New Zealand walking and cycling strategies – best practice

Print version: New Zealand walking and cycling strategies (PDF, 2.9 MB)

1. Introduction

• 1.1   Purpose
• 1.2   Context
• 1.3   Methodology
• 1.4   Research project participants
• 1.5   Walking and cycling strategies – separate or combined?

1.1   Purpose

The purpose of this research, carried out between August 2004 and August 2005, was to:

• review and analyse existing New Zealand and overseas walking and cycling strategies;
• determine current best practice amongst these strategies; and
• publicise results so that practitioners developing new strategies or updating existing strategies can easily access best practice.

The research did not investigate how well the strategies have been implemented or whether their stated objectives and targets have been achieved. An audit function such as this may well be a useful project in future years to ensure that local and regional strategies align with national objectives and that they are being implemented as promised to local communities.

The identification of ‘best practice’ is a subjective exercise. The researchers’ views are expounded here, but the report has also been influenced by the comments of a wideranging reference group.

1.2   Context

In February 2005 the government released its walking and cycling strategy, Getting there – on foot, by cycle (MOT 2005), confirming its commitment to walking and cycling at a national level. The strategy states:

• Our vision for walking and cycling is simple:
• A New Zealand where people from all sectors of the community walk and cycle for transport and enjoyment.
• Achieving this vision will, in turn, help to ensure a healthier population, more lively and connected communities, and a more affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system.

The draft strategy in October 2003 contained similar sentiments and its existence has encouraged the development of walking and cycling strategies since that time. Getting there provides guidance on walking and cycling policy for both national and local use.

The New Zealand Transport Strategy (NZTS) (MOT 2002) moved New Zealand towards sustainability in transportation. This strategy outlines the government's vision that New Zealand has an “affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable” transport system.

Walking and cycling are:

• the most sustainable modes of transportation;
• easily affordable relative to private motor vehicles and public transportation systems;
• easily integrated with other transport systems and modes;
• responsive and adaptable to changes such as fuel shortages and price increases;
• intrinsically safe – only when motor vehicles dominate in terms of speed or traffic volumes do walking and cycling have negative safety implications.

The Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) (NZ Govt 2003) was enacted in November 2003. The LTMA translates the NZTS vision into planning and funding requirements for transport in New Zealand. It attempts to provide a more balanced approach to land transport, and places increased emphasis on walking and cycling.

The objectives of the Ministry of Transport, Land Transport NZ and Transit New Zealand (Transit) are consistent with the NZTS. Each of these government agencies is now required to assist in the development of an “affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable” transport system, which will need to pay more attention to walking and cycling.

New Zealand ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, confirming its commitment to managing greenhouse gas emissions. Greater emphasis on providing for and encouraging walking and cycling will assist in meeting New Zealand’s Kyoto Protocol obligations.

A walking and cycling project must be identified, either specifically or generically, in a current cycling or walking strategy to qualify for Land Transport NZ subsidy¹. This requirement encourages the development of walking and cycling strategies.

Land Transport NZ in July 2004 sought to distinguish between “walking and cycling strategies” and “walking and cycling strategic plans”. It determined that: “A walking and cycling strategy is a high level document that provides for the framework and direction of walking and cycling. A walking and cycling strategic plan is a document at the local level that has the purpose of identifying activities that encourage more people to walk or cycle.”

In practice, this distinction is not recognised by councils and all strategies reviewed for this research project include both high level strategic content and activities at the local level. Consequently, within this research report, the term ‘strategies’ is used instead of ‘strategic plans’ as it is more widely used and understood. If a strategy contains an Implementation Programme (as is recommended in this research report) then it is deemed to be a ‘strategic plan’ by Land Transport NZ. Alternatively these activities may be itemised in the council LTCCP (Long Term Council Community Plan).

Land Transport NZ currently facilitates the preparation of local and regional council walking and cycling strategies by subsidising the cost of this work with an increased financial assistance rate of 75%. This is an interim arrangement for the 2004/05 and 2005/06 years. The state highway network (managed by Transit), including any associated walking and cycling facilities, is fully funded by Land Transport NZ. Planning for state highway walking and cycling facilities is usually undertaken in conjunction with (and often by) the local authority through a walking and cycling strategy, although planning is sometimes done through a regional land transport strategy or a state highway 10 year plan.

It is in this policy context that local and regional walking and cycling strategies have become increasingly common documents over recent years.

¹ “To be eligible for funding the work must be identified, either specifically or generically, in a current cycling or walking strategy.” PEM Simplified Procedure No. 6 – Walking and Cycling Projects, Project Evaluation Manual Amendment No. 8, 1 October 2004, Transfund New Zealand.

1.3   Methodology

It was found that 36 New Zealand strategies were complete or had been released for public consultation as drafts before December 2004. These, plus eight overseas strategies, were obtained and reviewed by the research team. A complete list of these strategies (and internet website links where available) is contained in Appendix 1.

New Zealand strategies were identified by:

• first-hand knowledge of the research team;
• word of mouth amongst transportation professionals;
• placing articles in Roundabout (the journal of the IPENZ (Institute of Professional Engineers NZ)Transportation Group); in e.CAN (the electronic newsletter of the Cycling Advocates’ Network); and on the lead consultant’s website;
• sending emails to all local and regional councils (including a link to an internet-based survey);
• seeking input via a remit at the IPENZ Transportation Group’s Traffic Management Workshop in September 2004.

Specialists in planning for cycling and walking in New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom, who were known to the research team, were asked to suggest examples of current best-practice cycling and walking strategies from Australia, North America and the United Kingdom. Copies of these strategies were obtained, and the research team selected eight strategies for detailed review.

Over one third (30 out of 86) of the local and regional councils in New Zealand have walking or cycling strategies and a further nine councils² are known to be actively developing strategies for walking or cycling or both. Some 16 councils have either a combined walking and cycling strategy (10 councils), or both a walking and a cycling strategy (6 councils).

A significant majority of councils (70 in total) thus need to develop either a walking or cycling strategy (or both) to be eligible for Land Transport NZ funding for walking and cycling projects and programmes.

Many existing strategies are also somewhat dated and do not reflect current best practice. Consequently, some councils with existing strategies have begun, or are contemplating, reviews of their strategies.

² Central Hawke’s Bay District, Gisborne District, Kaipara District, Marlborough District, Papakura District, Waimakariri District, Waikato Region, Wellington City and Whangarei District were developing strategies during the latter stages of 2004.

1.4   Research project participants

The research team of seven was assisted by a large reference group of practitioners who reviewed the draft research report in January 2005. The research team comprised:

• Andrew Macbeth, lead researcher, MWH New Zealand Ltd, Christchurch.
• Roger Boulter, team member, Roger Boulter Consulting, Hamilton.
• Paul Ryan, team member, Opus International Consultants Ltd, Hamilton.
• David Turner, project director, MWH New Zealand Ltd, Wellington.
• Mark Weeds, research assistant, MWH New Zealand Ltd, Christchurch.
• Mike Blyleven, peer reviewer, Environment Canterbury, Christchurch.
• Glen Koorey, peer reviewer, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

The full list of contributors to the project is shown in Appendix 2.

Transportation professionals from over 50 local and regional councils completed an electronic survey on walking and cycling strategies, mostly in August 2004, either on their own behalf or for their employers. Their contributions provide valuable insight into the topic and are gratefully acknowledged. The survey is described in Chapter 6.

Potential conflicts of interest were identified among the research team as some team members had been involved in the preparation of some of the strategies being reviewed. These potential conflicts are shown in Appendix 3. Those affected assert that they have attempted to be as objective as possible in reviewing all strategies for this project. The research team was deliberately structured as a multi-agency group to help prevent bias.

For those strategies where research team members were involved in preparation, reviews were undertaken by other members of the team. The peer reviewers and reference group members were specifically instructed to check for bias based on these potential conflicts of interest.

Overall, the project has involved a large number of practitioners from central, regional and local government, academia, and transportation consultancies. Its findings should be useful to anyone involved in the development or review of walking or cycling strategies.

1.5   Walking and cycling strategies – separate or combined?

More recently, councils have tended to develop combined walking and cycling strategies (as opposed to separate strategies for each mode), perhaps following the lead of the Ministry of Transport with its draft national walking and cycling strategy, released in October 2003.

Smaller councils appear to be more likely to combine walking and cycling strategies into one document, perhaps for reasons of efficiency and economy. If walking and cycling strategies are combined in one document, it is important that the issues of each mode are addressed specifically.

In some situations, pedestrians and cyclists can easily and safely share facilities, but in most cases they should be kept separate. Pedestrians and cyclists often have quite different needs. For example, pedestrians typically cross roads at right angles and at quite a different speed from traffic. Cyclists usually move with motorised traffic and may merge to the centre of the road to turn right or cross the road. Technical design guidance should be sought to resolve these issues. The principal design guides for walking and cycling are listed in Appendix 4. Interestingly, these are all separated depending on mode.

While there are significant differences in design requirements for walking and cycling, there are more similarities with the education, enforcement and encouragement components of walking and cycling strategies.

Of those practitioners who responded to the survey (as recorded in Chapter 6), there was a slight preference for separate strategies. Among the research team members there is, however, a slight preference for combined strategies as there is some synergy in thinking simultaneously about both modes and in having stakeholders from both modes working together understanding the issues of the other.

In combined strategies, some discussion of walking and cycling issues is needed as only some features are common. For example, shared facilities are often not the best solution, compromising the needs of both pedestrians and cyclists. The decision to develop separate or combined documents, however, is less important than the decision to produce the strategies. Either format will generally work.

 

< previous | next >

Page created: 7 October 2008