Wheels to Wings Cycleway
Independent design option review – Final
Prepared for
Christchurch City Council
Job Number
CCC-J136
Revision
B
Issue Date
25 March 2022
Prepared by
Transport Engineering
Road Safety
Summary
Major cycleway routes are developed to cater for the ‘interested but concerned’ group of cyclists,
including both adults and children aged 10 years and over. However, major cycleways do more than
just improve the quality of the street from cycling perspective. They also improve the walking
environment through the provision of more and higher quality crossing facilities, including better public
transport access in many instances where existing bus stops have poor crossing facilities. When
providing shorter crossing distances for cyclists across side roads this can also improve overall safety
conditions at the intersection for all road users. These are just examples of improvements that come
about when implementing cycleway projects in the urban context. What is important is that cycleway
projects do not introduce unintended outcomes that manifest as major safety issues or lower the quality
of life of residents.
We believe that the Submitters proposal (Community concept – developed by Bill Greenwood and Brian
Neill) to provide a cycle facility on the south side of Harewood Road is well-intended in terms of
continuity and safety for cycleway users. To achieve this in the central part of the route between
Nunweek Boulevard and Greers Road a two-way cycle path is proposed on the south side of the central
median within a one-way (westbound) access road. This means all through traffic is moved to the north
side of the existing central median with opposing directions of travel separated by a 1.8m flush median.
Parking on north side is located in indented parking bays (such that in some locations the footpath is
reduced to 1.6m wide). We consider this design results in safety concerns that cannot be ignored.
These safety concerns include the safety of the right turn movements for drivers into the access lane
being undertaken quickly as drivers will feel vulnerable waiting to make that turn, particularly close to
the intersections where they can be mistaken for right turners at the intersection. In their haste to enter
the access road they may not see cyclists in the process of crossing the access road entry and if they
waited for a cyclist already making the crossing the vehicle would be protruding into the through traffic
lane. Whilst the design removes the cycleway/driveway conflict in the Nunweek Boulevard to Greers
Road section, the design (perhaps inadvertently) actually increases the number of vehicles crossing the
cycleway. We also consider that transferring all traffic to the north side of the median now poses a
higher risk to northern residents reversing out of their driveways and making right turns exiting and
entering their driveways.
On balance, acknowledging that both options have pros and cons, we support the CCC design
over and above the Submitters design which we believe has negative impacts on safety that
mean the design is not feasible from a safety perspective.
We also consider that the residents on the north side of the street in the central section are also
negatively impacted by the road space reallocation from both a safety and amenity perspective.
Wheels to Wings Cycleway Independant Review - FINAL for CCC
1
1. Introduction
Christchurch City Council (CCC) commissioned the authors to undertake an independent review of two
design options for the Wheels to Wings cycleway on Harewood Road and establish an opinion on the
relative merits of each option. The options are the CCC Preferred Option and a Submitters proposal
(Community concept – developed by Bill Greenwood and Brian Neill).
Our review has been based on an examination the plans for the two options, holding a workshop with
both parties and a site visit on bicycle. The workshop gave us the opportunity to have the designs
explained and for us to ask questions, it also identified the points-of-difference between the designs
which the parties cannot reach agreement on. Our review focuses on those points-of-difference.
We are both Chartered civil engineers with over 20 years’ experience in the transport industry. We both
regularly undertake reviews and audits drawing on our expertise. Over the last 5 years we have both
been heavily involved in the preparation of industry best practice guidance in relation to walking,
cycling, public transport, street design, speed management and safety engineering. This best practice
work has also involved training the industry on these topics.
It is important to note that best practice is not something that can always be applied in a cut and paste
manner. Typically, there is more than one way of applying best practice guidance to respond to site-
specific conditions. It is all about applying professional judgement whilst referring to any such guidance
and considering the broader impacts of any decisions. For example, the choice of cycle facilities on a
particular route requires an assessment of a range of possible options that might be appropriate for the
context. Best practice for selecting a design option is the use of multi-criteria analysis, which is a
process that has been used by the CCC for the assessment of all the major cycleway routes to inform
their decision-making on the preferred option. This process was tailored for the route to reflect the
community concerns or contextual aspects of the route, this is not uncommon practice.
The best practice guidance documents applicable to cycleway route planning, facility choice and design
are listed below, noting that a wider suite of best practice guidance is also used when considering other
road design and safety aspects, such as speed management etc:
•
CCC Christchurch Cycle Design Guidelines
•
Cycle Network Guidance (CNG) – Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
• Austroads guides (when referred to by the CNG)
It is noted from our observation of major cycleways developed to date, that the streets where they are
located are generally also improved from more than just a cycling perspective. They also improve the
walking environment through the provision of more and higher quality crossing facilities. This also
offers better public transport access in many instances where existing bus stops have poor crossing
facilities. When providing shorter crossing distances for cyclists across side roads this can also improve
overall safety conditions at the intersection for all road users. These are just examples of
improvements that come about when implementing cycleway projects in the urban context. What is
important is that cycleway projects do not introduce major safety issues or lower the quality of life of
residents.
A key observation from our site visit is that although Harewood Road has a 50km/h speed limit it still
feels like a higher speed environment. This cycleway project offers the opportunity to create a street
design that supports a lower speed that save lives and avoid serious injuries, whilst contributing to
wider societal benefits such as improved accessibility, physical activity rates and environmental
outcomes.
Wheels to Wings Cycleway Independant Review - FINAL for CCC
2
2. Design Options
The two design options considered in this review are:
• The
CCC design is based on the following objective -
Major Cycleways are to cater for the
‘Interested but Concerned’ group including both adults and children aged 10 years and over.
Cycle routes should be safe and be perceived as safe, provide personal security and limit
conflict between cyclists and other route users.
• The
Submitters design is based on the following objective
- This alternative incorporating a
Regional cycleway fully on the south side the length of Harewood Road can provide the safest,
best connected, lower financial cost and environmentally sustainable transport network
improvement for our community.
The key features of the two options are outlined in Table 2.1 below along with points of agreement and
disagreement. Based on our understanding from the workshop discussion we have identified these
points of agreement and disagreement between the CCC design team and the submitters design team.
We then provide a commentary of the key points of difference (those in red text in the table).
It is important to note that our review does not comment on matters of traffic efficiency (such as
intersection changes that can impact vehicle capacity) or construction cost differences between the two
designs, rather we are focused on the design differences and in particular the safety aspects. Verifying
the points of difference on these matters would have required delving into traffic models and cost
estimate breakdowns, which is not achievable in the available timeframe for this review. Although, it is
noted that from a design perspective that the major signalised intersection designs proposed in the
Submitters design are compromised due to the emphasis on capacity, for example there no central
islands on Harewood Road for the signal poles and do not provide adequate cycling facilities.
We note that tree removal/replacement and on-street parking are also design related issues and these
can be easily quantified from a ‘numbers’ perspective. However, from what we have reviewed these
aspects are similar with both designs, for example accommodating on-street parking where feasible.
This includes both designs aiming to retain business related parking in response to initial concerns from
businesses. By way of comparison, in the vicinity of the Copenhagen Bakery the CCC design has 27
on-street car parks between Trafford Street and Breens Road (10 north side and 17 south side), and
the Submitters design has 24 on-street car parks between Trafford Street and Breens Road (11 north
side and 13 south side).
Table 2.1 Outline of design options
Corridor
CCC Design
Submitter design
Points of agreement and
section
disagreement
•
•
Waimakariri
Shared path on the south
Shared path on the south
In agreement:
Road to
side of the road, 3m wide
side of the road, 2.5m wide
• Shared path on south side
Nunweek
• Traffic signal crossing at
• Traffic signals at Woolridge
Boulevard
Harewood school (with a
(if the traffic volumes are in
raised safety platform)
the range that CCC
• Traffic signal intersection
informed the Submitter at
at Woolridge Road
the workshop)
• Traffic signal crossing just
In disagreement:
west of Nunweek
• Width of shared path
Boulevard (with a raised
safety platform) to
• Traffic signal crossings at
transition to a one-way
Harewood school
• Traffic signal crossing just
west of Nunweek
Wheels to Wings Cycleway Independant Review - FINAL for CCC
3
Corridor
CCC Design
Submitter design
Points of agreement and
section
disagreement
separated cycleway on
Boulevard in CCC design –
each side of the road
submitter concerned about
isolated traffic signals
•
•
Nunweek
One-way separated
Two-way cycle path on the
In agreement:
Boulevard to
cycleway on each side of
south side of the road
• Removal of one traffic lane
Farrington Ave
the road through the
within a one-way
in each direction will not
removal of one traffic lane
(westbound) access road
impact capacity
on each side
for property access
•
•
Traffic signal intersection
Traffic signal intersection
• All through traffic is moved
at Breens Road
at Breens Road
to the north side of the
•
central median with
Traffic signal crossings at
opposing directions of
the Bishopdale roundabout
In disagreement:
travel separated by a 1.8m
•
flush median. Parking on
Location and type of the
north side located in
cycle facility
indented parking bays
• Safety of the cyclists at
• Traffic signal intersection at
driveways in the CCC
Breens Road
design
•
•
Traffic Signals at
Safety for general traffic
Bishopdale Mall entrance
• Convenience for residents
• Off-set T traffic signal
• Traffic Signals at
intersections to replace the
Bishopdale Mall entrance
roundabout
• Off-set tee traffic signal
intersections to replace the
roundabout
•
•
Farrington Ave
Two-way cycleway on the
Two-way cycleway on the
In agreement:
to Matsons
north side of the road
south side of the road
• Nil
Ave
• Traffic signal changes at
• Traffic signal changes at
In disagreement:
Greers Road
Greers Road aimed at
improving intersection
• Location and type of the
• Traffic signal crossing just
efficiency
cycle facility
south of Matsons Ave
•
•
Nature of the traffic signal
Traffic signal intersection at
changes at Greers Road
Matsons Ave
• Having the cycleway
interact with the Mitre 10
driveways on the CCC
design
•
•
Matsons Ave
One-way separated
Two-way cycleway on the
In agreement:
to Railway line
cycleway on each side of
south side of the road
• Nil
the road
In disagreement
• Location and type of the
cycle facility
Wheels to Wings Cycleway Independant Review - FINAL for CCC
4
2.1
Point of difference – Driveway conflicts
Any cycle facility located adjacent to a residential or commercial property boundary with a vehicle
access point introduces potential conflict between cyclists and those accessing the adjacent property in
a vehicle. The submitter promotes their design for the central section on the basis of continuity but also
safety as the two-way cycle path is away from driveways. This commentary covers the safety
implications of cycleways past driveways and how this has been managed in the CCC design.
• Residential exiting drivers – the distance from boundary to the cycleway is generous ensuring
reversing vehicle have good visibility of cycleway users, coloured surfacing
• Parking intervisibility for entering drivers– no stopping lines are set back from driveway extents
to allow better visibility
• High use driveways – coloured surfacing and a low mountable kerb line has been used between
the footpath and the cycleway to reduce speeds in and out of the high use driveway such as the
Caltex petrol station, we also understand there is potential use of speed reduction devices at
the boundary in consultation with the businesses during the detailed design stage.
Although the Submitters design removes the cycleway/driveway conflict in the Nunweek Boulevard to
Greers Road section, the design (perhaps inadvertently) actually increases the number of vehicles
crossing the cycleway. This occurs because all vehicle movements to/from driveways have to cross the
cycleway when they enter and exit the westbound access road, as do all vehicle movements associated
with adjacent activities that park on-street. The CCC design does not result in any vehicle movements
that intend to park on the south side of the street crossing the cycleway. Furthermore, concentrating all
potential vehicle crossings of the cycleway at the access road entry and exit points increases the
likelihood of a cyclist encountering a vehicle crossing the cycleway than the CCC design.
Overall, the Submitters design results in more vehicles crossing the cycleway and a higher
likelihood of conflict away from intersections than the CCC design.
2.2
Point of difference – Traffic signal crossings
The Submitter’s design differs from the CCC design in that it specifically avoids installing midblock
traffic signals at Harewood School and does not propose signalised crossings just west of both
Nunweek Boulevard and Matsons Ave. The submitters rationale for not installing a signalised crossing
at Harewood School is that
low use isolated traffic signals have a recognised poor safety record. This
position is consistent with Waka Kotahi Pedestrian Network Guidance (PNG), which states
Pedestrian
signals are usually installed where there are enough pedestrians to ensure the signals are activated
regularly. If the signals are not activated regularly, drivers can develop the expectation that pedestrians
will not be crossing, leading to safety issues. The alternative may be to signalise a nearby intersection.1
The PNG goes on to note that
There may be locations where, due to a desire to encourage pedestrian
priority, a signalised crossing may be appropriate with lower than normal pedestrian flows.
Both the CCC design and Submitter’s design see the cycleway cross from the south side of Harewood
Road to Waimakariri Road. Providing a safe and convenient crossing of Harewood Road near the
Waimakariri Road intersection is clearly a critical component of both proposals. Based on other
signalised crossings installed in the city that have low use outside of school times, such as Sparks
Road outside Hoon Hay School and Colombo Street outside Thorrington School, we do not believe that
these signals will be called so infrequently that they will create safety issues, especially given this is a
major cycleway route. We also note that most schools still provide supervision at traffic signals at the
1
https://nzta.govt.nz/walking-cycling-and-public-transport/walking/walking-standards-and-
guidelines/pedestrian-network-guidance/design/crossings/priority-crossings/signalised-crossings/
Wheels to Wings Cycleway Independant Review - FINAL for CCC
5
start and end of school days. The Austroads Pedestrian Facility Selection Tool confirms that a
signalised crossing is an appropriate design response in this environment.
On balance, we believe that the raised signalised crossing option is the safer and more
convenient option than the Submitter’s design, especially for cyclists and the Harewood School
children.
Under the Submitters design, the crossings at Nunweek Boulevard and at Matsons Ave are not
required as the cycle facility remains on the south side of the road. However, the CCC design uses this
form of crossing to aid cycleway users and pedestrians across Harewood Road, as per the discussion
above we support the use of signalised crossings along the route to aid crossing. These features will
also help with reflecting the 50km/h speed environment compared to the current road design where
there are long stretches with uninterrupted for traffic which leads to higher than desirable speeds. A
key benefit of the crossing west of Nunweek Boulevard is the improvement for bus users as the current
bus stop is isolated from any footpath or crossing.
2.3
Point of disagreement - Safety for general traffic
The most fundamental difference between the design options for general traffic occurs in the section
between Nunweek Boulevard and Greers Road. The CCC design option effectively mirrors the current
situation except for removing one lane of traffic in either direction. It retains the central median to
separate opposing directions of traffic, including on the approaches to the signalised intersections with
Breens Road and Greers Roads. Whereas the Submitter’s design places all traffic on the north side of
the existing raised island apart from traffic that is associated with properties fronting the south side of
Harewood Road that use a new westbound access road on the south side of the road, as shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 2 Cross section in the central section (Submitters design)
The Submitter’s design includes two narrow 3m wide traffic lanes, a narrow 1.8m wide flush median to
separate opposing directions of traffic, a 1.2m wide buffer to the kerb on the north side of the
carriageway and a 0.2m wide buffer from the central median. On-street parking is provided in indented
bays. This design results in the existing power poles being located very close to the live traffic lane,
despite a 1.2m buffer shown in the Submitters design. The current situation has the parking lane
(approximately 2m wide) providing a buffer to the power poles and the CCC design will move the traffic
lane even further away from the power poles.
The layout means that any bus stops (2.7m wide) need to straddle the indented bays and the buffer.
The 1.6m footpath adjacent to the bus stop is not sufficient to accommodate people waiting with prams
or wheelchairs. Overall, we consider that the walking experience will be less pleasant on north side but
obviously improved on the south side with far less traffic adjacent to the footpath.
Wheels to Wings Cycleway Independant Review - FINAL for CCC
6
We are also concerned that the 1.2m buffer could be used/mistaken as an eastbound cycle lane and
this unsafe due to the parked cars (risk of dooring). The CCC design provides a better buffer between
the footpaths and the traffic lane with the presence of the cycleway and parking spaces.
We also note that any vehicle waiting in the flush median to turn right will effectively block the
westbound traffic lane due to the below standard width of both features. Whilst a car could ‘sneak’ past
a vehicle using the flush median, it would need to do so at very slow speed. We do not consider this is
an acceptable arrangement for an arterial road.
The proposed cross section on the north side is not considered appropriate for an arterial road (or even
a collector road) and we believe it would be flagged in a Road Safety Audit as a ‘significant’ safety
issue.
The physical separation of opposing traffic provided by the CCC design is superior from a safety
perspective (removes head-on collision risk). The Submitter’s design also includes other features that
are expected to result in poor safety outcomes, including:
• Right turn movements can be made into and out of residential properties on the north side of
Harewood Road. The current layout and the CCC design do not permit right turn movements
into or out of these properties and encourage routes to/from properties that only involve left turn
movements. Enabling right turn movements on the north side will lead to more crashes than the
CCC design.
• Reversing out of driveways on the north side will become much more difficult as the parking
lane that currently exists can no longer be used as a manoeuvring area.
• Proximity of the access road entry locations to major signalised intersections. Poor safety
outcomes are expected from right turn movements into the access road, misinterpretation of the
intentions of vehicles indicating to turn right (resulting in the risk of rear end crashes), as shown
in Figure 2. There is also the potential for queuing back into the main traffic lane as larger
vehicles (such as waste collection and delivery vehicles) wait for cyclists using the two-way
cycle path.
Figure 2 Right turns into the access lane (Submitters design)
We consider that moving all through traffic to the north side of the central median, as proposed
in the Submitter’s design, is fundamentally unsafe for all road users and will make living on the
north side less pleasant.
Wheels to Wings Cycleway Independant Review - FINAL for CCC
7
2.4
Point of disagreement – Location and type of cycle facility
The submitter states that “
Connectivity is very important for intended cyclists that don’t feel comfortable
riding on the road. This is achieved by continuing a dual cycleway on the south side of Harewood Road
well clear of minor arterial traffic flow for the majority of its length”. Also “
Our concept removes the
need for two and ideally a third set of isolated cyclist activated traffic signals. These increase delays
and potential crashes for both cyclists and road traffic.”
For cyclists travelling the full length of Harewood Road, the CCC design requires westbound users to
cross the road twice (once at Matsons Ave and once just west of the Bishopdale roundabout) and
eastbound users to cross once (at Nunweek Boulevard). Continuity is one of the five key cycleway
route criteria (CNG) and is often used as an assessment criterion. Whilst the use of one-way and two-
way facility types along the route is not ideal, they apply to relatively long sections of the route, which
means many users do not need to cross from side to side that often.
Our view is that the CCC design, given the length of the route and the crossing facilities
provided, delivers an acceptable level of continuity for cyclists.
The submitters design to achieve a facility on the south side of the road in the central section of the
route, is to locate a two-way cycle path on the south side of the central median. Whilst this type of
arrangement is well-intended and provides a good level of continuity, it introduces safety issues for
cyclists and traffic at the one-way access road entry and exit points. These safety issues are discussed
in more detail in Section 3. The submitters design also limits the ability for residents on the north side
of the street to access the two-way cycle path and the footpath on the south side of the access lane as
they need to use the footpath to cycle to the closest refuge crossings across the two-way road and also
the raised central median. This happens at all two-way cycleways in the city, however the difference is
that the crossings on the north side are very narrow for bicycles and will feel very uncomfortable at
peak times when traffic volumes are high. Access for residents to the CCC design in the central section
is provided via the one-way cycle facility to crossings within the wide central median.
The section between Farrington Ave and Matsons Ave is similar between options, with the CCC design
having a two-way cycling facility on the north side of Harewood Road and the Submitter’s Design a two-
way facility on the south side. Aside from being on different sides of the road, the designs have similar
safety and functionality features so no facility is considered better than the other.
Our conclusion with regard to the submitters design is that it provides good continuity but at
the expense of safety, and also the convenience for those wishing to access the two-way cycle
path from the north side of Harewood Road.
2.5
Point of disagreement - Convenience for Residents
This matter relates to convenience for residents travelling in vehicles.
The Submitter believes their design provides superior convenience for residents in the Nunweek
Boulevard to Farrington Ave section of the route compared to the CCC design. The CCC Design
effectively retains the existing level of convenience for residents, as right turn movements into and out
of properties remains banned by the retention of the raised central median. The introduction of a one-
way cycleway on each side does not change the level of convenience for residents, as this
infrastructure only formalises the space currently used by cyclists and still requires residents entering
and exiting driveways to give way to cyclists.
The Submitter’s design could be considered to improve convenience for residents on the north side of
Harewood Road by enabling right turn movements to and from properties. However, the extent to
which right turn movements from the narrow flush median will be possible, especially during peak traffic
periods, is debateable. Furthermore, removing the ability for residents to reverse into the parking lane
when exiting their driveway will make it more difficult to enter Harewood Road. Convenience for
Wheels to Wings Cycleway Independant Review - FINAL for CCC
8
residents on the south side of Harewood Road is assessed to be similar to the current state, as despite
the ease of entering and exiting properties via the access road, entering the main traffic flow from the
access road will be more difficult.
Overall, we consider the Submitter’s design will provide a similar level of convenience for
residents travelling in vehicles as the CCC design, as any improvement in convenience
associated with the ability to turn right into and out of driveways will be balanced by a reduction
in convenience associated with the removal of the parking lane as manoeuvring space.
3. Summary of the options
Table 3.1 below outlines the summary of the points of difference discussed above.
Table 3.1 Summary of points of difference
Point of
CCC design
Submitter design
difference
Driveway
• Good separation distance at residential
•
No driveway conflicts in the central section
conflicts
driveways and coloured surfacing.
where the two-way cycle path is away from
driveways, but conflict is now concentrated
• High use driveways have good separation
at the entry and exit to the access lane and
distance and coloured surfacing, may need
with higher volumes (also includes on-street
further design treatments at the boundary
users).
to raise awareness but that is matter of
detailed design.
Traffic signal
• We consider that the signalised crossings
•
Lack of priority crossing at Harewood School
crossings
do not pose a major safety issue and will
for cycleway users is considered a safety
help support the 50km/hour speed limit
issue.
compared to the current situation.
Safety for
• Considered acceptable.
•
The right turn movements for drivers and
general
conflicts with cyclists at the access lane
traffic
entries are considered a major safety issue.
•
Transferring all traffic to the north side of the
median now poses a much higher risk to
residents making right turns exiting and
entering their driveways.
•
Insufficient space at bus stops.
•
Cross section on the north side of median is
too narrow for an arterial road and will give
rise to multiple safety issues.
Location and
• Considered acceptable that facility
•
Considered good from a continuity
type of cycle
changes from two-way to one-way given
perspective but at the expense of safety and
facility
the length of the route and good crossings
convenience for residents.
provided.
Convenience
• Retains existing level of provision.
• Pros and cons result in net neutral outcome.
for residents
Any improvement in convenience associated
with the ability to turn right into and out of
driveways will be balanced by a reduction in
convenience associated with the removal of
the parking lane as manoeuvring space.
Wheels to Wings Cycleway Independant Review - FINAL for CCC
9
4. Conclusion
We believe that the Submitters proposal (named the “Community preferred concept” in the submission)
to provide a cycle facility on the south side of Harewood Road is well-intended in terms of continuity
and safety for cycleway users. To achieve this in the central part of the route (between Nunweek
Boulevard and Greers Road) a two-way cycle path is proposed on the south side of the central median
within a one-way (westbound) access road. This means all through traffic is moved to the north side of
the existing central median with opposing directions of travel separated by a 1.8m flush median.
Parking on north side is located in indented parking bays (such that in some locations the footpath is
reduced to 1.6m wide). We consider this design results in safety concerns that cannot be ignored.
These safety concerns include the safety of the right turn movements for drivers into the access lane
being undertaken quickly as drivers will feel vulnerable waiting to make that turn, particularly close to
the intersections where they can be mistaken for right turners at the intersection. In their haste to enter
the access road they may not see cyclists in the process of crossing the access road entry and if they
waited for a cyclist the vehicle would be protruding into the through traffic lane. Whilst the design
removes the cycleway/driveway conflict in the Nunweek Boulevard to Greers Road section, the design
(perhaps inadvertently) actually increases the number of vehicles crossing the cycleway. We also
believe that transferring all traffic to the north side of the median now poses a higher risk to northern
residents reversing out of driveways and making right turns exiting and entering their driveways.
On balance, acknowledging that both options have pros and cons, we support the CCC design
over and above the Submitters design which we believe has negative impacts on safety that
mean the design is not feasible from a safety perspective.
We also consider that the residents on the north side of the street in the central section are also
negatively impacted by the road space reallocation from both a safety and amenity perspective.
This document has been produced for the sole use of our client. Any use of this document by a third party is without liability and you
should seek independent advice. © Abley Limited 2022. No part of this document may be copied without the written consent of either
our client or Abley Limited. Refer
to https://www.abley.com/output-terms-and-conditions-1-1/ for output terms and conditions.
Wheels to Wings Cycleway Independant Review - FINAL for CCC
10
