File: PO 06 03 01
___________________________________________________________________________
Axel Wilke (Cycling Advocates Network)
Bob Alkema (Land Transport New Zealand) – Chair
Celia Wade-Brown (Living Streets Aotearoa)
David Cope (Land Transport New Zealand)
Jane Dawson (Cycling Advocates Network)
Julie Chambers (Safe Kids)
Kerry Betteridge (Ministry of Transport)
Leonie Waayer (Greater Wellington Regional Council)
Margaret Evison (Ministry of Transport)
Matt Grant (Land Transport New Zealand)
Natasha Abram (Land Transport New Zealand)
Sandy Fong (Land Transport New Zealand)
Stephen Knight (Bike New Zealand)
Reena Kokotailo(Ministry of Transport)
Richard Lindsay (SPARC)
Alexia Pickering (Living Streets Aotearoa)
Ian Clark (Transit)
Jane Mitchell (Land Transport New Zealand)
Felicity Close (Health Sponsorship Council): Bikewise Funding Package
Ian Melsom (Land Transport New Zealand): Travel Behaviour Change Guidance Evaluation
Richard Braae (Land Transport New Zealand): National Land Transport Programme Bids
1.
Welcome
and confirmation of the agenda
Bob Alkema welcomed members to the meeting and thanked everyone for attending.
The minutes of the last meeting were confirmed.
Reena Kokotailo advised that the Ministry of Transport’s “Getting There – on foot, by cycle” Strategy was released in February and includes changes made as a result of the comments received on the draft version released in 2003. Over 1500 copies have been sent out to a wide variety of people. One of the main points that still requires clarification is whether the strategy refers to walking and cycling for transport, or if leisure trips should be included. Reena then went through the main points raised in the submissions to the 2003 draft version. The summary of submissions has been completed and Reena agreed to check if it will be released publicly. She committed to release it to CAG/PAG members, even if it was not released publicly.
Page 55 of the strategy document gives an action plan for implementation. Reena advised that two discussion papers are currently being completed that will clarify the roles, responsibilities and functions of national organisations. There is a desire for collaboration and co-ordination both nationally and regionally and processes will be considered on how best to facilitate this. This will start within the transport sector over the next couple of months, and will then include other central government agencies and then local government. It was proposed that progress on the discussion papers be discussed at the next meeting as members expressed a desire to be able to contribute.
Felicity Close gave an update on the Bikewise walking and cycling initiatives for 2005/06. She gave some background on the Health Sponsorship Council, and then detailed the outputs they have been contracted to deliver. They have received funding for walking this financial year in addition to their historic funding for cycling projects. Their funding for cycling projects has also been increased to allow enhancements to existing initiatives as well as some new initiatives. The attached slides give a list of the initiatives. As there is significant funding from transport agencies, the focus of Bikewise will be expanded to include transport as well as health outcomes. The process to recruit a walking and cycling manager, and a Director for Living Streets Aotearoa is well underway and it is hoped that these positions will be filled before 1 July 2005.
Reena opened this discussion with a question about where CAG/PAG’s current role fits with other groups such as the Health Sponsorship Council and the Walking Steering Committee. Bob felt that the role of this group is as an advisory group for other organisations to bring issues to the table for discussion and that it has no role in directing any particular organisations. The group is also about sharing information and debate. The main points raised in the discussion were:
· Celia felt there was a role on the group for someone with a mobility impairment. Bob commented that in the past Transfund has had difficulty getting a representative from Disabled Persons Assembly (DPA) to attend these meetings. Bob asked if anyone had any ideas on how best to get such a representative. Celia subsequently suggested Barrier Free Trust or CCS could be contacted.
· Jane expressed concern that there was no mandate for any weight to be attached to decisions made by the group. Options could be considered to give the group higher status so its decisions are more influential.
· Matt asked what role CAG/PAG will play in the implementation of the “Getting There” strategy.
· Reena asked if the group should be separated into two groups – one for walking and one for cycling. The general opinion was that there were so many overlaps that the group should remain joint.
· Bob commented that the environment has changed substantially due to the Transport Sector Review and the release of the “Getting There” strategy. Reena suggested that the discussion papers the Ministry of Transport is currently working on is the appropriate mechanism for this debate.
· Julie said that Safekids finds this forum valuable for information sharing and to gain an understanding of other viewpoints.
· Jane suggested that there is a need for a monitoring body and preferably as part of this group as this would give both more status. Reena asked for clarification on what Jane meant by “monitoring”. Jane said that she means actually doing the monitoring – not deciding what should be monitored. Bob suggested this could be the responsibility of a crown entity and be reported back to this group. Reena commented that there are a number of different levels of monitoring that could be considered – from statements of intent through to auditing of how local government strategies incorporate walking and cycling. Reena commented that this role could be an overall management role in keeping the industry honest. Bob suggested the Ministry’s discussion papers should take this issue forward. Reena agreed to do this.
· Leonie bought up the difficulty of getting local government to attend this meeting. She suggested an option could be to rotate membership around various regional councils and local authorities so everyone gets a chance to be directly involved. Axel was concerned about the sheer number of local authorities and how practical this option would be. Bob said that in our role as convenor of the group, Land Transport NZ will follow this up with Local Government NZ and Igenuim. Celia subsequently suggested including the New Zealand Local Authority Traffic Institute (TRAFINZ).
Jane Dawson gave us a comprehensive and interesting update on the research she has been doing on this issue. See the attached report for more details.
Ian Melsom gave a presentation on the guidelines and procedures for evaluating travel behaviour change projects that Transfund recently developed in consultation with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA). These guidelines can be downloaded from the Land Transport NZ website.
Ian said that New Zealand is the first country to develop cost benefit procedures for travel behaviour change projects. Many of these projects are generally part of a package, as on their own they only have a minimal effect. The main project types are travel plans, encouraging ride sharing, walking school buses, and personal marketing. There are many more types of projects that could potentially be included, so Land Transport NZ has set up a working group to develop a definition of travel behaviour change. The key to getting change seems to be to increase awareness of unperceived costs by providing people with information. These projects have many benefits, including decreases in congestion, possible delays to construction of new infrastructure, and efficient public transport.
Ian also advised that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) have recently submitted a large bid using the new procedures. There was quite a lot of interest in this, so Sandy gave a more comprehensive explanation of the types of projects that have been included, and clarified that no infrastructure bids have been included as they are funded under a separate output class. There was quite lively discussion on this issue. Richard Lindsay commented that that SPARC has recently invested $1m in the Auckland region to fund these types of projects, so double dipping issues need to be considered. Julie raised concern that cost benefit analysis considers a person and does not differentiate by the age of that person.
Julie handed out a graph of the total traffic fatality rate among children aged 0-14 in OECD countries. Out of the 25 countries shown, New Zealand is 23rd. She expressed concern that New Zealand may not be doing enough to address child injury rates, and that often policies put in place to address other issues have an adverse effect on child injuries. An example is congestion around schools in Auckland. Congestion means that car speeds are lower, but where congestion around schools is decreased due to more walking and cycling initiatives, car speeds increase due to decreasing congestion, and this is less safe for children. Julie suggested that monitoring needed to be set up nationally at a regional level, rather than just for individual projects.
Bob Alkema told the group that Land Transport NZ is currently in the process of re-structuring. A chief executive was appointed the end of last year, and has now developed a new structure for the organisation. At the general manager level there will be four groups: corporate services, policy and planning, partnerships and programmes, and regulatory services. Recruitment for the general managers is underway, with vacancies having been externally advertised. Other management roles will be filled in the first instance by advertising internally. It is expected that the new management structure will be in place by the end of June.
Dave Cope explained how the existing Transfund and Land Transport Safety Authority output classes had been combined now that operational aspects of these two organisations had been combined into one organisation. Reena was concerned that walking and cycling had been combined with travel demand management, as they previously used to be with new and improved roading infrastructure. She felt it was more appropriate to keep walking and cycling under infrastructure. Concern was also expressed that there is no specific safety output class. Dave explained that Land Transport NZ is driven by 5 objectives now: safety is only one of them. Dave also commented that Land Transport NZ is now moving towards sustainability, and away from the “predict and provide” model. Dave also confirmed that the Road Safety Trust would continue for the time being.
Richard Braae tabled some data on the walking and cycling allocation for local roads and state highways in the national land transport programme (NLTP). Uptake of funding was slow in the initial year due to design lags, but there has been a steady increase over the last couple of years in the level of funding allocated to walking and cycling projects. For the year ended June 2004, the approved allocation had been increased by $1m since the initial allocation. The Board has not yet made a final decision on the allocation for 2005/06. Over the next ten years funding for walking and cycling may be more constrained. This is because overall NLTP funding compared with bids is becoming increasingly constrained as the NLTP is no longer in surplus. Some members did not endorse any tightening of the NLTP allocation to walking cycling projects given they have only just begun to have separate funding allocations.
Matt Grant updated us on progress on the main Land Transport NZ - Safety walking and cycling projects. These projects are funded out the Road Safety 2010 budget and will continue to have funding until 2010.
The Pedestrian and Cycling Framework is now at the final draft stage and will soon be released for another round of consultation with those who submitted during the previous consultation round. It will be revised during 2005 to reflect all the objectives in the New Zealand Transport Strategy.
The Pedestrian Network Planning and facility Design Guide will be published in July 2005. Walkability tools are also in the early development stages. An initial meeting was held earlier this month to explore what tools are currently available. Celia asked how this information was being disseminated and what process is in place to involve other agencies in this work. Matt said that the aim at this stage of the project is to find out what is available with the longer term aim of getting some consistency between the various tools available. These tools range from computer modelling through to eyeballing or walking the route.
The “Cycling for Science” project is a perception survey of different facilities. Surveys are currently being completed in Christchurch, and once they are all completed the data will be reviewed and fed into models.
A legal review is currently being undertaken to consider whether changes to rules and legislation could improve walking and cycling safety. The review will also look at overseas practice and the findings will be discussed with the Ministry of Transport.
The Safer Routes project is also progressing well. Six areas are currently doing projects, and there are a further two projects that are a combination of Safer Routes and school travel plans. Porirua City Council is in the process or recruiting a co-ordinator and will then be up and running. Hamilton will be going by the end of the year, and preliminary discussions are underway with a further three local authorities. An ethnic consultation guide is also being developed.
The ‘Share the Road’ project aims to provide a package of tools that can be used by local authorities and will probably be trialled through two safer routes projects. A request for proposal has been sent out and a contractor will be engaged soon to start work on this project.
A review of the Road Safety 2010 Strategy was planned when the strategy was developed as a way to assess progress and consider if any changes are required. The National Road Safety Committee developed the terms of reference, and oversaw the progress of the review. Jeanne Breen, a UK road safety consultant, undertook the review. The review was completed towards the end of 2004, and has not yet been released as it is currently being used as a basis for advice to the Minister. The report will be released once the Minister of Transport has made decisions on recommendations from the review. A stock take of the safety administration programme has also been undertaken and is also feeding into advice to the Minister. Other general monitoring is also being undertaken.
Clearly there is a way to go to reach the road safety 2010 goals. Although the overall targets for 2004 were not achieved, the lower level in areas such as urban mean speeds, safety belt wearing, and walking and cycling one day hospitalisations were achieved. The walking and cycling goals will be re-evaluated as part of implementing the “Getting There” strategy. There was general agreement from the group that these goals did need to be re-evaluated and perhaps expressed as rates rather than absolutes in some cases.
Margaret Evison explained that there are currently exposure based targets in the 2010 Strategy for pedestrians and cyclists (per million hours of walking or million kilometres of cycling) and she anticipates that as more data becomes available through the ongoing travel survey, that the Ministry of Transport will be able to refine exposure based outcome measures.
Ian Clark from transit was unable to attend this meeting due to his flight being cancelled due to bad weather. Ian will instead provide a written update.
Celia told the group that there will be a meeting the next week on how New Zealand will contribute to the organisation of the “Walk 21” Conference that is being held in Melbourne in 2006 with contribution from New Zealand. Australia will be running it in combination with New Zealand, and “Living Streets” are considering bringing some of the keynote speakers over to New Zealand to do a roadshow to enable more people to hear the speakers.
Jane Dawson reminded the group that the National Cycling conference is in October. The programme is currently being developed and any ideas for presentations and discussion topics would be very welcome. The keynote speaker is from Denmark, and the conference will be held in Lower Hutt.
Jane also asked for an update on the progress of the Administrative Penalties Review as she has not heard anything recently. Margaret agreed to ask the relevant people at the Ministry of Transport for an update.
Jane also mentioned that CAN will be meeting with the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) soon about MfE work programme items that could benefit from better connections with cycling knowledge. This could include initiatives such as the “Walk the Talk” proposal that the Government lead by example in areas such as turning off lights and re-cycling paper.
Axel reminded Transit of their intention to inform the group as to what extent the RCA forum had actually been included in the development of the Supplement to the Austroads Part 14, since the project was undertaken by Transit on behalf of the RCA forum. See the minutes from the 22 September meeting.
The next CAG/PAG meeting will be held on 18 May 2005.
[Committee members only but contact LSA if there is some topic you think should be raised]