5
Getting there
on foot, by cycle
SUBMISSION BOOKLET
October 2003
Submissions close in Wellington at 5.00 pm on 19 December 2003
Introduction and Instructions for Completion
This submission booklet has been developed to guide individuals and organisations who want to make a written submission on Getting There – on foot, by cycle, a draft strategy to increase walking and cycling in New Zealand transport.
The submission booklet follows the flow of Getting there – on foot, by cycle. We suggest reading the draft Strategy document through before starting to complete the submission booklet. You may need to refer back to the draft Strategy document when completing the booklet.
Each section of the submission booklet is designed to:
· Get your overall rating on the extent to which each component of Getting there – on foot, by cycle may need to be revised.
· Get your comments on any issues, suggested improvements, or concerns you have regarding the draft Strategy, and to receive any positive feedback.
Please answer as many sections as you can. You are also welcome to comment on any other issues relevant to Getting there – on foot, by cycle, or to use another format to make a submission.
The Ministry of Transport is subject to the Official Information Act 1982, which means that your submission may be made available following a request under that Act.
Two options for completing this submission booklet
1. Save this document to your computer, complete it electronically, then email to (or post a hard copy to the address below).
2. Print a copy of this document and complete by hand. Where possible, please make your comments in the appropriate spaces provided. If you need to make further comments, please write them separately, and include with the submission booklet. Post to:
Getting there - on foot, by cycle
Strategy Submissions
PO Box 3175
WELLINGTON
For more information or copies
If you have any questions regarding Getting there - on foot, by cycle, about how to complete this submission booklet, or about the submission process, please telephone
(04) 498 0649, or email .
For more copies of Getting there – on foot, by cycle, or this submission booklet, please telephone (04) 498 0649, email , or you can download copies from the www.transport.govt.nz website.
Submission Details
This submission was made by:
Name: Glen Koorey
Postal Address: C/- Don McKenzie (Group Administrator)
Traffic Design Group
PO Box 13-835
Christchurch
Organisation (if applicable):IPENZ Transportation Group
Role/position (if applicable): N/A
- Which of the following best describes you or your organisation?
Tick one only.
Central government organisation
Local government organisation
Individual/not responding as part of an organisation
Support/advocacy/special interest/community group
Private company
University/polytechnic/other tertiary education provider
School
Voluntary/Not for profit organisation
Health service provider
Other, please specify
The IPENZ (Institution of Professional Engineers NZ) Transportation Group has a membership of 600 or so people who work in the fields of transportation, traffic management and road safety at all levels of responsibility. They are employed in various government departments, Regional Councils, District/City Councils, universities and in numerous consultancy firms and private practices.
The Group congratulates the Government for the development of this draft strategy. Coming on top of a number of other walking/cycling initiatives in the past few years, it demonstrates a growing commitment at the highest level to seriously consider the role of walking and cycling in NZ. With many of our Group members familiar (either through research or personal experience) with the practices of other countries in these areas, we are well aware of the importance that these modes can potentially assume in our transport mix. In our various positions throughout the country, we will certainly look to support the stated Strategy initiatives in the work that we do.
2. Getting there – on foot, by cycle focuses on walking and cycling. Which of these two modes of transport is of most interest to you or your organisation?
Walking
Cycling
Walking and cycling equally
3. Which of the following best describes your or your organisation’s key areas of interest?
You may tick more than one.
Transport planning / traffic engineering
Urban planning and design
Road safety / injury prevention
Liveable communities
Health / active living
The environment
Sport / Recreation
Tourism
The needs of cyclists, pedestrians or another road user group,
please specify:
The needs of a specific population group (e.g. Maori, children, older adults, people with disabilities), please specify:
Other, please specify:
We would like to take the opportunity to make some comments about the Introduction. Because it effectively "sets the scene", we feel that this needs to come across correctly.
· P.4: It is not entirely clear what is included by the phrase "walking and cycling". By this we question whether other non-motorised forms of transportation, such as mobility scooters, skateboarders, roller-bladers, and so on are also included in this strategy. Given recent legislative attempts to clarify the status of these modes, particularly in relation to their use of roads and paths, this seems quite relevant and important. Some definitions of who are included under "pedestrians and cyclists" would be useful; presumably wheelchair users for example are considered pedestrians, but they do not "walk". Some rephrasing throughout the document may be required to make it more inclusive of all groups.
· P.8: We would suggest that there are a number of other government areas where walking and cycling can contribute to existing or planned strategies. For example, economic development, crime prevention, urban design, and education. These should be identified and the relevant agencies made aware.
· P.10: We would dispute that a 50-km/h standard urban speed limit is a significant strength, particularly when many of these areas have considerably higher operating speeds, and more use of 60-km/h limits is now being made. Numerous studies have highlighted the benefits of 30 & 40 km/h speed limits for walking and cycling (and motorised modes); yet to date there has been little implementation of them here in NZ.
· P.10: Following on from highlighting our existing strengths, it would seem prudent to identify some of our existing weaknesses or threats. Clearly these issues must be identified and dealt with to ensure the success of this strategy. Possible items under this category include
o Increasing traffic volumes
o Trends towards inactivity
o Relatively limited existing provision/facilities for walking/cycling
o Topography and climate (although this matters less than some think)
o Trends towards higher urban speed limits and vehicle speeds
o Relatively inexpensive costs (or at least perceived) to own/run cars
o General perceptions of walking and cycling as travel modes
· P.10: We would suggest that a more pragmatic reason for the recent interest in developing walking & cycling strategies is the requirement by Transfund NZ that projects put up for funding form part of such a strategy.
· P.10-11: It may be useful to provide additional details (perhaps as an Appendix) on some of the other initiatives underway. This would allow interested readers to look at other relevant documents or to contact the appropriate person. Some examples would include:
o Draft Cycle Design and Network Planning Guides
o RTS14 guidelines for blind/vision-impaired pedestrians
o LTSA Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Framework
o SPARC "Push Play" and Cycle-Friendly Employer resources
o EECA "Walking School Buses"
o Walk A Child to School Day
o Bikewise "National Bike Week"
o Transfund Cycle Planning/Design training courses
o Environment Canterbury "Go Smarter" Travel Plans
Vision, Goals and Key principles for Getting there – on foot, by cycle
Vision
The vision for Getting there – on foot, by cycle is
“A New Zealand where people from all sectors of the community choose to walk and cycle for transport and enjoyment – helping ensure a healthier population, more lively and connected communities, and a more affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system.”
4. To what extent, if at all, does the vision statement need revision?
Tick one only:
Fine as is Needs some revision Needs a lot of revision
5. Please detail what needs revision (or any other relevant comments):
To better relate to the goals, the vision should seek "A New Zealand where more people...walk and cycle."
Another issue that needs to be included in the both the Vision and the Goals is the need for walking and cycling to be accepted by community in general as normal/everyday activities (this could require an additional Goal).
There may be merit also in trimming down the vision statement to something snappier and more memorable.
Goals
To realise the vision, three important goals have been identified:
Goal 1 “Communities that are more walk and cycle friendly.”
Goal 2 “More people choosing to walk and cycle, more often.”
Goal 3 “Improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists.”
6. To what extent, if at all, do goals 1, 2 and 3 need revision?
For each column tick one only:
Goal 1 / Goal 2 / Goal 3Fine as is
Needs some revision
Needs a lot of revision / Fine as is
Needs some revision
Needs a lot of revision / Fine as is
Needs some revision
Needs a lot of revision
A good feature of all three Goals is that there is the potential to attach fairly measurable targets to each of them, either at a local or national level.
7. Please detail what needs revision for Goal 1 (or any other relevant comments).
It is not clear whether "communities" is a sufficiently clear and all-encompassing term. The term could be seen to relate to only the physical layout of "communities", whereas it could be reasonably argued that Govt legislation and policy, and general attitudes/practices of people and organisations also need to be made more walk/cycle-friendly. A better phrase may be "An environment and communities that are..."
8. Please detail what needs revision for Goal 2 (or any other relevant comments).
Although it does not detract from the aim to encourage more people to see walking and cycling as valid choices, it needs to be remembered that many people do not "choose" to walk or cycle. For example, people may be unable to afford a car or be too young/old to have a driver's licence. Similarly, many disabled people are very constrained in their travel choices, e.g. via the use of a wheelchair or scooter, and may not be able to easily use cars or public transport.
9. Please detail what needs revision for Goal 3 (or any other relevant comments).
"Safety" may need to be clarified to include both perceived and real safety. While there are a number of reasonable arguments to demonstrate that walking and cycling are already fairly safe, relative to many other activities, clearly there is a significant perception by the general public about the danger of these modes.
Key Principles
Getting there – on foot, by cycle is based on five key principles (see Chapter 2 of the strategy document). The principles underpin the Strategy.
10. To what extent, if at all, do the principles outlined in Chapter 2 of Getting there – on foot, by cycle need revision?
Tick one only:
Fine as is Need some revision Need a lot of revision
11. Please detail what needs revision (or any other relevant comments):
Re the 2nd Principle, it would be fairer to say that walking and cycling face some similar issues. There are also different issues faced by different sub-groups, e.g. schoolchildren, the elderly, disabled, commuters. It is not apparent from the draft Strategy whether targeted programmes will aim to address some of these sub-groups more effectively (e.g. review of school policies that affect walking/cycling).
Re the 5th Principle, the concern about encouraging more walking and cycling when safety issues are still present does not seem to acknowledge the health benefits previously alluded to, and also hints at some liability fears. All evidence suggests that the health benefits far outweigh any safety concerns, which would suggest that agencies would be far more culpable in not promoting walking and cycling. The bigger issue may be that still decision-makers and the general public alike still perceive the safety concerns as a far greater factor than the health effects.
The existing principles do not seem to acknowledge the important roles that urban & land-use planning have on our transport decisions (although the 1st Principle alludes to a "comprehensive" approach). So long as walking and cycling are seen as merely a "transport" issue, the best outcomes for these modes will not be achieved.
Another key principle, albeit politically difficult, is that to provide adequate and safe provision for walking and cycling, the existing privileges of other travel modes (esp. motor vehicles) may sometimes need to be restricted. For example, removal of on-street car parking, traffic calming measures, parking/congestion costs, or increases to pedestrian/cycle phases at traffic signals. Such trade-offs need to be acknowledged as somewhat redressing the imbalances that have occurred against walking and cycling for many decades in this country.
Focus Areas and Priorities for Getting there – on foot, by cycle
To achieve its goals, Getting there – on foot, by cycle identifies a total of 10 inter-linked priorities for action, under four broad focus areas:
Focus One: “Strengthen the foundations for effective action for walking and cycling.”
Priority 1 “Encourage action for walking and cycling within an integrated approach to land transport.”
Priority 2 “Expand our knowledge and skill base to address walking and cycling.”
Priority 3 “Encourage collaboration and co-ordination of efforts for walking and cycling.”
Focus Two: “Make our communities and transport networks more friendly to pedestrians and cyclists.”
Priority 4 “Encourage planning, development and design that supports walking and cycling.”
Priority 5 “Provide supportive environments for walking and cycling in existing communities.”
Priority 6 “Improve networks for long distance cycling.”
Focus Three: “Encourage the choice of walking and cycling for day to day transport.”
Priority 7 “Encourage positive public perceptions of walking and cycling as transport modes.”