CCC Accessible City sub d 3
This piecemeal approach to consultation on vital infrastructure is disempowering to the public and
facilitates poor outcomes and public dissatisfaction. Rolling out the rebuild in this way is clearly
favouring business as usual. Not the vision found in consultation or modern transport planning.
Spokes encourages CCC to meet with us and other stakeholders to consider plans more
comprehensively to achieve better outcomes. At the very least links to related projects and relevant
background material need to be provided.
Background
Share an Idea clearly demonstrated the community’s desire to rebuild for the 21st century. The
messages were clear greener in the central city, energy efficiency in buildings and transport. The call
for safe and inviting cycling was a dominant comment. Cars would have their place, but mainly that
place was in the 20th century. Not the new forward looking Christchurch.
The Christchurch Strategic Transport Plan sought to support the community. Quoting The
Christchurch Strategic Transport Plan, CSTP “Goal 1: Improve access and choice Objective 1.3:
Managing the demand network by encouraging people to use a wider range of travel options.” And
“Goal 4: Create opportunities for environmental enhancement Objective 4.1: Reduce emissions and
invest in green infrastructure and environmental enhancements”
The Plan goes on to promise a strong focus on protecting future corridors and investment in walking
and cycling infrastructure and facilities. Buttressing these promises the plan acknowledged in
“Action 1.1.3 Cycle network
The Council has a unique opportunity to foster a cycling culture in the city and to develop a
connected cycle network following the earthquakes.”
The CTP went on to promise:
“· … safe cycleways that will encourage new users.
· … a cycle network during the city’s rebuild, making it easy for people to use their bikes.
· … a cycle network with different types of cycleways to cater for all cycling abilities.
….dedicated major cycleways across the city, which cater for all abilities and provide a link to
popular destinations.
… local cycleways across the city so they are continuous and people cycling are more visible among
other traffic, increasing their safety.
…. cycle parking facilities, cycle hire schemes and a targeted education and promotion programme.”
The exact details were left to be sorted.
Sadly central governments CCDU did not share this vision and was not beholden to building
infrastructure in alignment with previously publicly consulted and supported planning. Cycling
infrastructure as offered in the Accessible City Transport chapter is now to be implemented. The
deep disappointment in that sad document is now rekindled in these proposed projects.
This Consultation
While this consultation is offered to provide the details which were lacking in the consultation on
CCDU’s Accessible City Transport chapter the details are lacking. Cycle parking is either very sparse
or has not been fully included. No lane widths or cross sections are provided. How the cycle
infrastructure is provided will tie into planned or existing cycle network is not clearly shown.
Provisions for people commuting across town on bicycles are not addressed. Cars will have the four
avenues, Kilmore Street, St Asaph Street, Durham, Montreal, Madras and Barbadoes for easy travel.
The details are in effect hidden in the piecemeal approach. We must wait until later is the refrain.
The proposed projects offer no decent cycle commuter routes through the central city as all are
shared with one or more modes cars/pedestrians/buses and are often interrupted and/or indirect.
Infrastructure on cycle routes is too often inconsistent and/or a start and stop affair. Clear route
signage will be required. The message is that cyclists should find alternative routes to going through
the CBD. Just what commuter cycle route infrastructure will be offered on the four avenues or
elsewhere is not stated.
Cars are offered ample parking near the retail precinct both on street and in parking facilities. Taxi
stands are also highlighted. The shopping precinct is clearly primarily for people who drive, taxi or
bus. This does not support mode change or even choice.
Specifics
Colombo Street will have two whole blocks of “Copenhagen” style separated cycle lanes which end
in on street car parking/taxi stands/servicing spaces/pedestrian/cycle free for all. The 30km/h limit
in conjunction with congestion may help to slow things down but is no substitute for active speed
control such as speed humps and mixed paving surfaces which need to be expanded throughout the
zone. Shared space congestion as speed control is cheap and easy but, hardly an approach which will
be welcomed by most road users. The interested but concerned cyclists are unlikely to be enticed.
With speeds in the central city prior to the quakes often 30km/h or less it was still an uninviting
cycling experience.
Colombo/Cashel corner and vicinity: With on street parking, kerb build outs and trees planned on all
four corners visibility problems need to be reconsidered. With much of the on street parking being
short duration activity leading to congestion and conflicts will be increased. Central government’s
parsimony will likely leave all road users dissatisfied. The Colombo/Hereford intersection lacks
bollards or cycle infrastructure intersection treatments. Cyclists will need to take the lane and fight it
out. The interested but concerned cyclists are quite likely to be not interested.
Colombo/Lichfield and other intersections on this major cycle route will require bollards at the s/w
and n/e corners to prevent blockage by left turning vehicles. Prior to the quakes drivers often
disregarded no turning rules and enforcement will no doubt be required.
The consultation document mentions a two-way section of road on Durham Street between Lichfield
and Tuam streets is being planned as part of another An Accessible City project to allow access for
vehicles from the west to the new Retail Precinct. Details on how this will work and what impact it
will have on cycling are not provided. Effective consultation on projects is not possible without full
information.
The cycle lane on Tuam Street east of High Street will need a door buffer zone of at least 90cm
adjacent to car parking. The width of all cycle lanes should be at least 2 metres and with room for
future expansion.
Manchester/Lichfield/High will require bollards as part of intersection treatments to prevent cars
from using cycle lanes as turn lanes.
The cycle parking mentioned for the bus exchange needs to have expansion room committed. Failing
to do this now is very likely to see such valuable real estate put to ‘better uses’. Cycle parking must
be convenient, easy to find, easy to use, and where people will want to use it. The consultation
document states that cycle parking will be ‘considered’ for new public buildings, apparently not for
private. If the community desire from Share an Idea and promises of the CTP are to be realised cycle
parking will have to be provided, not merely considered.
Reality Check
Quoting from the consultation document “The Council cannot make decisions on annual plans and
long term plans under the Local Government Act that are inconsistent with the Recovery Plan and its
gazetted An Accessible City transport chapter.”
The quakes have brought us central government dictating the development of the central city and
rendered public consultation a sham. Please do your best to honour the Share an Idea outcomes and
implement the goals of the CTP, thank you and good luck. Please refer to the attached Spokes
submission to the CCDU Accessible City Transport chapter which made clear the gross failings of that
plan and offered real alternatives.
ATTACH CCDU ACCESSIBLE CITY SUB FROM SPOKES FOR REFERENCE