerate and decelerate at different rates than cyclists. Where we already have these on Broadway, Main and King Streets the environment is not cycle friendly. Cyclists should be able to bypass raised crossings (whilst still giving way to pedestrians on legal crossings).
Cycle stands
The concept drawing does not show whether there will be any safe, secure and sheltered cycle stands on Fitzherbert Avenue. For many years, we have asked for safe, secure and sheltered stands to be provided in the CBD. The toast rack and Sheffield designs allow a bike frame and wheel to be locked which is essential and we are appreciative of the addition of many of these. However we still look forward to seeing sheltered stands in Fitzherbert Ave (e.g. near Stationery Warehouse and near the cafes at the Ferguson St end) and elsewhere in the CBD. If there is no adequate shelter from buildings, there should be a shelter like the Adshel bus stop designs. The toast rack stands recently installed by the new I-Site don’t have any such shelter and should have been positioned much closer to the building. We would not like these to be the model for City Heart project cycle stands.
Parking
We recommend that the proposed angle parking in the centre of the road be removed. If there is to be parking it should be parallel. We question the need for additional on-street parking and for such parking to be given priority over cycle lanes, pedestrian areas and facilities for public transport.
5 Intersections
We became aware only belatedly that the consultation was focused on the mid-block design. We understand that intersections were discussed at the Cycle Advisory Group meeting on 30 September. We understand also that comments about intersections and general connectivity made as part of this consultation will be forwarded to relevant officers.
The concept drawing does not indicate whether any treatments that we have recommended in previous submissions have been included, such as cycle sensors, suitable paths, and cycle-only lights. As we pointed out in our submission on the Pioneer Highway shared use path, lime chip is not a suitable surface for cyclists. PNCC agreed that it wasn’t and will now seal that path. What paths in the Square will be sealed?
We recommend advance stop boxes at the signalised intersections (also recommended by CAPN in April 2003 when we were asked to give specific suggestions). Cyclists are very disadvantaged by the design of intersections in the concept drawing for the Fitzherbert Avenue/Church Street and Fitzherbert Ave/Ferguson St intersections. If an advance stop box cannot be provided the straight ahead vehicle lane should be combined with either the right or left turning lane and a cycle lane be included at the intersection that allows for cyclists turning right or going straight ahead to have a safe place. Vehicles do not want to drive at the speed of some cyclists and it is important that these cyclists have a safe space to be in.
6. Driver education
As soon as possible, there needs to be driver education to raise awareness about the need to give cyclists space in shared carriageways. We would like to see a Don’t Burst the Bubble Campaign highlighting the need for cars not to pass cyclists on Main Street and Broadway between Princess Street and the Square. .
7. Pedestrians
We are fully supportive of efforts to make the area more pedestrian friendly. As is clear from the shared use paths, with courtesy, cyclists and pedestrians can be very compatible. We recommend less car parking and more priority given to encouraging people to use public transport in this part of the CBD. The current plans do not anticipate any significant shift to using public transport rather than private motor vehicle. Why not? Frequently we have emphasized that any project like this should be designed to accommodate a growing number of cyclists and pedestrians in the city, as well as increased public transport patronage – rather than assuming current numbers will continue.
8. Need for integrated planning
As noted in the Square Circular the plans for Fitzherbert Ave are part of City Heart. We made extensive comment on the concept drawings to the City Heart Project Officers Steering Group in April 2003, and in September 2001 to the Square Revitalisation Group. Yet, these comments are not reflected in a cycle-friendly design for this part of the City Heart project or for other parts. We find that every few months we end up dealing with different council officers about the plans for the Square and it appears that each new officer that deals with the Square seems not to know about our previous input. In addition, we have made submissions on the Square/CBD redevelopment plans each year since 1999. This input from CAPN should be incorporated or, if it cannot be, then we would appreciate knowing the reason why and also knowing how PNCC intends to create a cycle-friendly CBD. The lack of integration between the different parts of the City Heart project is problematic for users who tend to take a holistic approach to the design and we find it bizarre to be asked to consider the mid-block section of Fitzherbert Avenue in isolation from the intersections (especially when these are included in the consultation documents and show changes from what is existing).
9. Balancing the needs of different road users
It appears to us that data on the number of cyclists may be used to suggest cyclists are a minority user and their needs should be given proportional treatment. Instead we would highlight the need to give preferential treatment to walking and cycling and public transport. In a number of respects PNCC’s Transportation Management Plan as adopted in November 2002 has been found to be out-of-date or inappropriate. It makes only passing reference to the New Zealand Transport Strategy adopted in June 2002 and with the subsequent passage of the Land Transport Management Act 2003 it would appear to be in need of review to ensure that there is adequate commitment to sustainable transportation. Transportation sustainability issues facing the city did not receive adequate attention when the Transportation Management Plan was prepared.
Although Fitzherbert Ave (and, we presume, the entire CBD) is intended to be a shared environment that does not preclude facilities for cyclists. Indeed effective sharing requires adequate provision for cyclists just as it requires adequate provision for pedestrians.
Conclusion
Increased safety, convenience and comfort of cyclists needs to be an objective of every aspect of the City Heart project and that this objective be given appropriate priority. We would like the revised plans for Fitzherbert Ave to be submitted to external peer review by someone with expertise in cycling planning and engineering.
We note that some greater priority is being given to pedestrians but we also consider that greater priority should be given to cyclists over cars, based on recognition of the benefits of both walking and cycling as healthy, cheap and environmentally-friendly modes of transport. The economic and environmental benefits of these modes extend to all residents in the city not just those who walk and/or cycle.
Christine Cheyne (Dr)
Co-Secretary CAPN