Wellington City Council Communit

Living Streets is pleased to make a submission on the community outcomes process. Living Streets Wellington is part of Living Streets Aotearoa, which is an advocacy group with a vision of “More people walking more often and enjoying public places - young and old, fast and slow, walking, sitting and standing, commuting, shopping, between appointments, for exercise, for leisure and for pleasure.”[1]

Our submission is focused on transport. However, pleas note that we strongly support other draft community outcomes which identify the desirability of a walkable, pedestrian friendly city with great public places.

· Social: item 4: “…the city centre is pedestrian friendly” (although we believe this outcome should apply to the whole city)

· Culture: item 3: “Wellington has a unique range of ….accessible venues…”

· Urban development, item 1: “Urban development supports and develops Wellington’s uniqueness as a walkable, compact harbour city…”

· Urban development, item 2: “Urban renewal… encourages many different uses of public spaces.”

· Communication, item 5: “Street signage is clear, stylish and easy to follow.”

The rest of our submission below does not use the format in the submission document. While we generally strongly support the proposed outcomes, we wish to propose an alternative approach to the outcomes document that would express these in a more useful way, and incorporate some aspects which we felt had been missed or inadequately covered. Before choosing to do so, we discussed the issue with our representative on the review panel, who advised that the panel will be considering alternative structures in light of the submissions, and would therefore find feedback on that helpful.

Our submission focuses on issues affecting pedestrians, but we have considered a wider range of outcomes that need to be integrated with walking-specific issues.

· walking needs to be given more prominence in the Community Outcomes Statement, for reasons explained below;

· the review panel should also reconsider the structure of the outcomes and the panel should consider reducing the number of outcome headings (given the inter-relatedness of the outcomes).

It is important to recognise that transport outcomes strongly link with other outcomes. In particular:

· Transport systems are one of the most important shapers of our physical environment. In some areas up to 50% of the land is devoted to transport corridors, car parking, etc, and this is a dominant driver of the appearance of the city. Most noise is also generated by cars, along with much of the air pollution. Transport corridors also tend to drive urban form, by limiting the way in which buildings and open space can be arranged in space.

· People need to move around the city if they are to fully participate in their communities. Movement is usually necessary to access services and opportunities (e.g. jobs, libraries, parks, cultural events) which are an important part of people’s economic and social lives. But individuals also need to interact with other members of the community and feel part of the community. Isolation is likely to create mental health problems, and in some cases may also generate antisocial behaviour. Ease and equity of access is therefore essential if we are to have a well-functioning society.

· Transport choices affect health. Exercise is essential for good health, and transport choices strongly influence the amount of regular daily exercise that is generated by day-to-day activities (as opposed to periodic recreation activities). Transport modes also vary in their generation of safety and health risks (accidents, hazardous pollution). In addition, people’s perception of safety will be affected by how many other people are around them (for example if more people walk, streets feel safer for those using them).

· Transport is an important input to most businesses. Tradespeople need to be able to efficiently get to their jobs. Shops need to have deliveries of goods, but they also need to be sure that their customers can get to the shop and get their goods home. Inefficient or ineffective transport systems will therefore have a negative effect on the economy. Tourists who walk spend more than those in cars.

Note: When we use the terms “walking” and “pedestrian” we include wheelchairs, mobility scooters, pushchairs and other mobility devices. Walking facilities are also useful for users of cycles, scooters, roller blades and other non-motorised transport forms where the users are choosing to move at a walking pace, or are not confident enough, fit enough or mature enough to interact with traffic (e.g. small children).

Walking (with the above definition) is the most equitable transport mode. Anyone except the bed-ridden can do it. It is not necessary to attend special training courses, invest in new equipment, get a licence. So it has no economic cost to the walker, and is available to even the poorest citizen.

It is also the healthiest transport mode. It provides a form of exercise that has high health benefits and few risks (provided the environment in which walking is happening is safe). And it has positive mental health benefits, through encouraging people to interact with their environment, neighbours, etc.

And it is the most sustainable and environmentally friendly mode. It does not generate pollution and does not need to use non-renewable resources. Pedestrian facilities can be incorporated into the natural environment with few impacts, and can be a positive part of the built environment (e.g. Civic Square and the Bridge to the Sea).

Walking will never, of course, be the only transport mode a city must have. Long distance travel, and the movement of heavy goods, both require other modes. But walking can be integrated easily with those modes. Public transport and walking are natural partners.

Given the above, walking (together with cycling and similar “active modes” which have similar benefits) should be promoted and facilitated, ahead of other transport options. People need to be encouraged to choose this mode for short-distance trips. To do this, we need to:

· Make walking not just possible but pleasant. That means providing pedestrian routes that are attractive, safe, quiet, comfortable, and interesting. To achieve that, pedestrian routes need to be separated from traffic, or the traffic significantly calmed and altered so its impact is reduced.

· Make walking faster. For some trips, time will not be a significant consideration (a pleasant stroll along the waterfront on Sunday afternoon), but for most trips pedestrians are trying to get somewhere in a reasonable time. There are two significant factors which make walking trips slower – waiting to cross roads, and not being able to take the most direct route. Hills also have an impact, but are harder to fix. Perceptions of lost time may also be higher than the reality. Even where the wait to cross the road is short, because it breaks the rhythm and is seen as a nuisance (in a way that stopping to smell the flowers or admire the view isn’t) it will be perceived as slowing the trip more than it actually does.

· Make walking the expected mode. For many people in Wellington, this is the case, and getting the car out of the garage is something that only happens if there is a good reason to do so. But for many others, the car is the first choice, and walking is not seen as the normal way to do activities such as grocery shopping, going to school, etc.

· Making walking practical. Walking is not practical if people live too far from their workplaces, shops, cultural centres, etc. Urban design needs to facilitate the availability of services in or close to residential areas, for example by encouraging mixed land use.

· Removing the need to own a car. Unnecessary car ownership is an undesirable cost to the economy (and a serious economic burden for poor households). If people have a car, they are less likely to walk. And the more cars there are, the more space is needed for parking and traffic (at the cost of pedestrian routes, green space, etc). The public transport system (including goods delivery services) should be designed to ensure that those without cars are not significantly disadvantaged. Urban form should facilitate transport systems built around efficient public service routes between nodes, and pleasant walking routes within local areas (e.g. within the inner city, around local shopping centres, between houses and local services such as schools, parks and dairies). And car ownership should not be subsidised (e.g. by providing free parking spaces on public land).

· Walking is frequently not pleasant. Desirable walking routes seldom coincide with green spaces (the waterfront and the Botanic gardens/cemetery being obvious exceptions). Pedestrians are generally forced to walk alongside roads, on footpaths that are inadequate (where they exist at all). They are exposed to undue noise and pollution, rubbish and rain. In many areas, pedestrians do not feel safe, particularly at night.

· Walking is unnecessarily slow, and often frustrating. Crossing roads is difficult. There has been a general policy of giving preference to traffic flows over pedestrian flows and it has been highly frustrating for walkers, leading to risk-taking by pedestrians, and accidents. Multiple road crossings may be required because of intersection design or because footpaths disappear. While there are many shortcuts, they are not present in all places, poorly constructed and poorly signposted.

· In many cases, walking is not even seen as a viable option, never mind a preferred one. There have been significant shifts away from walking for certain types of trips – getting children to school, shopping, etc.

· Wellingtonians have an inaccurate perception of the risks of different transport choices. The perceived risk of assault while walking tends to be higher than the real risk, and the perceived risk of using a private car lower than reality. This is driving perverse transport choices. In addition, perceptions of how to lower the risk of assault tend to be focused on high cost options (more policing, cameras) and less on the low cost option of simply having lots more people on the streets looking out for each other. Trends in the design of private property (high walls, apartments without shops on the ground floor, etc) are also reducing real and apparent safety in adjacent pedestrian areas.

· Urban design has in the past followed an early twentieth century approach of separating houses and services, reducing connectivity and making trips much longer.

· Car ownership has increased, and those without a car or a driver’s licence are seriously disadvantaged. There are parts of Wellington where it is difficult to access services without a car (e.g. rural areas, areas with no weekend public transport, suburbs where it is considered unsafe for women to walk at night).

So Living Streets would like to see a formulation of transport outcomes, and other outcomes (e.g. in relation to urban design) that reflect the desirable conditions set out above. While the draft outcomes are compatible with the above, we do not believe that they give sufficient weight to the key points.

We also note that, in many cases, the draft outcomes also incorporate means to achieve the outcomes (e.g. infrastructure provision, ticketing systems for public transport, etc). While infrastructure is important, infrastructure-creation activities would be better excluded from the Outcomes statement, as infrastructure provision is a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

· Wellington is a walkable city. Services are clustered in compact nodes that are pedestrian friendly. Almost all in-city journeys can be undertaken by walking, or by a combination of walking, cycling and public transport.

· Walking and cycling are seen as attractive options for day-to-day transport needs, recreation, and tourist activities. Pedestrian and cycle routes are safe, comfortable, well-located and attractive. Open spaces, art and other attractions are readily incorporated into walking trips. Tourists are choosing to walk between attractions.

· Wellingtonians do not see car ownership as a necessity. Car ownership is on average less than one car per household. Transport costs are lower and accessibility is not significantly less for non-car households.

· The impacts of transport infrastructure on the environment are minimised. Most vehicles are quiet and emit few or no hazardous emissions. Routes with heavy traffic are few and separated from people spaces.

· Most transport investment is to support modes other than the private car, and overall transport costs have been significantly reduced by increases in walking and vehicle-use efficiency, reducing the economic and environmental burden of unnecessary transport. Congestion does not affect commercial vehicle movements (public transport, goods movement, tradespeople).

We believe it would be useful to have some more detailed outcomes that give something concrete that can be readily measured and would be indicative of progress against the broader outcomes. These might be in the form of indicators (e.g. car ownership rates) or specific place outcomes (e.g. new pedestrian routes). We would suggest the following:

Urban residents choosing not to use cars express high satisfaction with the affordability and effectiveness of their transport options.

Most tourists are using public transport services or tourist providers, and appreciate Wellington’s walkable nature.

At least 90% of work or educational commuting trips by those living within the urban part of the city or travelling from other cities) are by walking, cycling or public transport.

Daily car usage has decreased among city households by 25%, with a switch to more active modes.

Car ownership rates have steadily reduced and reached 1 per household or less.

Transport expenditure per head of population, and its impacts, have been reduced by 10% from 2005 levels without loss of quality and effectiveness of access.[2]

In terms of public transport access, all residents in the urban part of the city live within 15 minutes’ walk of a public transport service that has a frequency of at least every 15 minutes during weekdays, and 30 minutes during weekends and between 10 pm and midnight.

All transport corridor space dedicated to long term parking has been reallocated to other transport corridor uses or open space uses.

All inner city streets (except for narrow and short access lanes) and at least 80% of suburban streets have two footpaths that are designed for easy use by mobility scooters. All other streets have one footpath of that standard.

Congestion is no longer a significant issue for commercial transport operators.

Health-damaging air pollutant emissions (fine particulate matter, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides) from vehicles have been halved.

Average daytime traffic noise levels in all areas other than motorway corridors are below 55 decibels at 10 metres from the road edge.[3]

Waiting times for pedestrians to cross traffic at intersections and other points of high use are less than 15 seconds, and less than 10 seconds along the ‘golden mile’.

Public awareness and perceptions of risks related to transport choices are relatively accurate.

Wellington has comprehensive city/town centre pedestrian maps available (paper and/or

Railway stations, the airport, bus interchanges and the ferry terminal have been annually audited for pedestrian accessibility and have plans for their upgrades if necessary.

Wellington i-sites (Visitor Info Centres) have a walking information section/area.

Wellington City Council has a specific officer designated for pedestrian contact.

The city has a number of new major pedestrian/cycle routes which offer a pleasant, largely traffic-free, attractive walking/cycling opportunity, including:

Major walking routes within the CBD are wide, well designed, and involve minimal delays to pedestrians from crossing traffic. These include:

There is a fast and frequent public transport system between the city and the airport.

[1] http://www.livingstreets.org.nz/admin.html

[2] It is expected that transport costs may otherwise rise with increasing energy costs and the introduction of climate change measures such as the 2007 carbon tax.

[3] See Appendix C, City of Vancouver Noise Taskforce Report, 1997: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/970513/citynoisereport/append-c.htm