30 April 2010
RE: Environment Canterbury Annual Plan 2010
SUBMISSION FROM SPOKES CANTERBURY
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. Spokes Canterbury is a local
cycling advocacy group with approximately 1200 members that is affiliated with the
national Cycling Advocates Network (CAN). All submissions are developed online
and include member’s input. Spokes is dedicated to including cycling as an everyday
form of transport in the greater Christchurch area.
We would like the opportunity to appear at any public hearing that is held to consider
submissions on this Annual Plan. Should there be an officer’s report or similar
document(s) we would appreciate a copy(s).
If you require further information or there are matters requiring clarification, please
contact our Submissions Convenor Dirk De Lu in the first instance. His contact
details are:
38 Thorrington Road
Cashmere, Christchurch 8140
Phone: 337 1790
Email: dirk4@paradise.net.nz
Keith Turner
Chairperson, Spokes Canterbury
This submission pertains specifically to the Transportation sections of the
Environment Canterbury draft Annual Plan.
Introduction
Spokes is concerned that Environment Canterbury is not implementing active
transport in alignment with its own and the region's policies, good practice, nor,
importantly, in a way which meets the regions transport needs in a timely and cost
effective manner. This annual plan does not adequately support the active transport
emphasis, targets, goals and measures found in the Canterbury Regional Policy
Statement (RPS), the Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS), the Canterbury
Transportation Regional Implementation Programme (CTRIP), the Greater
Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS), or the draft Greater Christchurch
Travel Demand Management Strategy (TDMS).
For these goals, objectives and targets to be achieved, active transport needs to be an
important and expanding component of Environment Canterbury’s Annual Plans.
Despite the emphasis placed on active transport in the above cited documents, active
transport modes have suffered due to lack of priority and a piecemeal approach.
This apparent lack of support is confusing given Environment Canterbury’s initiatives
such as “bikes on buses”, regional cycling route investigation, the many staff
members who cycle to work and the cycling facilities provided to staff. Environment
Canterbury is to be complimented for these efforts. In spite of this, there appears to be
a low level of support for active transport improvements in this Annual Plan.
Canterbury’s communities are thus unable to benefit from safe, pleasant active
transport choices.
Value for Money
Spokes acknowledges that roading infrastructure and motorized transport play a major
part in meeting transportation and freighting needs. It is equally clear that reducing
congestion by encouraging active transport is a more cost effective approach for better
utilisation of the transport network and for extending the life of this very expensive
investment.
Reducing congestion is the cost effective alternative to costly and inevitably
inadequate enhancements and additions to the motorized transport network. National
and international experience has proven that catering to motorized transport
encourages greater uptake, greater congestion and more money.
This plan recognizes that energy costs will escalate and green house gas emissions
must be reduced. The Canterbury DHB can easily confirm that air pollution and
sedentary lifestyles are leading to increased health expense and diminished
community health outcomes. The many traffic casualties and unacceptable driver
behaviour attest to motorized transport’s impact on our communities. The perceived
lack of road safety for cyclists and pedestrians is regularly cited as a major factor in
the decline of both.
This Annual Plan’s transport elements do not further:
 A strong economy





Transport and travel needs being met
Ease of travel around cities and towns and easy access to shops and other
community services
Alternatives for moving people and freight
Making people feel safe at all times
Value for money
The personal and public health impacts of travel choice are well recognized and need
to be properly addressed. The finding on page 71 that “There is no negative impact on
well-being.” from current transportation approaches is clearly unfounded. ECan’s
own Regional Land Transport Strategy clearly prioritised Active Transport for
reasons of congestion reduction, pollution reduction, improved road safety and
personal and public health. (Page 23, 2008 RLTS)
Taking the Initiative
Spokes welcome the plan’s acknowledgement that “Increasing and volatile transport
costs as a result of global oil prices and traffic congestion, as well as concerns around
road safety, public health and transport emissions, increase the need for a wider range
of efficient and sustainable transport options to move people and goods. Securing the
required funding to meet the region’s future transport needs is critical.” We strongly
dispute that the regional land transport group of activities in this Annual Plan
contribute fairly or adequately to accomplishing these goals.
Institutional inertia in support of cycling is lagging. Efforts to advance the "Cycling in
Canterbury: Strategy for the development of a regional network of cycle routes"
(2005) http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Plans/CinC.pdf have stalled.
In 2008, work was restarted on this Strategy. A workshop was held in Christchurch
for Central Canterbury to test the workshop outcomes for two other proposed
workshops planned for Southern and Northern Canterbury. The latter two areas are
yet to have these workshops. The write up of the Central Canterbury workshop, which
a number of stakeholders including Spokes Canterbury contributed time and expertise
to, has not yet been disseminated. This Annual Plan needs to progress publication of
this report, the scheduling of the remaining workshops and allocate the resources to
deliver on ECan’s own long overdue efforts.
Spokes is sympathetic to the situation ECan is currently in. New commissioners have
been appointed to remedy matters. Central government has promised that outcomes
will be improved. This Annual Plan provides the opportunity to measure that promise.
Opportunities which show promise:



Actively create and support transport change champions within ECan to work
with local authorities and local stakeholder groups
Implement the existing Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS), including
the target of 12% of trips by cycle by 2011
Require the Regional Land Transport Program and local authorities to
implement the priorities in the RLTS



Use this Annual Plan to signal the end of vehicle centric roading infrastructure
Engage fully with active transport user’s groups in developing strategy,
investigations, monitoring, promoting and educating
Assist local authorities in implementing the active transport strategies already
in place
The Priority for 2010/11, of supporting the Canterbury Regional Transport
Committee, needs to incorporate the opportunities offered above. The Regional Policy
statement directs:
Public transport and cycling are less energy intensive than the use of private
motor vehicles and the Regional Council has a clearly defined function to
provide such services and to plan for their use (see section 30(1)(a) and 32 of
the Resource Management Act).(p228)
Setting a target of satisfying local authorities and reviewing their plans is not enough;
“satisfying” local authorities is not the same as implementing the RLTS. Local
authorities’ plans must be reviewed prior to implementation and be consistent with the
RLTS. Value for money must be achieved and the ability of active transport to deliver
cost effective results acknowledged in the projects and priorities set.
Dr. Bryan Jenkins, Environment Canterbury Chief Executive notes that
“…monitoring expenditure against results…is vital when considering project
priorities and decision making.” (p. 3 draft ECan 2009 LTCCP). To this we add that
projects must compete and achieve value for money comprehensively across all their
impacts and benefits.
Policy Support
The 2009 ECan LTCCP voiced support for travel demand management (TDM)
promotion and education. It also sought to “Promote the use of walking, cycling,
public transport, car pooling and alternatives for moving freight.” Unfortunately
specific programmes and funding to achieve these goals were not provided. (Page 98
ECan LTCCP 2009) This Annual Plan needs to correct this oversight.
The 2008 RLTS (p.9) presents a vision of a land transport system that (bolding
added):
• provides equitable access for all sectors of the community
• supports a thriving economy
• promotes a social environment which is safe and supportive
• promotes public health outcomes, is pleasant and environmentally sustainable
• is safe
• involves community participation in land transport decision-making
• is part of an integrated planning framework
• is innovative and responsive to change.
It identified and prioritised active transport as a key, cost effective and preferred
component for achieving the criteria set out in the Act and showed that walking,
cycling and public transport, demand management and targeted upgrades to the
strategic road network would offer the greatest benefit to Canterbury.
The Canterbury Transport Implementation Programme (CTRIP) repeated the points
made in the RLTS and calls for specific transport outcomes including:
 Maintain strategic transport links while maintaining and enhancing the quality
of built environments
 Increased use of active modes
 Minimise adverse impacts on and improve social and urban environments
Quoting the Christchurch City Council 2009 LTCCP, “The most significant ongoing
strategic conversation that the Council has been undertaking over the last three years
has been the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS)”.1
The Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan sets goals, the first two are:
 A reduction in the current number of motor vehicle trips made
 Increase the proportion of trips made using sustainable travel options2
Quoting the current Travel Demand Management Survey (TDMS); “It is no longer
cost-effective to keep building new roads to provide for increasing demand for
car-based travel. The most efficient way to use the existing transport network is
through sustainable travel.” 3 (emphasis added)
Public Transport
The bulk of ECan transportation funding goes to support public transport. While
necessary, it is clearly a very expensive option. An emphasis on active transport can
effectively limit rates increases.
Around 3.2% of all trips in Christchurch are via public transport. At least 2.4% of
trips are by cycle and a larger number by foot. Cyclists are approximately 6% of
commuters, pedestrians 9%, and peak travel congestion is a key issue. These facts
alone indicate that active transport should command a much larger share of funded
programmes to support and increase these numbers.
Integrating active and public transport supports both. Walking and cycling modes
connecting with Public Transport are integral to meeting the current ECan objectives
to increase numbers travelling by Public Transport.
The Canterbury Active Transport Forum, the Active and Passenger Transport
Working Group (est. 2009) and the Freight and Network Efficiency Group all play a
role in both active and public transport. Given the central government funding
cutbacks it is important that this Annual Plan adequately fund these groups if value
for money from these modes is to be achieved.
Public and Active Transport can be mutually supportive. Providing Bike Racks on all
buses and providing excellent bike parking facilities are steps to offering a truly
integrated service.
Future Proofing
ECan and ratepayers can benefit by applying a cost-benefit analysis to transportation
funding. Realistically this should factor in the cost of sedentary lifestyles, pollution,
productivity lost to congestion, accidents and the impact on the foreign exchange
from fuel and vehicle purchasing.
Infrastructure development, education and ongoing promotion are crucial if the public
are to make the transition from a vehicle-dependent society to one where people can
safely choose the transport mode that best meets their needs.
Conclusion
Active travel has remained under-emphasised in spite of official recognition of the
important contribution it must make if transportation, pollution reduction,
environmental sustainability, personal and public health and community betterment
goals are to be met. This is Environment Canterbury’s opportunity to set things right.
What do we choose for the future; cars, trucks, buses, congestion, and pollution, or
liveable streets that enhance our communities?
This Annual Plan needs to apply and build upon the well developed and consulted
plans and strategies already in place. Implementing stated policies can effectively
allow the public to safely choose to walk or cycle as well as bus or drive. The four
well beings are better achieved at less cost through active transport.
1
P 20 CCC LTCCP 2009
P 7 UDS
3
P 9 TDMS
2