Submission to DCC Strategic Cycle Network Consultation

Normal 0 false false false EN-NZ X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Normal 0 false false false EN-NZ X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

SUBMISSION FORM

Strategic Cycle Network

Post to: Strategic Cycle Network

Transportation Planning

Dunedin City Council

PO Box 5045 Moray Place

Dunedin 9058

Attn: Sarah Connolly Email to: transportation@dcc.govt.nz,

Subject: "Strategic Cycle Network", and attach this document.

Submissions must be received by the Council by 5pm Friday 15 July 2011.

Submitter Details:

Name/s: Peter McDonald

Postal Address: P O Box 8081, Gardens, Dunedin 9041

Phone (optional) Home: 473 1681 Cell: 027 379 4388

Email address: peterd0n@clear.net.nz

What is your interest in the cycle network?

I have been both a recreational (on and off road) and commuter cyclist, in Dunedin since 1980 and cycling has been my main mode of transport for the majority of my life. I am also a regular pedestrian and, although increasingly infrequently, a motorist. I belong to Transition Valley 473, a community group which is part of the Transition Towns movement and aims to help the North East Valley and adjacent communities with the transition to sustainable living in a fossil-fuel poor future. I am a member of the Transition Valley 473 Transport Group

Submission Details:

Once the period of submissions has closed your submission will be

considered and any changes made to the draft Strategic Cycle Network. The

routes will then be prioritised and the top priority routes will be

recommended to the Council for inclusion in the 2012/13 – 2021/22 Long

Term Plan.

Submissions must be received by the Council by 5pm Friday 15 July 2011

General comments on the proposed Strategic Cycle Network

I thank the Council for its attention to the needs of cyclists and for the opportunity to comment on the Strategic Bicycle Network Draft Plan.

What is a strategic cycle network?

The basic cycling infrastructure is the road network but it is well recognised that the exigencies of cycling with traffic deter many people from using cycling for transport - and lead parents to discourage children from regular cycling. So it is commendable that the Council has developed a strategy which will provide encouragement for the less-committed to take up cycling as a transport and recreation mode.

Strategic routes provide a way of focussing effort where it will be the most beneficial. Are there any strategic routes shown on the maps that are not required, missing and should be included or could be relocated?

Northern Commuter Route

Broadly I agree with the route choice but have some concerns about the proposed treatments (see below).

The provision of cycling routes through the University area outside the One Way routes is a very good idea. The proposed route along Leith Street is the natural one chosen by one of the authors and the best choice unless the University can be persuaded to allow a route along the West side of the Leith Channel to link Leith Street, Albany St and Castle St North. There are very few physical barriers to such a route. (See also Hook Turn Bay on Albany St below.)

Harbour Circuit (Peninsula)

The whole concept of a sea level path around the Harbour is a visionary one and I look forward to its realisation. Such a path perhaps in combination with a vehicular ferry from the Port to Portobello would be an increasingly valuable part of infrastructure in the fossil-fuel poor future we are faced with.

Extending on from the Silverton Street route, Highcliff Road leads into a marvellous scenic if somewhat strenuous ride. While no doubt a low priority route I hope that this route could be included in the Strategic Network for later development.

Southern Commuter Route

There are, in the flat parts of Dunedin, numerous route choices and since cyclists retain the ability to use these, the choice of routes to treat and emphasise is less critical. Nevertheless there are a couple of places in the Southern Commuter part of the Network where the "natural" cycle route appears to have been ignored in favour of a significantly less convenient alternative.

There may be City Council plans of which I am not aware of course, but under the current street network and proposed cycle routes, I would question the following route details:

1. For cyclists coming into town from the South Forbury/St Kilda and parts of South Dunedin area, why is the natural route along Neville St behind Carisbrook and then to a left turn onto King Edward Street ignored for the extra distance and gradients involved in the proposed route using South Road?

2. Cycling routes converge on the Bay View Road/Andersons Bay intersection but the direct route to the Harbour Circuit via the first bit of Portobello Road is ignored in favour of again extra distance and gradient via Musselburgh Road and Shore Street. Irealise that vehicular traffic cannot access the Peninsula from the first stretch of Portobello Road but this is a tailor-made opportunity to create an advantageous route for cycling. I can tell you that I would choose this route even if it meant crossing Portsmouth Drive on foot, no contest, over the proposed route in the Cycle Strategy.

Hills Commuter Route

This is a difficult area and hill cycling will probably always be the province of the dedicated, at least until electrically assisted bicycles become widely available. The routes chosen would seem to be the best available under the circumstances with one exception. The physically easiest way from the CBD to Kaikorai Valley and possibly back, is via McLaggan St, Serpentine Ave, Hawthorne Ave, Jubilee St, Napier St, and Stone St. The gradient on this route is gentler and steadier than on the chosen routes.

Greenbelt Route

Once again, I consider that lowering the speed limit on Queens Drive would be a valuable move for enhancing the experience of this scenic route for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists and could ameliorate the need for expenditure on On Road Treatments for cycling.

Dunedin / Mosgiel Route

We hope that every reasonable effort will be made to incorporate the two tunnels into the Strategic Cycle Network which will open up the possibility of using part, or all, of this route to a much larger group of cyclists. In the past, I have regularly cycled between North Dunedin and Mosgiel and consider that the Caversham Tunnel should have the higher priority given that older roads over the Chain Hills provide a relatively pleasant route over that section.

 

Cycle facility treatments are indicative and will be subject to detailed design prior to implementation. Are there any facility types shown on the Cycle Facility Treatments pages that you believe are not appropriate? If so, why and what do you think should be provided instead?

 

On the One Way system, the provision of a Separated Cycle Lane on the North bound route does have some advantages given the greater speed differential between motor and bicycle traffic. On the South bound route we would urge further investigation to see if the benefits of a Separated Cycle Lane with the loss of parking would in fact be greater than the current set up. One concern would be that the greater cycle speeds on the South bound route might make separated cycle lanes less safe at intersections and driveways. Also, I would question whether the consequent loss of on-street parking in this part of the city would be politically acceptable in the short term.

North Road is a residential street by and large with a number of residences having no off-street parking. Again, we would urge further investigation and consultation before settling on a cycle lane treatment for North Road. A combination of lowering the speed limit and allowing some use of the footpath as noted below, might be a more locally acceptable approach.

On the Hills Commuter Route, we wonder if the same considerations regarding Separated Cycle Lanes noted above for the One Way system might also apply to Kaikorai Valley Road.

Shared Paths

The hilly nature of much of Dunedin does make things more difficult for cycling. Clearly the difficulties are different depending on whether the cyclist is climbing or descending. There are a couple of sections of the plan where a shared path is indicated on sloping streets - Upper Stuart St and Dundas St. Uphill cycling on a shared path is less problematic than downhill, but in setting path widths, the increased sideways variablility when cycling uphill would need to be taken into account.

It is not possible from the information supplied to tell exactly how shared paths would be implemented in every case and we appreciate that the specific designs are conceptual at this stage but we would have concerns about safety of cyclists and other path users if downhill cycling in a shared path is part of any proposal

The objectives will be used to identify the order in which the routes should be implemented over the coming years. Are the proposed objectives appropriate for prioritising the cycle routes for implementation?

Prioritisation of the Network

The extension of cycle routes along the edges of both sides of the Harbour and the use of the old Railway Tunnels to create relatively flat access to and from the South would both be marvellous additions to the cycling environment in Dunedin.

We largely agree with the priorities outlined in this section but are concerned that these priorities should not rule out the implementing of smaller improvements to the existing network. For example one difficulty with the Southwards leg of the One Way system is making a right turn to access the CBD. Provision of a Hook Turn bay on Albany St by the University branch of the National Bank would provide a safer way for cyclists to turn off the One Way system to access the main shopping and hospital area before the OW system swings towards the harbour. Combining this with the ability to make a left turn onto Great King St at the Albany St/Malcolm St/Great King St intersection would improve cycle access from the North to the CBD. Secondly, on the section of divided path round the perimeter of the Botanic Gardens at the entrance to the South-bound One Way system, the main effect of the pipe “gates” on the pedestrian section is to cause pedestrians to walk on the cycle path. Perhaps those “gates” could go.

Other comments on the proposed Strategic Cycle Network

What about other initiatives?

I would commend the Council's intent in this section, especially the consideration that every street should be hospitable to cycling.

Lowering Speed Limits

In particular lowering speed limits deserves further comment. A low cost strategy for making cyclists more comfortable on the roads among a number of other benefits for a wide range of groups, is a reduction in traffic speed such as the Transition Valley 473 proposal to reduce speed to 30kph in the first block of North Road encompassing the Gardens Village and two schools as submitted to the Draft Annual Plan Consultation this year.

Wellington City Council already has a progressive policy of introducing 30kph speed limits into 21 suburban shopping areas over the next four years and already has some in place. I would strongly urge the DCC to follow suit. Although a 20kph reduction (40%) in the speed limit sounds dramatic, the Wellington policy includes introducing the 30kph limit only in centres where the measured average traffic speed is already 35kph or less. In centres where the measured average traffic speed is over 35kph, the WCC will introduce traffic calming measures to bring the measured average down to the magic 5kph over the proposed speed limit.

Other Considerations .

It is important to retain the awareness among cyclists and motorists of every stripe, that cyclists have the right and ability to ride on the roadway anywhere except where the road has motorway status.

It is also important to note that if cycling is to prosper as a transport mode, it must be effective as well as safe and any attempt to return to an earlier regulatory regime where the presence of a cycle facility constrained cyclists to use that facility or that route, should be very strongly resisted by the cycling community.

In conjunction with the Strategic Cycle Network, I also advocate looking for ways to establish an acceptable culture of cycling on the footpath for vulnerable groups and, in special circumstances, others, bearing in mind that on the footpath, the pedestrian is always top of the right of way hierarchy.

Another facility that would suit Dunedin's layout would be a pick up/drop off low cost (or even free) bicycle hire system for the main flat area of the city. This might be a DCC initiative or DCC might play a role in facilitating a private operator providing this service.

A further consideration is bicycle parking. Since the demise of free-standing parking meters, suitable bicycle parking is harder to find and further provision may be needed if a growth in cycling numbers is to be encouraged.

Some regulation might be helpful in two areas, firstly in requiring a level of provision for bicycle parking in any new commercial building developments and secondly in setting standards for such bicycle parking that exclude the use of low profile stands that make securing a bicycle to the stand difficult and include a risk of damage to spokes and wheel rims if the bicycle is knocked or blown over. An example of an inadequate stand can be seen at the Gardens New World Supermarket. Such stands are unsuitable for mountain bikes and virtually unusable by road bikes with narrower wheels.

Principles

I suggest adoption of a principle in developing cycle facilities in Dunedin.

Improvements to cycling facilities should be implemented is a way that does not degrade any aspect of the facility's quality.

Adoption of this or a similar principle might help to avoid developments like the lumpy and irritating post-intersection and mid-block strips of green non-skid surface installed on parts of the One Way system and Anzac Avenue cycle lanes.

Funding the Network

"The approximate cost of constructing the proposed strategic cycle network is in the order of $12 -

$20 Million excluding the Harbour Circuit and Dunedin / Mosgiel Route which have already been

prioritised. These estimates also exclude any tunnels, bridges and underpasses as well as

professional fees, land costs and contingencies." [p2]

The above passage is very unpleasantly reminiscient of the policies that have been followed in presenting costs for the covered Stadiium. One thinks something might have been learned about transparency from that continuing debacle. What are the estimates including tunnels, bridges and underpasses as well as professional fees, land costs and contingencies, for the proposed strategic cycle network?

While greater provision for cyclists as envisaged in the strategic Cycle Network is a "very nice-to-have" I hope the Council is keeping in mind that reducing DEBT is a "must have".