1. The speed differential between cyclists and other faster mobility devices can make some pedestrians uncomfortable.  While a shared path can provide a good experience for all users in some environments, mainly where there are low numbers where footpaths are narrow and pedestrian numbers are high users will not have a good experience sharing.

2. Shared use paths are often implemented as a way of improving a connection for people on bikes, however the needs of all people that are expected to use them should be considered.

3. Just as separating vehicle traffic and bicycle traffic on the roadway can improve safety, comfort, and attractiveness, whilst reducing risk, this approach can also be applied to separating those travelling by bicycle and pedestrians using a pathway.

4. Some pedestrians will avoid using shared paths because of anxiety about interactions with cyclists, so their installation should be limited. In all cases, options to provide a fully separated path should be considered first.

Moving curb and channel is a very expensive exercise. The Streets for People project is about trying new ways of reallocating existing road space at relatively low cost, in an adaptable way.  Moving kerbs will more likely be part of a permanent future solution.

This can be considered however, a zebra crossing is not a safety treatment, and they typically have a poorer risk profile than doing nothing or providing a pedestrian refuge where a pedestrian takes responsibility for crossing the road.  This poor safety outcome is now being addressed by ensuring vehicle speeds are around 30km/h, usually by constructing a raised speed table.  The main restriction to building more raised zebra crossings is budget.    

From international studies the crash risk at an intersection including driveways is 1.8 to four times higher for a one-way cycle path when compared to a mid-block (No intersections or driveways) section.  This means we think it is up to four times more likely a crash will occur at a driveway or intersection.  For a two-way path on one side of the road, this risk factor goes up to between 4.5 and nearly 12 times.  We think drivers are not used to looking the “wrong” way for cyclists at their driveways as is the case on St Vincent Street in Nelson where some users continue to report having bad experiences.  At intersections we think drivers are used to looking for oncoming traffic in set places, so a cyclist coming at them from the “wrong” direction can be unexpected and a higher risk of not being seen. 

In New Zealand, there has been a 19% overall reduction in crashes on streets where flush medians have been installed. Rear-end crashes have reduced by 66% and incidents involving pedestrians by 30%. 

This is high level crash rate data that will be less relevant on low volume and low speed roads.  It will be derived using historic crash data from roads with higher volumes and speeds, as well as some with lower volumes and speeds.  If we consider removing the flush median more in-depth research will be required into how this crash rate can be expected to play out on Salisbury Road.   

There are some opportunities for improving our off-road cycling network which are part of our wider plans, but research also shows that for many people, directness of commutes and trips is an important factor.  We still need to make provision for cyclists on the identified roads which provide good direct connections between where people live and many of their other destinations.

New Zealand has important goals of reducing emissions from transport by up to 40% nationwide by 2050.  The status quo is not an option.  Giving space and in some cases priority to people walking and cycling may mean more drivers are delayed at peak times.  This is the reality of reducing emissions.  It’s about giving people choices – if you choose to drive at peak times, of course you can expect delays.  We must make it easier to choose other options which are better for the environment, and everyone else.

The main schools in Richmond have off-street drop off and pick up facilities, which should be available for high needs/low mobility users.  In addition to these, surrounding residential streets (which do not have separated cycleways planned) have ample parking opportunities and able-bodied folk should have no trouble walking 200 metres if they must be dropped off or picked up.

Trees improve amenity and provide a high value in the overall road environment.  Any decision to remove a tree will need to be robust and based on specific safety concerns.   Our strategies generally proposes that more trees and vegetation should be added to our urban streets to improve amenity values.

The initial intent is to provide for eight to 80 years old, noting that advice for younger cyclists is that they should be accompanied by adults whenever using the road network.