Ana Nicholls
From:
BUS: Assurance
Sent:
Friday, 15 February 2019 8:39 AM
To:
Soon Teck Kong
Subject:
FW: Response letter
Morning Soon,
Below is the recent complaint from Withheld under section 7(2)(a) about the traffic signal timing in relation to cyclist speed.
I have recommended that we get together to discuss whether we need to further explore his issue. He has stated the he
is not requesting information however would like a response on whether we would consider reassessing the Victoria
Street and Karo Drive intersection traffic signal timing.
Please let me know how you want to us to respond.
Thanks
Ana
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 |
M +6421940418 |
F E [email address] |
W Wellington.govt.nz |
|
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2019 4:22 PM
To: BUS: Assurance; Justin Lester
Subject: Re: Response letter
Just another update. 115 people say they occasionally travel less than 20km/h, 13 people say they always travel
less than 20km/h, and 46 people say they always travel *above* 20km/h.
I really hope that this shows the council that there are a non negligible amount of people that travel at a slower
speed than 20km/h. As discussed before, this means that there are plenty of intersections that would mean that
the cyclist can enter on a green, and still be inside the intersection when the "all-red" phase ends, and other
vehicles have a green light to enter the intersection. This is utterly unsafe, as it is encouraging other vehicles to
go into the intersection while a cyclist is still attempting to get across safely.
1
I will re-iterate. I'm incredibly upset at the councils attitude towards this. I have mentioned this many times
before, got told that I'm a minority that safety doesn't matter by a staff member in charge of designing safe
intersections. I then worked out how the intersection is not safe given the timings and distances provided by the
council. From that, I was told that the council would not do anything. I was told the standard the council is
following to design these intersections, but many of the references were left out. After finally getting the
appropriate references, I noted that the council is not implementing the standards they follow correctly. Then I
get radio silence, which I assume once again is the council refusing to do anything to improve the safety
standard.
The Victoria St/Karo Drive intersection is currently unsafe for cyclists. I would like to see the council fix this
ASAP. This fix should take into account of cyclists travelling below 20km/h (as it is defined as a "mixed
environment", which defines cycle speed as "< 20 km/h"). This fix could be done quite easily by increasing the
all-red time to adequately meet the needs of all road users so they can get across the intersection fully without
other vehicles coming towards them.
I should note, the council has repeatably pointed out that they are attempting to promote a cycle safe culture.
This discussion and actions from clearly show that this is not the case, and is most likely a publicity stunt for
the council's upcoming election which is utterly terrible. You were voted in to make a difference to the people
in Wellington Justin, not to just sit back and say you care and do absolutely positively nothing. This is your
chance to make a serious impact towards the safety. This is not a single issue with myself as shown by the
facebook comments (which has only been up a few days and already has hundreds of interactions...).
Look forward to a response, from anyone. Please do not treat this as an LGOIMA request. I am not requesting
any information. I am making a complaint about safety concerns, backed up by real evidence. I would expect a
response as such, and actions to resolve the safety concern.
Cheers,
Hugh
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 09:26, Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
wrote:
Hi Ana,
Just to give an update on the results I've got via facebook
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/), which again is information I
believe the council could have proactively got themselves. Would be interested in the councils comment to my
previous email as well and whether any action is now being taken.
100 people say that they travel below 20km/h at some point, or have entered an intersection on a green and
exited on a red while cars coming towards them.
12 people say that they *always* travel below 20km/h.
41 people say that they always travel *above* 20km/h.
In addition, some of the comments I would say would be beneficial for the council to read and comprehend.
Many comments are relating to going uphill, that is the most common time people say they go slow
(makes sense).
A few mention that along Waterloo quay the intersections are very difficult for cyclists to go through
(and many opt for the pedestrian instead). This is because from a standstill, the lights turn orange, then
2
red far too quick for the cyclists to make it
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=2198234073
569392&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%2312%22%7D, https://www.facebook.com/
groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=2198277726898360&comment_tracking
=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R6%22%7D, https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/219822
1406903992/?comment_id=2198655906860542&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22
%7D)
Struggling to gain more than 20 km/h on an onzo
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=2198451553
547644&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D,
https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=21982620368
99929&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D)
People actively slow down for intersections due to more accidents happening there
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=2198518956
874237&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D)
One in particular that I thought was a really novel idea that is probably in that Austroad standard
somewhere. https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=2198665
953526204&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D
In Chch on one of the wide avenue crossings (made worse by being slightly on an angle) an additional set of detectors were installed
in the middle of the intersection, placed such that only a bike would trigger both. If a bike is detected still crossing when the lights
change, an extra long all-red phase is introduced before the next green starts. Quite clever as it only needs to operate when needed,
and no special knowledge is required by a rider to make it work. Worth trying in a few places?
If Chch can do it, why not Wellington? Have the council ever considered this?
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 14:37, Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
wrote:
Why thank you Ana.
I've cc'd in the Mayor again, as I believe that this has been handled very poorly by the teams involved (apart
from the assurance team have been very good at dealing with my many emails), and there is an extreme lack
of safety culture at the council that should get resolved.
Can you confirm that the council is aware that the Victoria/Karo intersection is classed as a "Mixed
environment".
Can you also confirm that the council has explicitly only programmed the light sequence for cyclists
travelling at 20km/h or above?
Can you also confirm that the council is aware that in a "Mixed environment" that the "Cyclist operating
speed" is "< 20 km/h".
I would say given the above, the council can surely see that they are not following the standards they claim to
follow to the letter. Can this intersection please be fixed at the earliest possible time to ensure the safety of
cyclists travelling at speeds lower than 20 km/h.
3
Can the council then go and find any other intersection that has been termed "Mixed environment", and
ensure that the light timing is appropriate for cyclists travelling at speeds lower than 20 km/h.
I should note, the council really should have put all this data together themselves. I had reported this many
times over the years, included videos of it happening, requested the data, observed that it was unsafe, gave
concrete examples of how it was unsafe. The councils' reaction to this was ... to do nothing. Now that we
have gone back and forward for several months, I'm glad the council should now be able to see the error of
their calculations, and look forward to seeing the safety of cyclists improve drastically throughout the city.
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 14:21, BUS: Assurance <[email address]> wrote:
Hi Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
It is on page 9 Table 2.3:
Bicycle network functions of the Cycling Aspects of Austroad Guides.
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 |
M +6421940418 |
F E [email address] |
W Wellington.govt.nz |
|
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
From:Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2019 2:18 PM
To: BUS: Assurance
Subject: Re: Response letter
Hi Ana,
4
Thanks for that. Can I ask where that reference was? Or at least what the heading above "< 20 km/h" is?
Kinda seems like you should be taking into account speeds less than 20, which is kinda what I've been
saying all along.
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 14:03, BUS: Assurance <[email address]> wrote:
Hi Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
The term ‘Mixed Environment’ is quite broad as details above. The key is that the facility is not separate from other
road users therefore you are correct in how you interpreted it . This is why Victoria Street would sit within this
category.
Thanks
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 |
M +6421940418 |
F E [email address] |
W Wellington.govt.nz |
|
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
5
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2019 12:00 PM
To: Ana Nicholls
Subject: Re: Response letter
Hi Ana,
Thanks for that. What would make my request for council staff cycling less substantial? I was imagining an
email to all staff asking the question of whether they are a cyclist, and if they travel less than 20km/h ever.
You would get responses back either yes or no, which could be simply counted.
As mentioned above, I'm trying to get the council to realise that not all cyclists can maintain a speed of over
20km/h, and would hope that the council cares about its staff members (so would hopefully make the
intersections safe for them, if not for Wellington residents). If you could help me with my request to get
*some* data of council staff members travelling slower than 20km/h on a bicycle then that would be great.
Otherwise if that is not possible, my next plan is to ask for a list of staff members who cycle, then a follow
up request asking for a subset of those staff members whether they cycle at less than 20km/h ever.
Also, I'm very glad that the council is now discussing possibilities of slower cyclists. From the responses
before today, it seemed as if the council had made its mind up to ignore any cyclists that can't travel at
minimum 20km/h. I would be interested in being kept in the loop for these discussions (ie, whether the
council is sticking with the 20km/h minimum and any reasons for that, or whether they are considering
fixing the traffic light timing).
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
6
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 11:43, Ana Nicholls <[email address]> wrote:
Hi Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
I have forward on your concerns and points about the maximum speed of 15km/h for the onzo bikes and how we
are assessing some intersections based on a cyclist speed of 20km/h. I agree that there are different types of
cyclists with different speeds that we need to consider.
The relevant teams are going to be meeting to discuss this and I have asked to be kept in the loop so I am able to
report back to you.
As for your request to ask all Council staff if they are cyclists and travel less than 20km/h – I will have to decline
under section 17(b)as this information does not exist. This would involve substantial time to retrieve and collate
the data.
I have asked the Team about what ‘Mixed Environment’ refers to again to make sure that I understand it correctly
and will get back to you.
I will be in touch.
Cheers
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 |
M +6421940418 |
F E [email address] |
W Wellington.govt.nz |
|
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
7
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2019 11:19 AM
To: Ana Nicholls
Subject: Re: Response letter
Hi Ana,
Have you had a chance to process my remarks about the internal correspondence (verbal), the evidence of
bikes going less than 20kmph, the onzo details. Also an acknowledgement that the request for all WCC
staff member bicycle speeds would be good just so I can keep track of it.
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 08:27, Ana Nicholls <[email address]> wrote:
Morena Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
Thank you for sharing what you want to achieve. This helps a lot.
I am on a course today and will address you questions and request when I am back in the office
tomorrow.
Thanks
Ana
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
8
-------- Original message --------
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Date: 5/02/19 5:18 PM (GMT+12:00)
To: Ana Nicholls <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Response letter
Oh and just realised you didn't mention onzo speeds in your response. A prime example of bikes that
*struggle* to get to 20km/h, and that sort of bike share scheme was not present back when austroads was
developed.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, 4:47 PM Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Thanks for that Ana, outlines a lot.
As for my angle. I am all for cycle safety. I have brought up concerns about entering on a green and
getting bombarded with cars coming towards me in the past, which I now know is because I travel less
than 20km/h sometimes (up hill, after exercise, night time when less visibility, traffic, all sorts of things
factor into my decision to travel at slower speeds in order to increase my safety). I am fully aware that if a
light turns orange then I should stop, and I like to think I'm one of the good cyclists that actually does that
(I see many that don't, or even run through a red). I'm more interested in the case where a cyclist enters on
a green and gets caught out. We have narrowed that down to because you use the Austroads standard
which appears to have a blanket rule of 20km/h for cyclists.
As for comments on your requests:
* Twice you have referred to a "mixed environment", but I haven't found that in any of the references
you've provided (or online in other austroad documents). I'm assuming it is because there are both cars
and cyclists involved and no cycle lane at that point. If this is correct then we can call that finished.
* You also originally referred to the incline being taken into account for the all red timing. From the
austroad reference you provided last time, it appears that the incline is only taken into account for the
yellow/amber timing, not for the all red timing, and not specifically for cyclists. Can you confirm that
incline is not taken into account for cyclists during the all-red timing, and that all cyclists are assumed to
travel at 20km/h no matter what the incline.
In the email, paragraph "Between the time you sent your email on 10 January – 11 January all the internal
discussions have been verbal."
I request this information, and have requested this information originally as "internal correspondence",
and I would regard that as information as held by the agency under s 2(4) of LGOIMA.
As for the paragraph started "In response to your request to have any evidence of any cyclists travelling at
the speed
lower than 20km/h on any intersection without the Council’s control".
I would have thought the evidence I've provided over the years (showing screenshots with speed
information on them, or actual videos which you can gauge timing information) would have fallen under
that. I had a feeling that other cyclists may have been caught out similar to myself, so any reference to
cyclists entering on a green and exiting on a red would also fall under that (by definition they are not
travelling 20km/h, otherwise they would exit before red). If no other cyclists have reported any of that,
then we can leave it with that, though I would hope that the council takes it on board that at least one
person travels slower than 20km/h, which could indicate that more do as well.
As for the paragraph started "To answer your question about any submissions from public and internal
9
employees
regarding cyclist speeds under 20km/h, in order to collate this information we would have
to go through each submission individually."
Can we limit this to just council staff. This can be done with minimal time via an all staff email asking for
responses on whether they are a cyclist, and if so whether they ever travel slower than 20km/h. Note that
this information should be deemed to be held as per s 2(4) of LGOIMA.
The point I am trying to make here is that it is possible for cyclists to travel less than 20km/h, and maybe
the standard you use could be wrong. I understand it is a national standard, but it was also designed a long
time ago, before cycling was such a big culture. Now all sorts of cyclists ride on roads, including children
(seen via personal experience, and many photos of the island bay cycle way debarkle), elderly (ditto), and
just plain unfit (I've been caught behind them sometimes, and sometimes I am one of those people, and
what better way to get fit than cycle!). I am hoping from this continual pressure to the council that they
might put a tiny amount of resource into researching this, deciding for themselves that 20km/h is either
perfectly fine (absolutely no cyclists travel less than 20km/h), or it might need changing (council could
use their own policy, or push back to the national standard providing them with research).
In terms of the other intersection I requested timing for (and heavy vehicle stopping time) at the
Willis/Chews intersection. You may have noticed that there was an article in the paper today
(https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/110350912/bus-drivers-running-red-lights-attract-almost-200-
complaints-in-a-year) about buses running red lights. Some top comments on that was that the orange
light was too short for the buses to safely stop in time. I understand that you have probably designed that
intersection (and others in the area) for the speed limit of 30km/h, however, when a bus has standing
passengers they have to reduce their stopping time to ensure passenger safety and comfort. In the
austroads references I've read on traffic signal timings, there was no indication that this is taken into
account.
I hope that makes sense, and you can acknowledge my clarifications on the gathering of cycle speeds
under 20km/h.
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 15:37, Ana Nicholls
<[email address]<mailto:[email address]>> wrote:
Kia ora Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Attached is your response which addresses multiple requests and the concerns you have raised regarding
cycle speeds and traffic light timings.
Between the time you sent your email on 10 January – 11 January all the internal discussions have been
verbal.
I have worked with multiple Council networks to collate this data and I am comfortable with Councils
decision. I have asked if I could call you to talk to understand what you want to achieve and I am still
happy to do this. It will help with understanding your why and can better help provide what you need.
Please let me know when you are available.
Cheers
Ana
10
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 | M +6421940418 | F
E [email address]<mailto:[email address]> | W
Wellington.govt.nz<http://wellington.govt.nz/> | [Facebook]
<https://www.facebook.com/wellingtoncitycouncil> | [Twitter] <http://twitter.com/wgtncc>
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee
only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy
or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your
assistance is appreciated.
[http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/Images/email-signatures/wcc-banner-
new.jpg]<http://wellington.govt.nz/wcc-email-campaign>
11
