Submission to: Palmerston North City Council

From: Cycle Aware Palmerston North

Date: 14 April 2004

Re: PNCC Draft Long Term Council Community Plan 2004/5-2013/14

Cycle Aware Palmerston North (CAPN) is a cycling advocacy group. The current membership is 43 (some of which are family subscriptions). Our aim is to bring about improvements for cyclists and an increase in numbers cycling. We support other vulnerable 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 represented on PNCC’s Cycle Advisory Group and is 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

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 an insufficient level of funding in the draft LTCCP.

Efforts we have made to find out what the $171,000 is to be spent on have been unsuccessful although we understand there are some projects identified. For the following two years (05/06 and 06/07) we are understand that projects have not even been identified so we would like to know the rationale for the figures. We ourselves in previous Draft Annual Plan submissions and other submissions to Council have provided extensive suggestions for priorities for funding.

It is disappointing that information to explain the LTCCP figures is not made available through the Council’s Cycle Advisory Group. We are particularly concerned at the declining funding allocated in the two subsequent years: $152,000 (05/06), $134,000 (06/07). It is interesting to compare the latter figure with the figure of $350,000 being spent on car parking in 06/07. We note that the PNCC’s Long Term Financial Strategy allocated $187,000 for Bike Plan implementation in 2003/04 (see p172 of the 2003/2004 Draft Annual Plan). The actual sum allocated was $122,000. 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.

It is disappointing that the redesign of this intersection is taking so long. The draft LTCCP figures suggest work will fall into the next two financial years. The intersection is extremely hazardous especially given that an adjacent intersection (Fitzherbert Ave/College St) has a different layout and given the heavy vehicles on this street.

We are concerned that the Fitzherbert Ave/Te Awe Awe Street intersection is not included as a programme in the draft LTCCP and wonder why it has not been mentioned. Te Awe Awe Street is on the principal cycle network and is experiencing considerable congestion. We understood it was to have been redesigned in the 2002/03 financial year, following the remedial work undertaken earlier at Fitzherbert Avenue/College St. We emphasise 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.

We strongly support the inclusion of a clip-on on the downstream side of the Turitea stream bridge. The current carriageway is below the recommended width for the number of cyclists and the posted speed limit (actual speed being higher). It is vital, given the numbers of cyclists from both the Massey side and Fitzherbert Science centre side, that cycle sensors be provided at these traffic signals.

Funding in the draft LTCCP for cycling improvements and promotion is less than adequate. We see this as being, in large part, a lack of understanding of the benefits of cycling and a lack of integrated planning and thinking. This is very evident in the way that the Council in its draft LTCCP appears to view cycling. The draft LTCCP has a set of community outcomes that include "An Active Community". In the commentary relating to this outcome there are no references to the role that cycling plays. In order for it to be clear that Council is aware of the role that both utility and leisure cycling play in achieving this community outcome we request references to cycle tracks on p 107 and p 141.

On p142 the proposed Linton Footbridge is listed as an unfunded programme. In the past CAPN has strongly supported a cycle-pedestrian bridge across the river in the vicinity of the Fitzherbert Science centers for commuters, and in previous submissions we have also highlighted the need for further recreational cycling options that include a loop from the present Fitzherbert Bridge and back across the river. While we do not have a position on the site of the second bridge, we do support the early construction of an alternative river crossing for cyclists. A crossing that benefits the large numbers of cycling and walking conmmuters seems preferable but if Council is convinced that iwi and other concerns preclude a crossing near Ruha Street then we support the concept of a crossing at any other point where there is a reasonable opportunity. At present Linton sewer pipe offers such an opportunity.

We note that in a report to the February 2004 Works Operations committee it was recommended that a cycle-pedestrian bridge be constructed in conjunction with the NZ Defence Force’s pipe bridge. We understand that the Council did not accept this recommendation on the grounds that such a bridge would not link to heavily used cycle/walking routes. This is short-term thinking and we are disappointed to see this reflected in the draft Long Term Council Community Plan. We consider that this reasonable suggestion should be funded in the LTCCP (with funding in 04/05 for a full feasibility study that provides accurate information about the level of Transfund subsidy). We expect that, having rejected that proposal for funding in the draft LTCCP, an explanation should be provided along with some forward-thinking. There are compelling arguments (on health, recreation, transport, tourism grounds) for a cross-river cycle-pedestrian bridge and it would be a prime contender for funding from Transfund’s new walking and cycling output class. If the Linton pipe bridge is not a suitable location then we would like to know what the preferred alternative is.

The lack of integrated and long-term thinking in the draft LTCCP is clearly evident in the key success measures scattered throughout. These are very mediocre and are poorly focused; they do not provide a robust basis for measuring progress towards achieving the vision and the desired community outcomes.

The draft LTCCP contains just one success measure related to cycling (p84): maintain established cycle paths in accordance with the Bike Plan 1998. Maintenance of existing cycle paths is an extremely poor measure of success. This is something that should occur as a matter of course (and particularly if the contractor is to be paid for the contract). The AMP also notes that there are only 3.5km of cycle paths. So maintenance of this existing 3.5 km is extremely inadequate especially given that the Bike Plan adopted in 1998 anticipated that by 2003 there would be 25 km of cycle paths. A much more meaningful measure of success is needed, for example, implementation of the principal cycle network in agreed timeframe (2003-2007).

We note that the draft LTCCP assumes a strong link between high quality of life and population and economic growth. We would like to emphasise that, for quality of life, economic growth and vehicular traffic growth need to be decoupled. We query the assumption that population growth and economic growth happen prior to funding of environmental and social quality of life improvements. This is neither integrated nor sustainable.

In conclusion we think it important for the LTCCP to reflect the recognition that all people, (and, in particular, ratepayers) benefit from such facilities even non-users. Too often cycling advocates are seen as a self-interested minority but the reality is that all citizens benefit from those who walk and cycle and ratepayers in particular benefit through the reduced wear and tear on roads. Private and commercial vehicle users benefit through reduced congestion. The business sector is likely to benefit because reduced expenditure on transport by those who cycle and walk may free up money that can be spent in the local economy.

We welcome involvement in the Community Outcomes process that will soon be facilitated by council.