The Auckland public debate after the recent fatal cycling accident seems typical of any Western world city, all of which in some shape or form are recognising, or have recognised, the need for safe cycling infrastructure. Some cities did it a long time ago - Copenhagen, Stockholm and Amsterdam. The popular myth that these cities have always had good cycling infrastructure and never had public debates and dissension over cycling is quite untrue. European cities adopted the American dream of motorways and highways and private car ownership after the second world war - just like New Zealand cities - a key difference being that their cities were bigger, with greater populations, and in most cases narrow street networks, so that travel demand by cars quickly overwhelmed the capacity of local streets.
That led to the removal of pre-existing cyclelanes, conflict between cars and bikes, a rising cycling death toll, and eventually major public protests - particularly by women - angry at the deaths of children on their way to school and on local errands. Authorities quickly responded, and the cycle infrastructure we see today in the photos and tourist videos, shows the results of those public protests.
It is important to note that the debates over cycling in those European cities were highly polarised. Motorists did not want road space allocated to cyclists, and cyclists wanted to be able to cycle safely on local roads.
The level of anger being expressed now in Auckland is not as high as led to the changes in European cities, but I suggest to those councillors and others in authority and with the power to make changes - don't wait till a pupil biking to school gets killed.
It may suit your peace of mind to believe the arguments of motorists and their advocates. There's nothing like a firmly held opinion to convince and comfort those who are reluctant to speak about the need for change, who don't want to encourage cycling. Those bound by a commitment to moving round in a tonne of steel stroke quiet politicians and say, "good on you, stay strong, these lycra louts need to be contained...."
Or whatever the argument: they don't pay road taxes, they should be registered, they need to be educated, they should go on training courses, they are inconsiderate ..... it goes on and on .... reading the comments in the NZ Herald's webpages remind me of what democracy is. It's a long way from governance by the best.
Cycling has been returning to New Zealand and to Auckland for a long time. Many have done their bit to accelerate change. I'll never forget time on North Shore City Council in 1998 and 1999 when I first tried to change Council policy on cycling. I was almost laughed out of the chamber. Not a single Councillor supported my motion. Outside round the teacups councillors much younger than me suggested I must be joking. "No-one wants to cycle around here", they said. And one even ran a gym. After a year I managed to get a majority to support a motion calling for the development of a North Shore Cycling Strategy. It was a start, eventually leading the way to a cycle lane along Lake Road, and support for cycling lanes to local schools especially Belmont Intermediate.
But boy it was hard. For a time North Shore City was a little oasis of cycling in the Auckland region (I know, oasis is hardly the right word, the least arid I guess.) Gradually other cities built bits and pieces of cycle infrastructure - often not joined up - and often not across the really dangerous intersections of road networks. The message (and signs) to cyclists was "dismount".
Auckland Transport is a Council Controlled Organisation in name only. The reality is that Auckland Transport each year requires Auckland Council to raise rates to fund transport priorities that are actually determined by central government's policy statement on land transport. Words are cheap when it comes to naming institutions - AT being a CCO - not really. Auckland's transport priorities are determined by central government in Wellington. Auckland Councillors might like to think they are in control. But while have little ability to influence Auckland Transport, they do have some influence.
If Auckland Council was to embrace the new world of commuter cycling, cycling to school, errands and to the park - and I don't mean high speed lycra - then it can lead change, rather than being dragged along reluctantly. It was good to read in NZ Herald that Cllr Darby had managed to get agreement for text calling for "an increase in priority for cycling and walking" to go into the Council's letter of expectation, but hey, that call could be satisfied by going from 3.1% of the budget to 3.10005%.
It's an output measurement. Not an outcome.
Cycling wants to come to Auckland. It can make Auckland rate more liveable in most international measures. But not if cycling itself is unsafe, and unliveable.
Ironically, Central Government has committed to significant investment in cycle trails throughout the country. But have they not noticed that users of rural cycle trails need to get trained before they head into the countryside? My experience suggests that for every kilometre of rail trail that gets biked in the country, several kilometres get biked in an urban environment by inexperienced riders wanting to get cycle fit. Some build a regime into their daily commute. More efficient to get fit on the way to work, rather than taking time out in the gym. Not only that but tourists who come here for the cycling quite rightly assume that cycling will be as encouraged and as safe in our cities - especially the Queen City where they first arrive - as it is in the country. (This is certainly what I have noticed in United States cities, and Northern European cities, priding themselves in their safe cycling infrastructure.)
So what might Councillors do to make a difference, to make Auckland more liveable, by making it safer for cycling. I have a few thoughts from my own ten years cycling experience: Devonport, Ferry, Queen Street, Albert Street, Pitt Street, Quay Street, Custom Street, Anzac Street, Symonds Street...
Cycling has increased hugely in that time, and cycle parking provision, despite additions from time to time, is mostly at capacity. Auckland's cycling demographic has changed from lycra dominance to casual commuter dominance. The style has changed from the coast to coast stereotype, to the Copenhagen stereotype. And more, lots more would do it, but they feel it is unsafe on the mean streets of Auckland City.
Most cycling commuters on Auckland City streets today are toughened, defensive cyclists. They have learned the habits of defensive cycling. They anticipate accident producing situations: drivers not seeing them, doors being suddenly opened, people stepping between slow moving lines of vehicles, drivers suddenly overtaking, turning left and cutting you off. But they also value the sense of freedom that cycling provides. Bike slow and you're on talking terms with pedestrians, because you're going at walking speed uncased in a tonne of metal, and know that it's not a problem to ease across a red light intersection with pedestrians. Bike faster and you're sharing the road with cars - provided they let you.
But those who would cycle, want to cycle, want that choice, but haven't much experience, are quite rationally fearful of sharing a road with a line of traffic and buses. Note to councillors: ask for some decent market research, focus groups and suchlike, so you know why more people don't cycle and what you can do to make the change. (You do want changes that make Auckland more liveable don't you? And cycling is one of those measures that crank up when cycling is safe.)
Auckland CBD needs a network of cyclepaths on or adjacent to the existing road network. This requires space to be re-allocated from road traffic. Note to councillors: don't combine "cycling and walking" in one phrase. Really they are like chalk and cheese. Two different modes. Two different transport infrastructure needs. Request that cycling and walking be treated separately and planned separately. Why? Because it's an excuse to do nothing really - combining cycling with walking. So called "sustainable modes". (Some bikes have batteries. What's the difference with an electric car?)
If the path is wide - let's say 4 metres - then that's a path that can be shared by cycling and walking. But for the most part, and to provide for cycling as a transport mode, cycling needs its own path. It needs its own strategy. So separate it from walking.
Final note to councillors: it's great that you support the SkyPath cycling and walking infrastructure over the Auckland Harbour Bridge. But you'd call anyone nuts for building a motorway with cul de sacs for exits - wouldn't you? Cycle infrastructure is the same. You need to be able to get from A to B on it to be really useful. (I mean a whole trip - like home to a destination).
Go on. Make a difference to Auckland's liveability. People will love you for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment