Peterborough village movement by Jordan Miller

Towar danAccessi bl eCent r alCi t yVi l l age Pet er bor oughVi l l age/Pi t aKāi kMov ement ,Chr i s t c hur c h/Ōt aut ahi byJor danMi l l er 6November2013

Ma n c h e s t e rSt r e e t 1 9 5 4

Toward an Accessible Central City Village Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement, Christchurch / Ōtautahi

1.

Introduction

Peterborough Village pita kāik is a post-quake incorporated society of residents, businesses and property owners within Christchurch Central City, specifically the area which includes lands in and around Colombo Street, Salisbury Street, Barbadoes Street and the Avon River corridor. As Christchurch rebuilds there is immense opportunity for development of pedestrian and cyclefriendly shared spaces for enhanced movement opportunities for immediate residents and businesses and for those from further afield. As Tim Stonor points out, movement is the lifeblood of a city and Christchurch was traditionally a city with a popular cycling scene. In the early 20th century cycling was an important mode of transport in Christchurch which stemmed from the city’s flat geography and wide streets. Hence the city was nicknamed ‘Cyclopolis’. Unlike Wellington and Dunedin, Christchurch is relatively unrestricted by geographic obstacles.

In the last half century the same flat geography that promoted cycling has driven low-density urban expansion and Christchurch has switched to being dominated by cars. The grid-pattern network of wide streets encourages fast vehicle movement. However this style of street network can easily be made into a great cycle-friendly network. Currently in Christchurch, some 6-8% of people commute by bike (Koorey, 2013). This may not seem a lot when compared with some European cities, where the number is around 30%, by New Zealand standards it is pretty good. For comparison, Auckland has a rate of around 1%.

The aim of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (CCDU July 2012) is to recreate Christchurch as a modern, vibrant, accessible, world class inner city, essentially a place where people want to be to do their shopping, socialize, work and live. The value of good urban design is recognised with the planned creation of shared spaces that attract people and cause them to linger because they enjoy their surrounds.

Prior to the devastating earthquakes, Christchurch was struggling to attract people into the central city. It was car-dominated, with wide inner-city streets offering quick thoroughfare. One-way streets like Durham and Madras have been the option for facilitating efficient movement through the city rather than around it. In doing so, they have created an unpleasant environment for pedestrians and cyclists. One-way streets have been the subject of extensive research and the majority of cities around the world that used to have one-way systems in their inner cities are now reverting back to two-way systems to revive business and improve the pedestrian setting. The key is to transform the streets into accessways rather than thoroughfares, encouraging people to use them only if they are going to a destination on that particular street, rather than using them as a fast pathway to somewhere else. Streets in the central city should not be designed for the most efficient movement of traffic. If this were the case, then motorways would be built and this obviously would not encourage a pedestrian friendly environment. There needs to be an emphasis on designing a

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement

pg 1

compact, walk-able central city layout within which cars are not necessary for the majority of day-today movement.

Christchurch City Council (CCC) has pledged $70 million towards improving cycling infrastructure throughout the city. The expected financial benefit from this, in terms of savings from the reduction of motor vehicle use, is $400-500 million and the conservative forecast is for a 40% increased in cycle numbers. The government’s Christchurch Central Development Unit (CCDU) developed a draft transport plan a year ago for the central city, which was recently finalised and entitled An Accessible City, He Toane Wātea (AAC). This transport plan outlines different routes along which cycling and/or private vehicle and/or public transport and/or pedestrian movement have been prioritized (Fig.1), an approach adopted from ‘Vic Roads’ in Melbourne. ‘The importance of connectivity’ is a concept to be strongly incorporated in the design process for the cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. It aims to be highly accessible with strong links for cross-city travel with Te Papa Ōtākaro / Avon River Precinct walkway and cycleway as centrepiece offering a pleasant riverside experience. The key consideration for achieving high pedestrian amenity as well as sustainable development is how the design can influence people’s choice of travel. The aim of the AAC is to reduce the reliance on private motor vehicles for transport and make walking and cycling the obvious modes of transport, for both short and longer local trips, along with handy and convenient public transport.

Figure 1 AAC diagram (page 4) with prioritised routes for different travel modes

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement

pg 2

AAC also includes the concept of ‘main streets’, which will see some key city streets prioritised for walking and cycling and take on a ‘traditional village’ streetscape that supports retail and mixed-use development. The layout design for these streets recognises the importance of community function and social interaction. Enhancing the occurrence of pedestrian and cycle movement inherently facilitates greater social interaction among communities. Mixed use development encourages and creates urban settings where people do not have to travel far. Active modes of transport like walking and cycling become the most efficient means of transport. These are part of the steps being taken to remove reliance on cars for travel within the city. Streets that have been designated as ‘main streets’ are Victoria Street and Colombo Street south (AAC p. 12).

Unfortunately Colombo Street north has not yet been included as a ‘main street’. However it is recognised as a walking and cycling priority street and hence a significantly upgraded streetscape is considered should emerge alongside private redevelopment of mixed use buildings.

Figure 2: Cross section of a proposed ‘Main Street’ from AAC (2013, p.12).

The emphasis placed on public transport into the city includes a bus exchange that will anchor the network and be able to support the anticipated increase in bus patronage over the coming decades.

Within the Village the public transport network involves lengths of Manchester, Kilmore, Salisbury and Colombo Streets (Fig.1). Developing associated upgraded pedestrian-friendly streetscapes would be appropriate.

While the AAC does its best to encourage cycling and pedestrian movement there is room for improvement and with input and consultation with local residents and businesses, different ideas can be shared and promoted to create an appropriately improved environment. CCC is more than willing to listen to what the residents have to say. The objective of this report is to examine the requirements for encouraging potential cyclists and the opportunity for creating an environment around Peterborough Village that facilitates safe cycling and community interaction, as part of the wider cycling network of Christchurch.

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement

pg 3

2.

Central City Cycle Routes

Cycling is set to become an increasingly integral mode of transport in the future. Christchurch’s flat, open geography and urban layout allow it the potential to become one of the great cycle cities of the world. Current planning must take into account the large role cycling is set to play. It is far easier to plan for things now as it is difficult to change later. AAC outlines the main routes that have been designated for cycling. The Avon River precinct and The Frame will provide attractive settings for cycleways and walkways to pass through. To avoid conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, the north side of the Avon is prioritised for cycling while the south side is prioritised for walking. There will be other strategic streets designated as cycle streets that will provide good links to the avenues and Hagley Park, including Colombo and Salisbury streets within the village (Fig.3). These will have separated cycle lanes where necessary. The 30 kph speed limit of the Inner Zone to the south of Kilmore Street will allow safe cycle travel without the need for physical protection. Cycling will be separated from walking in most cases to ensure the safety of pedestrians. However, in intentionally low-traffic street spaces, such as Peterborough Street, plus the Oxford and Cambridge Terrace remnants in the village, shared space is desirable.

Figure 3 AAC (p.11) map of cycle routes within the central city.

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita KÄ ik Movement

pg 4

Figure 4 AAC (p.9) map of walking routes within the central city

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kﾄ（k Movement

pg 5

3.

Cycle Safety

Perception of danger is the number one deterrent to attracting new cyclists (Kingham & Koorey, 2012). Cycling itself is not a dangerous activity, but it becomes dangerous when cyclists are placed in vehicle-transport environments. Even though it is dangerous, there are actually not very many crashes or injuries per distance travelled for cyclists compared with cars when the amount of cycling done is considered. Despite this, perception of safety is just as important as actual safety in acting as a deterrent to people cycling more often. There is a spectrum of different cyclists with different levels of ability and needs. This ranges from the ‘strong and fearless’ who will willingly ride on any road in any conditions, to those who are unable to cycle or are not interested. Each of these groups needs different amounts of encouragement to get them out on their bikes. The ‘strong and fearless’ need no encouragement and will ride regardless of whether there is any provision for safety infrastructure, but these people make up the small minority. Those who are interested at the thought of cycling, but have concerns about it are the largest group, 50-60%; this is the target audience (Koorey, 2013).

Land Transport New Zealand identifies cycleway design objectives in their cycle network and route planning guide (2005). There are five principles of safety, accessibility/connectivity, comfort, directness and attractiveness. There is a hierarchy of provision when it comes to safety of cyclists.

Installing cycling infrastructure is expensive and is avoided if a simpler, cheaper form of traffic calming is likely to be just as effective. Slowing down traffic is the first priority and is always considered first when improving cycle safety. Often streets will not be designated as cycle streets if they are quiet streets and are considered to be safe enough to not warrant any extra provisions, for example, on Peterborough Street. Cycle streets have been designated as such (Fig. 3) because the traffic on them is high enough in volume to pose a risk and require some sort of engineering fix.

There are a range of engineering options to provide for cyclists however each one is suited to a specific street environment and adaptability is important.

Traffic Calming Traffic calming is defined as the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behaviour and improve conditions for non-motorised street users (DT, 2007). There is a range of traffic calming measures that can be implemented to create safer environments for cyclists and pedestrians. These include physical changes to the roadway, traffic control devices and perceptual changes. Volume control is also addressed with some of these measures. Traffic calming measures need not be costly or involve installation of cycle-specific infrastructure. While the speed limit may remain 50 kph, the implementation of physical traffic calming measures to the street will not allow that speed to be reached anyway. It is a concept that focuses on integration rather than separation. While engineering separation can physically remove the potential risks it still doesn’t change the behaviour of motorists. To develop a culture of respect, acceptance and ultimately equality, between cyclists and motorists, the key is to spark a behavioural change among motorists – force them to confront the issue, become conscious of it and adapt to it, rather than be allowed to switch off to it. In some situations cycling infrastructure may allow a sense Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement

pg 6

of complacency to develop among both motorists and cyclists, which increases as they naturally assume that they can operate freely.

Vehicle speed can inherently be reduced through: Raising the street to lay flush with the footpath at the entry to a street. This creates the impression for motorists that pedestrians and vehicles are on equal terms and should be respected as such. Vertical rises in the street surface have been shown to be the most effective at reducing vehicle speed without lowering the speed limit.

Developing small radii corners; this forces cars to slow down as they turn the corner and means pedestrians do not have to look as far to check for oncoming traffic as they cross the street. It is also safer for cyclists because it prevents cars from cutting them off as they turn into side streets.

Removing all street markings, traffic signals and signs are removed from streets and intersections. Creates a ‘shared space’. This forces drivers to have a heightened awareness of their surrounds due to the sense of uncertainty. It has been shown in many cases to significantly reduce accident rates. While top speeds achieved are reduced, the overall average trip speed is increased (Hamilton-Bailie & Jones, 2005). This is also beneficial in the fact that it enhances the aesthetic appeal of a streetscape by removing the ‘cluttered’ look of cycling signage and infrastructure and is cheaper Narrowing the street width by installing parklets or plantings. Narrowing the street width has been shown to be very effective at slowing vehicle speeds.

Replacing asphalt with bricks or cobbles. This creates an audible difference for the driver and lets them know that they’ve entered a ‘different’ area.

Application of various combinations of these techniques is appropriate in the village, particularly along Colombo and Peterborough Streets.

Reducing the Speed Limit Research identifies the next step being to legally lower the speed limit to 40 or 30 kph. This has been shown to be the single most important measure to facilitate multiple uses of streets and public spaces (Hamilton-Baillie, 2008). At 30 kph there is a distinct qualitative change in pedestrian experience. A lowered speed limit generally results in a reduction in traffic volume as well. The speed limit of a street generally reflects the surrounding urban amenities. If there doesn’t appear to be a reason for it then motorists will find a slower speed unreasonable. This can be described as ‘context appraisal’; do the surrounds lend themselves to providing a strong case for a lowered speed limit? The proposed main streets provide a strong case for themselves in the fact that they are expected to be high density work, shopping and entertainment precincts designed to be as pedestrian-friendly as possible. There is understood to be opportunity for community groups associated with other streets perceived to meet the criteria but not currently designated as slow Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement

pg 7

streets, to voice their thoughts and opinions about what change should happen in their neighbourhood. After all, this further promotes the idea of inner city streets being ‘accessways’ rather than ‘thoroughfares’. In some cases further research may be required to assess the effect a lowered speed limit is likely to have on the overall traffic flow and activity in an area.

So while there is emphasis in the AAC on some streets to be used as main cycle thoroughfares, this is mainly because they are envisaged to become streets with high traffic volume and will therefore present more danger to cyclists. Peterborough Street is a good example of a street that is a sort of ‘backwater’. It is not intended to provide a main thoroughfare for traffic –Salisbury and Kilmore Streets to the north and south would have more traffic. While cycle safety is paramount, there also need to be some measures to ensure normal street function is not affected. On-street parking and private residential driveways should only be compromised in consultation with local interests.

Through creating separated cycle ways, on-street parking is reduced and cyclists still face the danger of cars reversing out of their driveways. The designers must also allow strong connectivity and not restrict the function of movement in a way that compromises the accessibility that it is trying to achieve. This is why the transport plan includes a proposed movement framework with a hierarchy of arterial, main distributor and distributor streets, arranged to facilitate optimum traffic flow whilst retaining and enhancing other values.

Figure 5 An example of an envisaged slow street (CCC, 2012)

Physical Separation There is a range of engineering fixes to separate cyclists from traffic and provide safer conditions; each has its advantages, disadvantages and suitability for different street situations.

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement

pg 8

Painted cycle lanes These are the most common form of cycleway provision along Christchurch Streets (Fig. 6). While they offer no physical protection they are cheap, easy to install and are usually very visible, especially when infilled. In Christchurch the preferred colour is green (CCC, 2013). In high traffic zones these often have rumble strips and occasionally marker posts on the road side, especially on corners. At present there are none of these lanes in the central city.

Grade Separated Cycle Lanes Copenhagen separated cycle lanes provide protection from the cyclists by providing a raised surface for cyclists that separates them from cars. Cyclists have their own lane so they are separate from pedestrians. These are common in Europe but aren’t common in New Zealand. This style of cycle lane requires that there are not too many cross point across the street to maintain continuity and are usually best suited to streets where parking is only on one side and there are few driveway crossings.

Figure 6 Painted cycle lanes (left) and grade-separated cycle lanes (right), (CCC, 2012)

Kerb Separated Cycle Lanes A kerb buffer separates the cycleway from the traffic lane or on-street parking (Fig. 7). They work best on streets with not many or conflict-points from side streets or private driveways. In some situations this style of cycle path works well, e.g. along Maitai Street and the Railway line. Another example is Ilam Road next to the University of Canterbury. This style of cycleway works well here because there are very few cross-points. It needs to be wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other. The kerb must have intermittent gaps to allow cyclists to make right turns and for pedestrians to cross.

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita KÄ ik Movement

pg 9

Figure 7 Examples of kerb-separated cycle lanes. The picture on the right is Ilam Road, next to the University of Canterbury.

Two-way Cycle Path Two-way cycle lanes or paths are also an option worth considering. They are already the standard design of off-street routes but when installed within streets, like kerb-separated lanes, they require that the street they be built on does not have too many conflicts in the form of side streets of public driveways. Because both lanes are on one side of the road, they allow cyclists in one of the lanes to travel on the opposite side of the road to which is they normally do. This poses potential danger and confusion to motorists and cyclists, so kerb-separation and cycle-specific signals at intersections may be required. Two-lanes on one side also means that the cycle lane on the other side of the road can be removed, freeing up space for parking or plantings.

Figure 8 An example of a kerb-separated two-way cycle lane in Melbourne (Stuff, 2012).

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kﾄ（k Movement

pg 10

Connectivity Like a public transport network, a cycle network must be well connected to important hubs around the city and should extend city wide. In order for the best uptake of cyclists, the network must be implemented as quickly as possible as people are less likely to use it if it is put together piece by piece. Though ‘An Accessible City’ focuses solely on provision for cycling within the central city, it is important that the CBD’s position within the wider urban context is considered. There should be a focus on linking with other cycle facilities around the city, like the Coastal pathway and the AvonŌtakaro network.

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement

pg 11

4.

Peterborough Street Cycleway Design

Pete Vill folk identified what they perceived to be inadequacies in the draft ‘An Accessible City’ and during notification made a submission, including a proposal to include an additional east-west cycle route through the northern central city. The Village supports the transition of Salisbury Street from one-way to two-way traffic. They also support the transition of Kilmore Street from one way to twoway and a speed reduction to 30 kph. They believe there is potential for enhanced private and/or public accessibility in the form of north-south laneways through the large city blocks, connecting Salisbury and Peterborough and further enhancing connectivity. Colombo Street as both a main cycle and walking route is supported. Having Worcester Street and the Avon River route as the only continuous east-west routes is inadequate and will not encourage people to pass through the central city generally. An additional route they proposed was either along Salisbury Street between Hagley Park and the Avon River; or along Peterborough Street between Hagley Park and the Avon River; or, along Salisbury Street to Colombo, South along Colombo to Peterborough Street, and then east along Peterborough to the Avon River.

In the final version of An Accessible city released, Salisbury Street (from Hagley Park to the Avon River) has been included as part of the cycleway network, and this is supported. Peterborough Street has not been designated as a local distributor or main arterial street like Salisbury and Kilmore Streets north and south of it and remains almost a ‘backwater’, which is supported. Peterborough Street has traditionally carried a smaller volume of traffic than those streets north and south of it, and locals seek that it carry only destination traffic, not through traffic. Because of this Peterborough Street doesn’t need to be a designated cycle route, but can be emphasized as a shared space. A Peterborough Street cycle route may require cycle-specific traffic signals at intersections, such as the ‘Barnes Dance’, which allows cyclists to safely cross to any which street they please without the threat of moving vehicles.

Exploration of two-way cycle lanes was also sought (like the Copenhagen Way on Matai Street)

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement

pg 12

Introduction of Laneways Part of the idea of improving infrastructure for both cyclists and pedestrians is to facilitate better community interaction. One of the ideas suggested by Peterborough Village in their submission to AAC was to include the development of laneways between blocks. Currently most of the inner city blocks are very large and to get from one side to the other requires you to walk the whole way around. Introducing laneways for public access through the blocks will increase the permeability of the blocks and quicken the time it takes to get from one side to another and in doing so, increasing accessibility and surveillance.. Tim Stonor states that people will take the path of ‘least resistance’ when choosing which route to travel on from point A to point B., so laneways will no doubt provide important thoroughfares. Forté Health has suggested the potential for a public north-south laneway to connect Peterborough Street with Kilmore Street. A pathway along the east of this new day hospital is thus now under construction.

Streetscape design Peterborough Village has also put forward ideas to transform the local streetscapes. Widening Manchester Street to accommodate day lighted waters and associated plantings, plus pedestrian, cycle and bus facilities, continue to be sought to provide for the heritage links through the lands of Tautahi to Ōtākaro. Development of parklets is sought on the less active streets (Fig. 9). A range of options for potential separation of cycle lanes, including cycle lanes separated by rumble strips and kerbs which depend on road status and the space available. Addition of parklets to inner city streets will allow more people/green spaces in the streetscape.

Aside from being aesthetically pleasing, research has shown that tall street-side plantings reduce vehicle speed by 10-15 kph compared with a street with no plantings. The legal speed limit may not necessarily need to be reduced to achieve slower vehicle speeds. Trees also reduce the need for stormwater infrastructure – canopy leaves intercept 30% of precipitation and reduce surface runoff.

Trees offer extra protection for pedestrians on the footpath and help to absorb harmful exhaust pollutants. They provide a ‘wall of green’ to create a sense of separation from vehicle movement and provide shade during summer, shelter during rain and encourage birdlife back into the city.

Flowering trees such as Kowhai attract birds such as bellbirds and kereru back into the city environment, as was observed in the village this season.

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement

pg 13

Figure 9 An impression of a transitional parklet for Peterborough Street designed by Lucas Associates.

Figure 10 An impression of a transitional parklet for Peterborough Street designed by Lucas Associates.

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kﾄ（k Movement

pg 14

5.

What do local interests want?

A short survey was distributed in Peterborough Village via email and Facebook (on 27 September 2013, closing 6 October 2013), asking various questions about how they feel about their current use of cycling, how safe they feel and how convenient they think it is. The survey was very successful, with over 300 people responding. See appendix for full list of questions and results. The key findings from the survey are similar to other research with the survey results showing that people’s perceptions of safety is the biggest deterrent to cycling more often. Most people feel that cycling is a very sensible and convenient mode of transport and would cycle more often if they could or felt safer on the road.

The question ‘I would cycle more often if I felt safer on the street’ drew a very strong response, with 71% of respondents agreeing. Many respondents commented that they have come to accept the dangers and cycle anyway, while others do not worry about themselves but fear the safety of their children. Several respondents commented about the width of many roads not being enough to accommodate cyclists. For (35%), on-street painted cycle lanes are enough to make them feel safe on the street, but even more do not feel safe (40%). 24% of respondents felt they would need more information before making a judgement. Some respondents felt that they are ‘better than nothing’ and that the lanes made them feel ‘safer’ but not ‘safe’. The majority of the comments provided shared a concern that cars will often ignore painted cycle lanes and that physical separation with a kerb or barrier is necessary. Some people think that some sort of protection from people opening doors of parked cars is also needed.

Most people perceive traffic speed to be more dangerous than traffic volume (54% agreed or strongly agreed). Many respondents commented that both are as dangerous as each other and that the type of traffic is important, e.g. trucks and buses are more dangerous than cars. Most respondents (65%) would rather take a longer route if it meant they avoided riding on busy streets.

Respondents commented that taking quieter routes instead of busier ones often means riding on

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement

pg 15

streets with no provision for cyclists at all (the busier streets usually have some provision), meaning the danger can still be high.

Nearly half of respondents (46%) agreed that they would feel safer riding on inner city streets if the speed limit was reduced from 50 kph to 30 kph. A quarter of people were neutral and the remaining quarter disagreed. Some commented that they don’t cycle in the inner city anyway so the question is irrelevant to them. A few respondents suggested that a slower speed limit will frustrate impatient drivers and make them do dangerous manoeuvres that will put cyclists at risk. The question that drew the most one-sided response was “Cycling is the most convenient method of transport for short trips (less than 2km)”. 89% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this. Only 3% of respondents disagreed and no-one strongly disagreed. Some people commented that they usually walk instead of cycle for these trips and several said that they agree with the question but they don’t cycle or walk for these trips though they know that they should.

46% of respondents strongly agreed that having safe cycling infrastructure on the streets where they live would encourage them to cycle more. Another 33% agreed with this while only 5% disagreed. 55% of people agreed that a better connected network of city-wide cycleways would encourage them to cycle more. Many comments involved the discontinuity of current lanes and the inconsistency of layouts at intersections. The majority of people would also be happy to see the onstreet parking outside their house reduced if it meant there was room for kerb-separated cycle lanes.

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement

pg 16

For the question, “If you could, how often would you like to cycle?” the majority of respondents (63%) stated that if they could, they would like to cycle very often (4-5 times a week) and another 21% said that they would like to cycle often (2-3 times a week). The results show that respondents typically cycle very often or cycle rarely or not at all, with not so much in between. About half of respondents cycle for exercise and leisure at least twice a week.

6. Conclusion There is certainly opportunity for enhanced cycling opportunity in Christchurch and there is no better time to implement changes than now, as part of the rebuild. Survey results have shown that cycling is an important part of daily transportation for Peterborough Village interests. Cycling is viewed positively among village interests and it is certainly something most would like to do more of, though their perception of safety is currently deterring them from doing it more often. Many have expressed the desire for more safe-cycle infrastructure, like kerb-separated cycle lanes. Painted cycle lanes are better than nothing but are mostly inadequate. Those responsible for encouraging more cycling and walking within the central city must listen to the wants and needs of those people who will be using them. Increasing cycling number will lead to a range of benefits associated with reduced car reliance, will help pave the way for more sustainable transport systems within Christchurch, and can provide opportunity for enhanced streetscapes for all users..

6 November 2013 Jordan Miller Geography Department

whilst intern with Lucas Associates

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kāik Movement

pg 17

References

1. Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (2013) An Accessible City, October 2013, Christchurch, New Zealand, 45 pp.

2. Christchurch City Council (2013) Christchurch cycle design guidelines, Christchurch, New Zealand, 74 pp.

3. Christchurch City Council (2013) Draft Christchurch Transport Plan, Christchurch, New Zealand, 79 pp.

4. Department of Transport (2007) Manual for Streets, Thomas Telford Publishing, 146 pp.

5. Hamilton-Bailie, B. (2008) Towards shared space, Urban Design International, 13, 130-138.

6. Hamilton-Bailie, B. & Jones, P. (2005) Improving traffic behaviour through urban design, Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers, vol. 158, 39-47.

7. Kingham, S., Koorey, G. & Taylor, K. (2011) Assessment of the type of cycling infrastructure required to attract new cyclists. NZ Transport Agency research report 449. 152 pp.

8. Koorey, G. (2013) What if... we build a cycle-friendly-Christchurch?, What if Wednesdays lecture, University of Canterbury, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7e1sNe0HvY, accessed on 30/09/13.

9. Land Transport Safety Authority New Zealand (2004) Cycle Network and Route Planning Guide, 92 pp.

10. Peterborough Village Pita Kﾄ（k Inc Soc. 1 February 2013. Submission http://www.peterboroughvillage.org.nz/2013/06/an-accessible-city/ 11. Stonor, T. (2013) Spatial Accessibility and Human Behaviour, Space Syntax Christchurch Presentation, July 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncff2SfcQAs accessed 10/09/13

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kﾄ（k Movement

pg 18

Appendix

Peterborough Village Cycling Survey Results - Date 27 Sept 2013-6 October 2013

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kﾄ（k Movement

pg 19

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kﾄ（k Movement

pg 20

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kﾄ（k Movement

pg 21

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kﾄ（k Movement

pg 22

Toward an Accessible Central City Village - Peterborough Village / Pita Kﾄ（k Movement

pg 23