Dear New Zealand Transport Agency,

Observation of the partially constructed Pito-one to Melling Cycleway (P2M) and the related website indicate the existence of multiple serious design failures. If the observations have been correctly interpreted, the outcome of design decisions will not comply with the Austroad Guide to Road Design Part 6A, Paths for Walking and Cycling, adopted by NZTA. These design decisions will create hazards to cyclists who will be expected to suffer death or serious injuries over the life of the asset, measured in decades. If not rectified, the design failures will ensure the P2M cycle way is dangerous-by-design.

This is the third of a set of 3 requests for information that seek to understand:
1. What processes should have been followed to arrive at a safe design,
2. What was actually done that resulted in design failures
3. What will be done to rectify the design failures

Given that details of the P2M design have not been made available to the public via any known channel, the information available to assess the design is limited. Rather than simply making a request for information under the Official Information Act, some effort has been made to explain the observations and the perceived deficiencies. It is entirely possible that other hazards remain unidentified making the P2M cycleway even more dangerous-by-design.

DESIGN FAILURES
Investigation has confirmed that the design of the P2M cycleway does not comply with the Austroad Guidance. Differences between Australian and New Zealand e-bike regulations require the P2M cycle path to be engineered to a higher design speed to achieve and equivalence of safety to a cycle path in Australia. Simple compliance with Austroad as written is not sufficient. Part of the design process should include adjusting the guidance for local regulatory and site conditions.
As a result of the identified design failures, cyclists using the P2M can expect to suffer death or serious injuries through no fault of their own. Correction of design failures is absolutely within the scope of any project, and P2M is no exception.

VISION ZERO
Under the VisionZero ethics–based transport safety approach, no death or serious injury is acceptable, and yet the NZTA is currently building a cycleway where death or serious injury is expected. If a cyclist makes a slight mistake, or is simply blown off course by a wind gust, they are vulnerable to high impact forces and traumatic injuries, with the real possibility of death. If the NZTA had applied the Vision Zero safety approach to P2M, this request for information would not exist.

THE QUESTION
The question to answer is simply what does the P2M project plan to do to achieve the construction of a safe cycle path that meets the objectives of Vision Zero?

THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
Please provide the following information to satisfy this request:
1. The plans to rectify the design failures and deliver a safe P2M cycleway.

Yours faithfully,

Darren Conway