All posts in the topic Guest Speaker (Paul de Spa): SPOKES and the state of cycling in Christchurch (Short link)
Summary
- There are 9 posts — by 5 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Kevyn Miller at Aug 09 15:08 UTC
Kia ora, gidday, I’m Paul de Spa. I’ve been reading this forum since last year, when I (along with many of the people who were posting here at the time!) was standing in the local elections (Chch City Council, Spreydon-Heathcote ward, missed out by a couple thousand votes)… but this is the first time I’ve posted. I’ve been invited to be a guest speaker for a week, in my role as chair of SPOKES. Quick bit of background: My day job is teaching environmental education programmes through the regional council (ECan); a decade ago I was a primary school teacher. Between 2001 and 2007 I was an elected member of the Spreydon-Heathcote Community Board. I’ve worked for a number of volunteer organisations, most with a green / environmental purpose. Promoting organic food, helping restore ecosystems, collecting for Amnesty… all have claimed a share of my time over the years. I joined the Green Party in 1999, stood as the party’s candidate in Wigram in 2002, and served as National Co-convenor (i.e. party president, or the male half of this gender-balanced role) from 2003-06. Since last year’s election I’ve decided to have a bit more time with my family: my partner Justine and sons Luka (15) and Connor (12) have always been my top priority, but it’s hard to make room for everything… However the one “cause” I am sticking with is promoting cycling, and advocating for a better deal for people who cycle (and the thousands more who would like to) in Christchurch. I am currently chair of SPOKES Canterbury, Christchurch’s cycling advocacy group, and a member of the national organisation CAN (Cycling Advocates Network). SPOKES has a membership of just over 1000 people. It’s easy to join as there is no membership fee – all you have to do is visit our website www.spokes.org.nz and sign up to receive our (monthly email) newsletter. SPOKES aims to improve the state of cycling in Christchurch (within or near the city boundaries), including: • Increasing the safety and efficiency of streets (and off-road paths) for cyclists. • Improving the number and quality of all cycling facilities, and of urban design generally, in order to encourage many more people to choose cycling as a means of transport. • Giving a “cyclists perspective” in public debate, be it submissions to councils, the mainstream media, or open forums like this one..! OK, now it’s time to play “What Was The Question?” Let’s say the answer is: “Invest significantly in high-quality facilities, promotions and other incentives, to make cycling in our cities and towns as safe, efficient and enjoyable as possible for all people.” So, what was the question..? Was it: 1) What is the most cost-effective strategy to reduce transport-related carbon emissions? 2) Identify a public health measure that will reduce the incidence of diseases such as type-2 diabetes, cardio-vascular disease, and depression. 3) How can central and local government best support their citizens to deal with the rising cost of fuel, and future-proof our communities as oil supplies begin to dwindle? 4) How can we help kids travel to school the way they would most like to? (See: http://www.ccc.govt.nz/saferoutes/#data ) 5) How can we give people the means to raise their general level of health and fitness without requiring them to spend any additional time or money doing so? 6) What can we do that will give people more fun in their everyday lives, and yet save rather than cost them money? 7) What about a way to reduce noise pollution in the inner city, make the streets safer and more pleasant for people to walk along, and reduce traffic congestion, making it easier for those who need to drive to get where they’re going? (NB – even the small percentage of the population who are very young, very old or have a disability that means they can’t ride a bike will still benefit from implementing the answer to the questions above.) “Invest significantly” means a decent chunk of the roading budget (say 10 percent instead of current levels around one percent), and maybe some of the health budget too..? … feel free to add your own questions into the mix. … or to ask me any different questions, raise challenges, etc. … have a look at www.spokes.org.nz and sign up if you want
Paul de Spa wrote:
> 7) What about a way to reduce noise pollution in the inner city,
When I presented at the CCC Hearing on Cashel Mall road opening I
pointed out how the birds preferred to nest in a tree about half way
from Colombo St to the river. I suppose that would be at the most
distant from the noisy roads.
Now recently I have noticed that birds like to nest in a palm tree in
Brighton Mall pedestrian area half way between the slow road and Marine Pde.
I also recently heard that birds may lose the ability to make the finer
points of their songs audible to other birds above traffic noise, and
may even risk deafening themselves as they sing louder in the attempt.
There must be a message here.
And the modern farming practices hasve made the countryside hostile to
birds.
Hi Paul, Firstly, welcome to the forum and thanks for the great introductory post. On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 21:24 +1200, Paul de Spa wrote: > 4) How can we help kids travel to school the way they would most like to? (See: http://www.ccc.govt.nz/saferoutes/#data ) Hmmm, yes, I'd have to admit that we're one of the culprits. I have two kids, 6 and 8, their school is about 2km away and they get taken by car every day. We've occasionally biked home with one or two of them and we're fortunate that there is a suitable route through quiet back streets, a park and the cycle track for most (but not all) of the way. Road safety is definitely a concern these days, and while I'm quite happy to bike myself (and do a lot of the time) I've seen enough of the car craziness to not want to subject my kids to it until they're old enough to handle it. I'd have to say that, based on our performance this morning, simply getting the kids out of the house early enough in the mornings to get to school by 9:00 am by bike would be a fairly big challenge. However, it's something we should look at doing in the summer. I saw this the other day: http://www.salon.com/mwt/good_life/2008/07/24/sports_utility_bicycle/ A possible solution to getting your kids to and from school safely by bike ?
Thanks for the comments Brian and Andrew Brian, I’m pleased to hear you made a submission about the City Mall project and mentioned natural / environmental considerations. I hope the tree you mention wasn’t one of those that Council removed on Arbour Day… (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4574276a7693.html) You may remember that I started a petition last year to ask the council not to build a “one-way slow road” through the Mall for private vehicle use. 7000 people signed, at first council began calling its proposed road a “service lane”, but eventually did rescind the motion about opening it to private vehicles. Spokes are still keen to see slow cycling permitted in the Mall – huge numbers of people do it regardless. Now that the tram is set to go through, the arguments about pedestrian conflict should disappear and we may see some progress..? But I reckon we will only start to hear natural sounds like bird song in our inner city once we embrace the idea that walking and cycling should be the dominant modes of travel within the four avenues. Andrew, thanks for your confession! I reckon it is worth making some of those school runs with your kids, to give them cycling experience and model some good riding. Once they are 10 or 11 and able to make some trips around the neighbourhood on their own, they will be much better prepared and road-savvy if they’ve had a few years riding at your side. It can be hard riding along a busy street watching out for all the traffic and your two kids, but if you ride outside them, deliberately slowly, make eye contact with drivers etc… most people in cars seem willing to cut you some slack and you get better driver behaviour than as a lone cyclist. Changing habits and reorganising the morning routine is probably the most challenging part… but kids love biking so much it has got to be worth it! Don’t wait for summer! Spring is only a month away! Enjoyed the “SUB” on the Salon link. I did consider getting a “cargo bike” (PSCycles do the Yuba for about $900 – http://www.yubaride.com/) but I have an awesome trailer – can fit a week’s groceries into 2 recycling crates, and haul them home easy as. Steven Muir (http://www.cyclingchurch.org.nz/), local bike trailer artiste will even loan out a trailer for a month to get you hooked.. then help you build one for next to nothing!
Teena koe Paul, Great to see your "head above the parapets" here :) You focus an important discussion. Thanks. Paul de Spa wrote: > ..guest speaker for a week, in my role as chair of SPOKES. > > ..promoting cycling, and advocating for a better deal for people who cycle (and the thousands more who would like to) in Christchurch.. member of the national organisation CAN (Cycling Advocates Network).. > > • Increasing the safety and efficiency of streets (and off-road paths) for cyclists. > • Improving the number and quality of all cycling facilities, and of urban design generally, in order to encourage many more people to choose cycling as a means of transport. > • Giving a “cyclists perspective” in public debate, be it submissions to councils, the mainstream media, or open forums like this one..! > > ..“Invest significantly in high-quality facilities, promotions and other incentives, to make cycling in our cities and towns as safe, efficient and enjoyable as possible for all people.” > > 1) What is the most cost-effective strategy to reduce transport-related carbon emissions? > 2) Identify a public health measure that will reduce the incidence of diseases such as type-2 diabetes, cardio-vascular disease, and depression. > 3) How can central and local government best support their citizens to deal with the rising cost of fuel, and future-proof our communities as oil supplies begin to dwindle? > 4) How can we help kids travel to school the way they would most like to? (See: http://www.ccc.govt.nz/saferoutes/#data ) > 5) How can we give people the means to raise their general level of health and fitness without requiring them to spend any additional time or money doing so? > 6) What can we do that will give people more fun in their everyday lives, and yet save rather than cost them money? > 7) What about a way to reduce noise pollution in the inner city, make the streets safer and more pleasant for people to walk along, and reduce traffic congestion, making it easier for those who need to drive to get where they’re going? > > “Invest significantly” means a decent chunk of the roading budget (say 10 percent instead of current levels around one percent), and maybe some of the health budget too..? > > … feel free to add your own questions into the mix. > > … or to ask me any different questions, raise challenges, etc. > Being newer to this (local government) than your own good self, and cycling less often of late, your thoughts would be most welcome. Re: "roading budget" What do you see as the correct response to that '1% Active Transport' component of the recent $250M-odd government grant for Canterbury roading infrastructure development? Should we "throw the baby out with the bathwater" in this case, with active protest against current 'infrastructure development' plans, or passively appeal for a bigger Active Transport proportion of the roading spend next time around? What we're dealing with here is the immodest ramping up of the "growth" agenda, which I see as direct cause of the many social ills steadily increasing too: obesity etc, "fuel poverty", food cost inflation, longer working hours, higher family stress, insensitivity to others, risky driving, more cyclists being killed on roads, etc. etc. - it's all about "speed-up", which began as "Taylorism" in Henry Ford's factories of the 1920s, and the increased rate of exploitation (check your weekly and monthly bills for a clear translation of that). Higher speed society = a less healthy society (in general) So about that "active protest" - life preservation for the less-mechanised - it seems ARC have swallowed the 'fuel tax for rail' argument hook, line and sinker, but should we? I mean, it's about motorist tax-payers (rate-payers) funding the transition into heavier laning, for heavier trucks, for more exploitative industry and globalised exports, in the main, in reality. So why should we be paying (with our lives too)? Where are the substantive transport alternatives down here? It seems that we environmentalists need to take onboard (yet more) significant change, in our political outlook. That is, everyone knows the term "greenwash" - but what is new and disorientating to us, is the arrival of greenwash in the marketplace, through 2008, at industrial strength: from councils as lead agencies. Facilitating development is what councils have always done most of, and we shouldn't be fooled by any overt rebranding exercise. In fact it would pay to understand that, while choosing community - what has been the primary governmental response to the admission of twin realities: peak oil and climate change? - Are we ready for the storm of bigger trucks heading our way? How are these going to be fueled? How are people going to be fueled, while the big (coal) trucks, tankers, and their (milk) cargoes override that question of "food for humans" (Yeah right)? Canterbury arable farmers, famous for their grain product, are planting stock wheat instead of milling wheat this season - better margins, and "next year it'll be cheaper for you to import baked bread from Australia," they say. - "What the" !?!? This is a direct battle for (safe use of) public highways, and motor (muscle) sustenance, one might well argue. "Who cares?" read the headlines. Let us learn from history. Kind regards, Rik Tindall
Hi Rik Thanks for the engagement – both here and at the ECan table with this and other issues. I definitely found it a challenge during my time to keep a principled but effective voice in local government… there are lots of “baby & bathwater” situations in there for sure! I think that a realistic response to badly inadequate levels of funding for active transport is to challenge – firmly, insistently, repetitively – for more next time, and the time after… The recent transport package is very generous to public transport, it’s right up there with the general roading spend – so that in itself is a major shift from the last few decades, hard-won by our predecessors around these tables. But active transport is still a poor cousin, and those of you who recognise that need to keep on pointing it out, until enough of your colleagues see it too and the ‘transport equals roads for cars (plus a few buses)’ mindset changes. Meanwhile our role as lobbyists is to help set the agenda for councils, by motivating the public to demand greater attention and funding for active transport. Where the people lead… We have come, historically from almost zero funding for active modes and precious little for PT. Cars were king for a couple of generations and walking, cycling and public transport use fell steadily over that time. The Land Transport Management Act 2003, and the national walking and cycling strategy have changed things at the big picture level. The Green party was able to get some potentially useful concepts like sustainable transport enshrined in legislation (http://new.greens.org.nz/node/12850), by hanging onto the baby, even while having to choke back rather a lot of bathwater (I am prone to stretching metaphors, sorry…) But it’s gonna take a few years for the old-school thinking amongst some sectors of the population (and local body politicians as a whole are much more conservative than most of the people they represent) to work its way out of the system… I’m not sure why you say Akld’s regional fuel tax is about heavier laning and trucks… I’ve read it as being for capital investment in passenger rail, a good alternative to private motor vehicles, (for Auckland anyway, I have to admit to not being fully sold on the advantages of rail here in Chch). But yeah, I reckon when the time comes the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee should bring in a regional fuel tax and say, we are going to split it three ways: 1/3 public transport, 1/3 active transport and 1/3 “other”. To those who would say “Petrol is getting too pricey anyway, and motorists’ money should only be spent on roads,” I’d say surely it’s better that an increase in what we pay for petrol goes back into our own communities, rather than to the oil companies, and is used to build the alternative infrastructure we’ll need when petrol gets really unaffordable. The changes in thinking around transport (and in other spheres) that have and are occurring are steps in the right direction, but are they too little too late, pissing into the wind, or even just greenwash? I don’t really know… I try to call something BS if it really obviously is, rest of the time I just plug away in good faith, I guess. Hey, lots of the rest of your post is about growth, and the probably unaltered mandate of governments and councils to promote it.. so thought I would chuck this in, since I found it while trawling the Greens site for the transport stuff: "Often it is about what should grow. We can opt for growth in public transport rather than more motorways and congestion; we can choose renewable energy rather than more mines and dammed rivers; we can export high-value organic food rather than chemical-doused fodder. We can base our prosperity on skills, creativity and adding value, rather than bulk commodities and holes in the ground. New Zealanders just have to recognise that only electoral bravery and political will stand in the way of what they really want.” (Jeanette Fitzsimons, see: http://new.greens.org.nz/node/13169) Good night! And go well… Paul
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 00:09 +1200, Paul de Spa wrote: > I’m not sure why you say Akld’s regional fuel tax is about heavier > laning and trucks… I’ve read it as being for capital investment in > passenger rail, a good alternative to private motor vehicles, (for > Auckland anyway, I have to admit to not being fully sold on the > advantages of rail here in Chch). But yeah, I reckon when the time > comes the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee should bring in a > regional fuel tax and say, we are going to split it three ways: 1/3 > public transport, 1/3 active transport and 1/3 “other”. To those who > would say “Petrol is getting too pricey anyway, and motorists’ money > should only be spent on roads,” I’d say surely it’s better that an > increase in what we pay for petrol goes back into our own communities, > rather than to the oil companies, and is used to build the alternative > infrastructure we’ll need when petrol gets really unaffordable. Well said, Paul. To me, it's about simple geography and economics. First rail: rail works really well when you have a population contained in natural transport corridors, which is why it works in Wellington and could work in Auckland. Because it costs such a lot to build, it requires a guaranteed volume to make it worthwhile, and you'd only really want to build a rail track along a densely populated corridor for that reason. So, rail is never going to be that effective in Christchurch unless we artificially constrain ourselves to live close to transport routes to the point where population density builds up along those routes and rail becomes cost-effective. As for spending money on roads, my worst fear is that in 10 years I end up staring at empty stretches of road with few cars on them and full of potholes, built with *my* money, all because we refused to acknowledge the warning signs that cars were on the way out. It's already happening in the US where they've had the biggest drop in miles travelled since records were collected starting in 1942 [1]. At this point, if I was a Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy person, I'd be a bit worried about that underlying assumption that traffic congestion will just keep on increasing for the foreseeable future and the resulting commitments to build lots of new white elephant roads. And while I'm at it, can someone do something about the huge number of potholes I seem to be seeing at the moment ? How about less money on new roads and more on fixing up the ones we have ? :-) [1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91658095
Andrew, Auckland's regional petrol tax is to pay off the thirty year loan and
government grant needed to electrify the rail system and buy new electric
trainsets before the rugby World cup. The interest on the loan will add 50% to
the cost of electrification and the thirty year reliance on revenues from
petrol taxes to repay the loan seems to be setting up Auckland ratepayers for a
nasty future surprise. Hopefully Ecan won't be stupid enough to try and fund a
rail or light rail system this way.
As for Dennis O'Rourke's recent suggestion in a letter to the Press that
Christchurch should invest in a LRT system on the radial roads I would suggest
it will be much better for the regional and national economy if we invested in
converting buses on these routes to trolley buses. Designline is building
trolley buses for Wellington so why import LRT trainsets from Germany when we
can all the benefits of an electric PT systems more cheaply locally. It would
also be affordable from the current Canterbury petrol tax that is being
diverted to pay for the record breaking spend-up on Auckland's motorways.
The Minstry of Economic Development argues that this subsidy is justified on
the basis of agglomeration economics. Ie, shifting head offices from Canterbury
to Auckland reduces costs to the national economy. It is much more likely that
it just concentrates wealth in Auckland.
You don't have to worry that you could end up staring at empty stretches of
road with few cars on them and full of potholes, built with *my* money unless
you buy petrol. That is where almost all the money for building roads has come
from for the past 80 years. Your rates pay for part of the non-traffic
depreciation costs and for the non-carriageway costs such as street lights,
footpaths and stormwater system.
Agree with you about the potholes, especially the ones on the expressway at
east of Burwood Road. No doubt these potholes will be fixed once the cycle lane
widening has been completed, just like the dangerous flooding problem on the
expressway between Ferry Rd and Linwood Ave was fixed after the cycle track was
built next to the flood prone highway and like the most dangerous roller
coaster section north of the oxidation ponds was fixed after the cycle track
next to that section of highway was completed. God knows how Transit works out
its spending priorities in this city. Maybe one day Transit will even ensure
that the Northern motorway complies with Transit's safety standards for
motorways. Although the lack of any move in this direction following the two
preventable fatalities last year suggests a serious funding crisis, probably
related to the South Island's maintenance allocatons from the transport fund
not being adjusted for increases in the construction price index until 2006 and
even then not by enough to make up for deferred maintenance. Construction
funding has not been increased at all so in real terms it has reduced by a
third this decade, which makes it only half the amount the South Island
received under both Norm Kirk and Mickey Savage!
Paul, I don't share your point of view but as an occassional walker I can certainly appreciate how the dependence on motor taxation has rsulted in a car-centric roading system. With the probability that revenue from the petrol tax could plummet in coming years the way it did during the '70s I would caution against any transport initiatives that assume that the current levels of subsidies from cars is going to continue. Hence my support for trolley buses instead of light rail. I suggest that a future funding will have to revisit the Canterbury Cyclist Union's 1898 initiative http://www.petroltax.org.nz/PDF/CycleTrafficBill1898.PDF A quarter century later the South Island Motoring Union also proposed a vehicle registration fee as the revenue source for Main Highways along with an excise duty on tyres and tubes. Introducing a bicycle registration fee and reintroducing the excise duty on tyres and tubes will be a simple way of ensuring that any future shift from driving to cycling cyclists would progressively replace the existing funding stream with a new sustainable one. As for your seven questions. For belong in the health budget and justify including the Ministry of Health in land transport funding decisions, which has not happened yet. The correct answer to the first question is either A)ride sharing using a similar approach to the industrial waste recycling database but taking advantage of texting to connect passengers with empty seat. That way car fuel efficiency can be improved from 25 occupant mpg to 100 at almost no cost. 100 mpg is about what a cyclist will achieve unless the cyclist is able idententify products that didn't come from our modern carbon intensive agriculture. There isn't as much potential to reduce carbon emissions by vehicle downsizing as there was in the 70s because the weight difference between big and small cars has shrunk. b) make walking schoolbuses more attractive by installing toll booths 200 metres from the school gates. That indirectly is the best answer to question 4 as well. The best answer to question 7 is to ban diesel buses. Trolley's and hybrids are as quite as modern cars. Before any increase in the percentage of petrol taxes spent on cycling can be increased we need to adress the problem of 55% of Canterbury's roading revenue being diverted to other regions. Good arguments exist for diverting 30% to other South Island regions as we can get economic benefit from doing that but there is no justification for the 25% that goes to Auckland and/or Wellington. Get that back where it belongs then we can start talking about more money for cycling and walking. But I will always insist that the correct order of priority for spending roading revenue has absolutely go to be: 1) Road maintenance and operations including doubling the funding assistance ratio for local authorities, 2) Safety engineering, a mere $500m a year extra nationally would halve the road toll by 2015, 25 years ahead of the proposed Land Transport Strategy. 3) Seismic preparedness, Christchurch is only 150km from the world's highest risk Great faultlines, 4) Walking and Cycling 5) Public transport 6) Congestion relief (This seems to be the current #1) To really upset people I really believe that the best answer to question 3 is to scrap all density limits, single use zoning and restrictions on building corner shops. Half a century of centralising our schools, shops, and factories is half the reason we drive everywhere instaed of walking and cycling. The traffic generated by that half of the reason is the other half of the reason, more or less.