Agenda of Traffic Subcommittee

HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_BLACK_AGENDA_COVER

Traffic Subcommittee

8 February 2017

Order Paper for the meeting to be held in the

James Coe 1 Meeting Room, Dowse Art Museum, 45 Laings Road, Lower Hutt,

on:

Monday 13 February 2017 commencing at 3.00pm

Membership

Cr Margaret Cousins (Chair)

Cr Edwards (Deputy Chair)

Cr Barratt	Cr Briggs
Cr Lewis	Cr Sutton
Cr Barry (Alternate)	Deputy Mayor Bassett (Alternate)
Cr Bridson (Alternate)	Cr Lulich (Alternate)
Cr McDonald (Alternate)	Cr Milne (Alternate)

For the dates and times of Council Meetings please visit www.huttcity.govt.nz

TRAFFIC SUBCOMMITTEE
Membership:	One Councillor from each Ward
Alternates:	One Councillor from each Ward
Quorum:	3
Meeting Cycle:	The Traffic Subcommittee will meet on a six weekly basis.
Reports to:	Council

PURPOSE

The Traffic Subcommittee has primary responsibility for considering and making recommendations to Council on traffic matters and consider any traffic matters referred to it by Council.

For the avoidance of doubt, “traffic” includes parking and excludes temporary road closures under clause 11(e) of the Tenth Schedule of the LGA 1974 and the Transport (Vehicular Traffic Road Closure) Regulations 1965.

TERMS OF REFERENCE:

The Traffic Subcommittee will have authority to:

1.0 Do all things necessary to hear, consider and make recommendations to Council on any traffic related matter.

1.1 Regulate its own processes and proceedings to achieve its purpose and objective.

1.2 Provide options for the consideration of Council.

The Chair will have authority to:

1.3 Refer any traffic matter to:

1.3.1 A Community Board; or

1.3.2 The Policy and Regulatory Committee; or

1.3.3 Council.

DELEGATED AUTHORITY:

The Traffic Subcommittee will have delegated authority to carry out activities within its terms of reference.

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Traffic Subcommittee

Meeting to be held in the James Coe 1 Meeting Room, Dowse Art Museum,
45 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

Monday 13 February 2017 commencing at 3.00pm.

ORDER PAPER

Public Business

1. APOLOGIES

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Generally up to 30 minutes is set aside for public comment (three minutes per speaker on items appearing on the agenda). Speakers may be asked questions on the matters they raise.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

4. Recommendations to Council - Hutt City Council - 14 March 2017

a) Buick Street, Petone - Proposed P180 Mobility Parking Restriction (Copy to: Petone Community Board) (16/1220)

Report No. TRS2016/5/238 by the Traffic Engineer 4

b) Burnham Street and Plunket Ave, Petone - Proposed Give Way Controls (Copy to: Petone Community Board) (16/1192)

Report No. TRS2016/5/236 by the Traffic Engineer 7

c) Tennyson Street, Petone - Proposed Roundabouts, Associated Give Way Controls, Traffic Island and No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Copy to: Petone Community Board) (16/1210)

Report No. TRS2016/5/237 by the Traffic Engineer 12

d) John Street and Richmond Street, Petone - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions (Copy to: Petone Community Board) (16/1412)

Report No. TRS2017/1/4 by the Traffic Engineer 19

e) 288 Jackson Street, Petone - Proposed P15 Parking Restriction (Copy to: Petone Community Board) (16/1413)

Report No. TRS2017/1/5 by the Traffic Engineer 23

f) Te Whiti Grove, Korokoro - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Copy to: Petone Community Board) (16/1415)

Report No. TRS2017/1/6 by the Traffic Engineer 26

g) Marine Parade, Eastbourne - Proposed Bollards (Copy to: Eastbourne Community Board) (16/1414)

Report No. TRS2017/1/40 by the Traffic Engineer 31

h) Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limits 2016/2017 (Copy to: Eastbourne Community Board) (16/1432)

Report No. TRS2017/1/41 by the Traffic Engineer 35

i) Waterloo Road - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions (16/1204)

Report No. TRS2016/5/239 by the Traffic Engineer 45

j) Vincent Street - Proposed P180 Parking Restrictions (16/1173)

Report No. TRS2016/5/240 by the Traffic Engineer 48

k) 22 Kings Crescent - Proposed P30 Parking Restriction (17/5)

Report No. TRS2017/1/7 by the Traffic Engineer 52

l) Onehuka Road, Tirohanga - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (16/1408)

Report No. TRS2017/1/2 by the Traffic Engineer 55

m) Mulberry Street, Maungaraki - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (16/1411)

Report No. TRS2017/1/3 by the Traffic Engineer 59

n) 191 Dowse Drive, Maungaraki - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (16/1407)

Report No. TRS2017/1/1 by the Traffic Engineer 64

o) 108 Dowse Drive, Maungaraki - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (16/1175)

Report No. TRS2016/5/241 by the Traffic Engineer 67

5. QUESTIONS

With reference to section 43 of Standing Orders, before putting a question a member shall endeavour to obtain the information. Questions shall be concise and in writing and handed to the Chair prior to the commencement of the meeting.

Kate Glanville

SENIOR COMMITTEE ADVISOR

4 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

04 November 2016

File: (16/1220)

Report no: TRS2016/5/238

Buick Street, Petone - Proposed P180 Mobility Parking Restriction (Copy to: Petone Community Board)

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for installation of a P180 Mobility Park Restriction in Buick Street, Petone, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of a P180 Mobility Park Restriction in Buick Street, Petone, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

Background

2. Council has received a request from the Petone Baptist Church, Nº 38 Buick Street, to provide a Mobility Park Restriction in the area.

3. The Petone Baptist Church administrator states that there are several mobility impaired people who attend the church and there is no mobility park in the vicinity of the church.

4. The church administrator also notes that other businesses and fountain users will also benefit from a mobility parking restriction.

Discussion

5. The installation of a P180 Mobility Park Restriction, as shown in Appendix 1 to this report, will provide an allocated mobility park in the area.

Options

6. The options are:

a. To take no action and accept that no mobility parks are provided in the area or,

b. To install the P180 mobility park restriction as proposed.

Consultation

7. A plan of the proposal and a petition form was forwarded to the Petone Baptist Church administrator who consulted the two directly affected properties at Nº 36 Buick Street and Nº300 Jackson Street.

· Both consulted properties signed a petition in support of the proposed P180 Mobility Park.

8. At the time of printing the agenda, the Petone Community Board meeting had not been held. The Board’s resolution will be separately circulated.

Legal Considerations

9. This restriction is made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

10. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 signs and markings budget.

Other Considerations

11. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government as it provides an improved level of service for Mobility Card holders. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it uses standard road markings and signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Buick Street - Proposed P180 Mobility Park Restriction 42.2016 16/1220	6

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager

7 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

06 October 2016

File: (16/1192)

Report no: TRS2016/5/236

Burnham Street and Plunket Ave, Petone - Proposed Give Way Controls (Copy to: Petone Community Board)

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of Give Way Controls and associated No Stopping At All Times Restrictions at the intersections of Burnham Street with Plunket Ave and Plunket Ave with South Street as shown in Appendices 1 and 2 attached to the report.

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the installation of a Give Way Control and associated No Stopping At All Times Restrictions at the intersection of Burnham Street with Plunket Avenue as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report; and

(ii) approves the installation of a Give Way Control and associated No Stopping At All Times Restrictions at the intersection of Plunket Avenue with South Street as shown in Appendix 2 attached to the report.

Background

2. Council received a request from a resident of Plunket Avenue to improve road safety in the vicinity of the intersection with Burnham Street.

3. The concern expressed is that drivers are treating the intersection like a corner and not giving way to traffic along Plunket Avenue.

4. The resident also notes that there have been several near misses as a result of drivers pulling out of Burnham Street in front of oncoming traffic along Plunket Avenue.

5. The area has been experiencing increases in traffic volumes due to the new sports fields in Bracken Street and the Bob Scott Retirement Village in Graham Street.

6. Council officers have investigated the area and, for consistency, recommend that the intersection of Plunket Avenue with South Street is also addressed.

Discussion

7. The installation of Give Way Controls as proposed will reinforce the priority for traffic at these intersections and therefore improve safety.

Options

8. The options are:

i. To leave the intersections as they are without any controls and accept the risk or,

ii. To install the proposed safety improvements.

Consultation

9. The request was made and is supported by the residents of Nº31 Plunket Avenue.

10. For the intersection of Burnham Street with Plunket Avenue:

· Consultation documents were delivered to the five directly affected properties at Nº 27, 29, 30, 32 and 34 Plunket Avenue.

̵ Two (40%) questionnaires in support of the proposal were returned.

11. For the intersection of Plunket Ave with South Street:

· Consultation documents were delivered to the five directly affected properties at Nº 1 and 2 Plunket Avenue and Nº 16, 18 and 20 South Street.

̵ One (20%) questionnaire in support of the proposal has been returned.

12. At the time of printing the agenda, the Petone Community Board meeting had not been held. The Board’s resolution will be separately circulated.

Legal Considerations

13. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

14. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 road markings and signs budget.

Other Considerations

15. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it improves safety for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilizes standard road markings and signs to minimize the likelihood of accidents.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Burnham Street and Plunket Ave - Proposed Give Way Controls A1 41.2016	10
2 ⇩	Burnham Street and Plunket Ave - Proposed Give Way Controls A2 41.2016	11

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager

12 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

19 October 2016

File: (16/1210)

Report no: TRS2016/5/237

Tennyson Street, Petone - Proposed Roundabouts, Associated Give Way Controls, Traffic Island and No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Copy to: Petone Community Board)

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of two Roundabouts, the associated Give Way controls, a traffic island and No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Tennyson Street, Petone as attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of two Roundabouts, the associated Give Way controls, a traffic island and No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Tennyson Street, Petone as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

Background

2. Council has received a request from a resident of Tennyson Street to improve traffic safety and parking discipline in the area.

3. The concerns were that cars sometimes speed in the street, do burn outs/doughnuts in the two intersections. Also, due to the lack of clear controls at the intersections with the one way section of Tennyson Street, some drivers get confused about priority causing a traffic safety risk.

4. The resident also noted that due to the high parking demand during school times, vehicles often park obstructing pedestrian walk-offs and vehicle accesses.

5. A report recommending the installation of two roundabouts, associated Give Way Controls and No Stopping At All Times restrictions was considered by the Traffic Subcommittee at its meeting on 20 July 2016, attached as Appendix 3 to the report. The Subcommittee resolved that the item of business be deferred and asked officers to investigate a further option and report back at a future date.

Discussion

6. Officers have since discussed options with one of the community representatives and Councillor Lewis and developed a modified roundabout option which includes a traffic island outside No.26 Tennyson Street, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, and a central traffic island outside the Kindergarten at 10 Tennyson Street, attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

7. Officers attended a residents meeting organised by the Neigbourhood Watch Group so the new option could be discussed with local residents. It was attended by 15 residents, Councillor Lewis and two Council officers.

8. Several of the residents present did not support the proposal and considered that no changes should be made as there were no recorded crashes at either of the intersections and therefore no interventions could be justified.

9. The majority of the residents present supported the proposal as it would deter boy racers doing burn outs in the intersections and remove any confusion regarding priority at the intersections to improve safety.

10. There were mixed opinions about the need for a central traffic island outside the Kindergarten at 10 Tennyson Street. It was agreed that Council would measure speeds at this location, draw up a proposal to install a temporary trial using road marking and hit sticks only, consult the immediately affected properties and if supported install it as a trial. Speeds would be measured again while the trial was in place to evaluate its effectiveness at reducing speeds. Following this, a decision would be made on the need to install a traffic island.

Options

11. The options are:

- To leave the area as it is and accept that the safety hazards and lack of parking consideration will remain or,

- To install the proposed changes to provide improved road safety and better parking etiquette in the area.

Consultation

12. The original proposal for two roundabouts (without the traffic island outside No.26 Tennyson Street) was supported by 16 of the 18 replies received from the 37 immediately affected properties consulted (see Appendix 3 attached).

13. The current proposal is only a minor variation on the original proposal (with the traffic island added outside No.26 Tennyson Street). This proposal was supported by the majority of residents who attended the public meeting.

14. The temporary trial using road marking and hit sticks instead of a traffic island outside the Kindergarten at No.10 Tennyson Street will only proceed if supported by the immediately affected residents.

15. At the time of printing the agenda, the Petone Community Board meeting had not been held. The Board’s resolution will be separately circulated.

Legal Considerations

16. This restriction is made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

17. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 minor safety works budget.

Other Considerations

18. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it improves safety for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings, signs, islands and roundabouts to minimise the likelihood of accidents.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Tennyson Street - Proposed Roundabouts, Associated Give Way Controls and No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	16
2 ⇩	Tennyson Street #10 - Proposed Central Island	17
3 ⇩	Previous Report to Traffic Sub Committee 20 July 2016	18

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager

19 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

14 December 2016

File: (16/1412)

Report no: TRS2017/1/4

John Street and Richmond Street, Petone - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions (Copy to: Petone Community Board)

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of P120 Parking Restrictions in John Street and Richmond Street, Petone as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P120 Parking Restrictions in John Street and Richmond Street, Petone as shown in Appendix 1 attached.

Background

2. In September 2016, Council consulted the residents of John Street and some of the residents of Nelson Street and Richmond Street on a proposal to install angle parks in John Street and P120 Parking Restrictions in Nelson Street to address a request received from a resident of Nelson Street for more on street parking in the area.

3. The consultation results showed there was not sufficient support for the proposal.

4. As part of the comments/feedback received, a resident of John Street has made a request to install P120 Restrictions near the intersection of John Street and Richmond Street to improve parking turnover in the area.

5. The concern expressed is that due to the high parking demand in the area, most of the on-street parks are often used by long term parkers leaving no parks available for residents and their visitors.

6. The resident also stated that they run a business from home in John Street and often customers are unable to find a park in the vicinity of the property.

Discussion

7. The management of on street parking often requires parking restrictions to balance the competing demands for both all day parking and shorter term parking.

8. The installation of four P120 Parking Restrictions as proposed will increase parking turnover on these car parks improving parking availability in the area.

Options

9. The options are:

i. To leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept that the parking issue will remain or,

ii. To install the proposed changes and improve the level of service for residents and their visitors.

Consultation

10. Consultation documents were again delivered to all 11 properties that were previously consulted – No. 2 to No.6 John Street, No 123 Richmond Street, and Nºs 127, 129, 131, 133, 135, 144 and 146 Nelson Street – and also to the properties at Nºs 121 and 124 Richmond Street.

· 5 (38%) questionnaires were returned.

- 4 (80%) in support of the proposal

- 1 (20%) objecting to the proposal

§ The reason given by the objector was

- The proposal will benefit one household and put extra pressure on the rest of the street. Either all of John Street and/or Richmond Street should be included or not at all.

§ Officers response:

- The original proposal included angle parking in John Street along with more P120 parks in Nelson Street which was not supported by the residents.

11. At the time of printing the agenda, the Petone Community Board meeting had not been held. The Board’s resolution will be separately circulated.

Legal Considerations

12. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

13. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 operational budget.

Other Considerations

14. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilizes standards signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	John St and Richmond St - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions 16/1412	22

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager

23 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

14 December 2016

File: (16/1413)

Report no: TRS2017/1/5

288 Jackson Street, Petone - Proposed P15 Parking Restriction (Copy to: Petone Community Board)

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the replacement of a P60 Parking Restriction with a P15 Parking Restriction outside N 288 Jackson Street as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the replacement of a P60 Parking Restriction with a P15 Parking Restriction outside Nº 288 Jackson Street as shown in Appendix 1 attached.

Background

2. Council has received a request from the Jackson Street Salvation Army, at Nº 288 Jackson Street, to change the P60 Parking Restriction outside their shop to a P15 Parking Restriction.

3. The concern expressed is that the store’s delivery truck calls in several times during the day and, as parks in the vicinity of the store are often occupied, the driver may double park reducing visibility to pedestrians on the pedestrian crossing causing a safety hazard.

Discussion

4. The replacement of a P60 Parking Restriction with a P15 Parking Restriction as proposed will increase parking turnover in that one car park therefore increasing the likelihood it will be available for the delivery truck.

Options

5. The options are:

i. To leave the area as it is with the existing P60 Parking Restrictions and accept the safety hazard will remain or,

ii. To install the proposed changes and reduce the likelihood of the safety hazard occurring.

Consultation

6. A plan of the proposal and a petition form was forwarded to Che Cormack, manager of Salvation Army at Nº 288 Jackson Street, who consulted his eight directly affected neighbouring businesses at Nºs 237 to 251 and Nº 284 to 294 Jackson Street.

· Seven (88%) of the directly affected businesses support the proposal.

· One (12%) directly affected business objects to the proposal.

7. At the time of printing the agenda, the Petone Community Board meeting had not been held. The Board’s resolution will be separately circulated.

Legal Considerations

8. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

9. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 operational budget.

Other Considerations

10. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it improves safety for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standards signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	288 Jackson Street - Proposed P15 Parking Restrictions 16/1413	25

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager

27 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

15 December 2016

File: (16/1415)

Report no: TRS2017/1/6

Te Whiti Grove, Korokoro - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Copy to: Petone Community Board)

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Te Whiti Grove, Korokoro as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Te Whiti Grove, Korokoro as shown in Appendix 1 attached.

Background

2. In October 2016, Council consulted residents of Te Whiti Grove, Korokoro about a proposal to install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions along the entire south side of the street in order to address a request received from a resident of Te Whiti Grove to improve parking etiquette and accessibility to the street, attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

3. Their concern was that at times cars park opposite one another on both sides of the street narrowing the carriageway and obstructing access for service and emergency vehicles.

4. The results of that consultation process showed that of the 13 respondents, seven were in support, five were against and one was undecided.

5. As part of the comments/feedback received, four residents suggested an alternative option with the No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on the south side of the road only extending past the vehicle access of Nº 15 and the rest of the restrictions installed on the north side of the road.

6. This second option, which retains two extra on road carparks, has been drawn up and consulted on, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Discussion

7. The installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions as shown in Appendix 1 will ensure an adequate carriageway width for all vehicles accessing the Grove, including service and emergency vehicles, ensure that vehicles don’t park obstructing the footpath on the north side of the road and maximize the number of suitable on-street parking spaces in the area.

Options

8. The options are:

i. To leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept the occasional accessibility and obstruction issues will remain or,

ii. To install the proposed improvements and prevent any access obstruction, principally for service and emergency vehicles.

Consultation

9. Consultation documents on the second option shown in Appendix 1 were delivered to the 20 directly affected properties from Nº 3 to 25 Te Whiti Grove.

· 13 (65%) questionnaires were returned:

̵ 10 (77%) in support of the proposal.

̵ 3 (23%) object to the proposal.

§ The reasons given by the objectors were:

̵ We don’t think this is an issue that requires permanent intervention by Council. The proposal is a permanent solution for a very occasional issue.

§ Officers’ response:

̵ A clear majority of residents believe that it happens often enough that they support something should be done.

̵ It is important to maintain access for emergency vehicles at all times.

10. At the time of printing the agenda, the Petone Community Board meeting had not been held. The Board’s resolution will be separately circulated.

Legal Considerations

11. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

12. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

13. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it improves accessibility for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Te Whiti Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 16/1415	29
2 ⇩	Te Whiti Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 16/1415 (2)	30

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager

32 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

14 December 2016

File: (16/1414)

Report no: TRS2017/1/40

Marine Parade, Eastbourne - Proposed Bollards (Copy to: Eastbourne Community Board)

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval to prohibit vehicular through traffic in Marine Parade South between Hinau St and Kauri St by the installation of Bollards and appropriate signage.

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council prohibits vehicular through traffic in Marine Parade South between Hinau St and Kauri St by the installation of Bollards and appropriate signage; attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Background

2. Council has been requested by the residents of Marine Parade South, Eastbourne between Kauri Street and Hinau Street to install bollards in the narrow section of Marine Parade South, Eastbourne between Kauri and Hinau Street to prevent vehicular through traffic.

3. The residents are concerned for the safety of walkers and cyclists as well as themselves when exiting their driveways onto this narrow section of Marine Parade South, Eastbourne.

Discussion

4. Installing bollards will prohibit vehicular through traffic while still allowing residents vehicular access to their properties.

5. Reducing the number of vehicles using this section of road will improve safety for walkers and cyclists using it as a Promenade.

6. This treatment is consistent with other northern and southern sections of Marine Parade South, Eastbourne which also function as a Promenade.

Options

7. The options are:

a. To leave the area as it is and accept the safety risk will remain or,

b. To proceed with the installation of bollards preventing vehicular thorough traffic while still providing access to residents.

Consultation

8. The directly affected residents of the section of Marine Parade South, Eastbourne between Hinau St and Kauri St all support the proposal as follows:

a. 233 Marine Parade South

b. 235 Marine Parade South

c. 34 Kauri St

d. 31 & 29 Hinau St

9. No further consultation has been undertaken as it is considered a safety improvement that is consistent with other northern and southern sections of Marine Parade South, Eastbourne.

10. At its meeting on 7 February 2017, the Eastbourne Community Board endorsed the recommendation contained in the report.

Legal Considerations

11. This restriction is made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014). Under clause 2.2(c) (ii) of the Traffic Bylaw. Council may by resolution prohibit or restrict left turns, right turns or through movements;

12. The appropriate public and private agencies will be advised of the closure of Marine Parade South to vehicular through traffic between Hinau St and Kauri St.

Financial Considerations

13. These changes can be funded for Council’s 2016/2017 minor safety budget.

Other Considerations

14. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it improves road safety for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road infrastructure.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Marine Parade - Proposed Bollards 16/1414	34

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: John Gloag

Divisional Manager, Road and Traffic

36 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

20 December 2016

File: (16/1432)

Report no: TRS2017/1/41

Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limits 2016/2017 (Copy to: Eastbourne Community Board)

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of four School Zone 40km/h Variable Speed Limits for St Oran’s College in Hutt Central, Avalon Intermediate School, Wellesley College in Eastbourne and Naenae Primary School.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i) notes the specified parts of High Street and Ropata Street (for St Oran’s College), High Street and De Menech Grove (for Avalon Intermediate School), Marine Drive and Ferry Road (for Wellesley College), and Waddington Drive, Burke Grove and Cole Street (for Naenae Primary School) meet the New Zealand Transport Agency warrant conditions for 40km/h Variable Speed Limits in School Zones;

(ii) notes the results of the submissions process referred to in the report;

(iii) resolves that in accordance with s7.2(3) of the Land Transport Rule – Setting of Speed Limits 2003 (the “Rule”), and after taking account of section 6 of the Rule and submissions received, and for the periods of operation stipulated in the New Zealand Gazette, 21/4/2011, Nº55, p1284 – Variable Speed Limits in School Zones, that 40km/h variable speed limits be set from 13 February 2017 for areas around the following schools:

(a) St Oran’s College, attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(b) Avalon Intermediate School, attached as Appendix 2 to the report;

(d) Naenae Primary School attached as Appendix 4 to the report; and

(iv) requests officers to undertake all necessary actions to give effect to these resolutions under the provisions of the Rule.

Background

2. School Zone 40km/h variable speed limits are an approved New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) safety measure to reduce the likelihood and consequences of crashes involving children arriving or leaving school. They provide a safer road environment outside schools and reinforce driver expectations of the likely presence of children.

3. Section 6.1 of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 Rule 54001 (the “Rule”) required that NZTA approve a variable speed limit before road controlling authorities could set such a speed limit under their Speed Limits Bylaw. In accordance with this requirement NZTA published a notice in the New Zealand Gazette (the Gazette) on 2 June 2005, and updated on 21 April 2011, approving a variable speed limit of 40km/h in school zones and setting out the warrant and conditions for those speed limits.

Warrant for School Zone 40km/h Variable Speed Limits

4. A road controlling authority may only set a 40km/h variable speed limit in a school zone under the following conditions:

a. There is a high level of school-related activity on the road outside the school with at least 50 children crossing the road or entering or leaving vehicles at the roadside; and

b. The traffic on the road outside the school meets at least one of the following conditions:

i. The mean speed of free-running vehicles is greater than 45km/h;

ii. The 85^th percentile speed of free-running vehicles is greater than 50 km/h;

iii. There have been speed related crashes in the previous five years; or

iv. The school-related activity in condition (a) occurs on a main traffic route.

Periods of Operation

5. National and international use of school zone variable speed limits show that they are effective in reducing speeds but have the support of drivers only if there are children present when the speed limit is operating. Therefore, the times the variable speed limit is activated must be tightly controlled to match, as closely as possible, the times children are crossing the road or are gathered on the road side. These times vary from school to school and from time to time.

6. The maximum periods of operation on school days are set out in The Gazette notice as follows:

a. 35 minutes before the start of school until the start of school

b. 20 minutes at the end of school, beginning no earlier than 5 minutes before the end of school; and

c. 10 minutes at any other time when at least 50 children cross the road or enter or leave vehicles at the roadside.

7. The variable speed limit is controlled by electronically operated signs on main roads and fixed signs on adjoining low volume roads. The school year timetable is pre-programmed in advance and the electronic signs are automatically turned on and off, at the start and end of school. In addition the Principal can manually introduce the variable speed limit for those periods covered in 6 (c) above, but the system will automatically turn the signs off after the stipulated 10 minutes.

Provisions concerning the setting of speed limits

8. The Subcommittee must ensure that it applies the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 (“the Rule”) when it recommends a speed limit to Council.

9. The Rule provides that:

a) The Council must consider the safe and appropriate speed limit for a road with regard to the function, nature and use of the road, its environment, land use patterns and whether the road is in an urban traffic area or rural area;

b) Council must set or review speed limits in accordance with the Rule (section 2.6 of the Rule); and

c) Section 6.1(3) of the Rule allows Council to set a variable speed limit under its Speed Limits Bylaw subject to approval by NZTA.

Discussion

10. The school zones generally meet the warrant conditions set by NZTA in paragraph 4 above as per the table below:

NZTA Warrant	No of children crossing/entering/leaving vehicles >50	Mean Speed >45kph	85^th % ile speed >50kph
St Oran’s College High Street	141	46	51
Avalon Intermediate High Street	110	49	58
Wellesley College Marine Drive	145	48	56
Naenae Primary School Waddington Drive	94	49	55

Options

11. The options are to leave the areas as they are and accept that the safety concern will remain, or install the proposed changes attached as Appendices 1 to 4 to the report to improve safety for children and traffic in the area.

Consultation

12. Before setting a speed limit, Council must consult with affected persons and organisations in accordance with s7 of the Rule. When deciding to set the speed limit Council must take account of submissions received during consultation (s7.2(2) of the Rule).

13. Consultation letters and plans were delivered to all households and businesses within the specified parts of the roads.

14. Consultation letters and plans were also posted to 7 organisations affected by the proposed speed limit changes (being New Zealand Police, New Zealand Fire Service, Wellington Free Ambulance, New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Automobile Association, Valley Flyer (NZ Bus) and the Lower North Island Region – Road Transport Association New Zealand).

15. The results of the consultation are summarised below:

· The proposal is supported by all four schools: St Oran’s, Avalon Intermediate School, Wellesley College and Naenae Primary School.

· For the St Oran’s College 40km/h Variable Speed Limit School Zone, 85 consultation letters were delivered and 13 replies were received all in support of the proposal.

· For the Avalon Intermediate School 40km/h Variable Speed Limit School Zone, 51 consultation letters were delivered and 14 replies were received 13 in support of the proposal and 1 objecting.

o The reason for the objection was the placement of one of the electronic sign directly outside the lounge window.

§ In response, Council re-consulted the affected residents on the relocation of the proposed sign location , 15 consultation letters were delivered and 7 replies were received 6 in support of the proposal and 1 objecting

· The reason for the objection was the placement of the pole was now to close to the driveway and there were concerns of obstruction.

· For the Wellesley College 40km/h Variable Speed Limit School Zone, 15 consultation letters were delivered and 3 replies were received all in support of the proposal.

· For the Naenae Primary School 40km/h Variable Speed Limit School Zone, 30 consultation letters were delivered and five replies were received all in support of the proposal.

· The consultation letters to the seven organizations were posted on 20th December 2016 and NZTA, Automobile Association and Road Transport Association responded to the proposal in support. There were no other responses received from any of the other organisations by the due date for this report. Any responses subsequently received will be tabled at the meeting.

16. At its meeting on 7 February 2017, the Eastbourne Community Board endorsed the recommendations relating to Wellesley College, Eastbourne contained in the report.

Legal Considerations

17. The process for the determination, setting and approving of speed limit is set out in Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 Rule 54001 and the Hutt City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2015.

18. Following review and consultation, Council must set a new speed limit if it decides that the existing speed limit is not the safe and appropriate speed limit for that particular road (s7(2)(3) of the Rule).

19. Under The Rule, the NZTA is empowered to audit Council for compliance with the Rule and issue directions to review or change the speed limit, or any of its procedures to set speed limits.

Financial Considerations

20. The cost of supplying and installing the signage can be funded by existing 2016/2017 budget for new School Speed Zones.

Other Considerations

21. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it provides a safe speed limit in school zones to improve safety for all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it meets current NZTA conditions for variable school zone speed limits and uses the latest technology in electronic signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	St Orans College Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limit	41
2 ⇩	Avalon Intermediate Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limit	42
3 ⇩	Wellesley College Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limit	43
4 ⇩	Naenae Primary Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limit	44

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: John Gloag

Divisional Manager, Road and Traffic

46 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

11 October 2016

File: (16/1204)

Report no: TRS2016/5/239

Waterloo Road - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of P120 Parking Restrictions in Waterloo Road as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P120 Parking Restrictions in Waterloo Road attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Background

2. Council has received a request from the resident in Waterloo Road to improve parking turnover in the vicinity of the property.

3. They are concerned that long term parkers often use the on street parks for the entire day therefore leaving no parks available for residents and their visitors.

Discussion

4. The management of on street parking often requires parking restrictions to balance the competing demands for both all day parking and shorter term parking.

5. The installation of three P120 Parking Restrictions as proposed will increase the parking turnover on these car parks improving parking availability for residents and their visitors in the area.

Options

6. The options are:

i. To leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept that the parking issue will remain or,

ii. To install the proposed changes and improve the level of service for residents and their visitors.

Consultation

7. The request was made and is supported by the resident of Nº 176 Waterloo Road.

8. A plan of the proposal and a petition form was forwarded to the resident of Nº 176 Waterloo Road, who consulted her neighbor at Nº 184.

· Both residents signed a petition in support of the proposal.

9. Council officers have also consulted St Bernard’s College who object to the proposal because the carparks are often used by teachers working at the school.

Legal Considerations

10. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

11. The improvements can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 operational budget.

Other Considerations

12. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Waterloo Road - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions 39.2016	47

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager

49 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

03 October 2016

File: (16/1173)

Report no: TRS2016/5/240

Vincent Street - Proposed P180 Parking Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of P180 Parking Restrictions in Vincent Street as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P180 Parking Restrictions in Vincent Street attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Background

2. Council has received a request from a resident of Vincent Street to improve parking turnover along the street.

3. The concern expressed is due to the high parking demand in the area, all the on-street parks are often used by long term parkers therefore leaving no parks available for residents and their visitors.

4. The resident advises she is mobility impaired and relies on taxis for transport. As she can’t walk far, the unavailability of parks in the vicinity of the property makes it hard for the taxis to pick her up and drop her off.

5. The resident also advises that she receives daily visits from a carer, who also has difficulties finding a park in the vicinity of the property therefore having to park some distance away.

6. The resident has provided a letter from a Doctor confirming her disability issues and asking that Council consider making changes to the parking to help her.

Discussion

7. The installation of some P180 Parking Restrictions in Vincent Street as proposed will increase parking turnover in the area and should ensure that there is at least one carpark available most of the time. It will also improve the level of service for other residents and their visitors.

Options

8. The options are:

i. To leave the area as it is without any restrictions or,

ii. To install the proposed parking changes to improve the level of service for the disabled resident and other residents and their visitors.

Consultation

9. Consultation documents on the proposal were delivered to the six directly affected properties from Nº 15 to 21 and Nº 10 and 12 Vincent Street.

· 4 (67%) questionnaires were returned

̵ 3 (75%) in support of the proposal and

̵ 1 (25%) objecting to the proposal.

§ The reason given for the objection was:

̵ The requester always objects to any proposal and she is pretty fit as she mows her own lawns.

Legal Considerations

10. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

11. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 operational budget.

Other Considerations

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Vincent Street - Proposed P180 Parking Restrictions 38.2016	51

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager

53 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

13 January 2017

File: (17/5)

Report no: TRS2017/1/7

22 Kings Crescent - Proposed P30 Parking Restriction

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the replacement of two Pay & Display P120 Parking Restrictions parks with P30 Parking Restrictions outside Nº 22 Kings Crescent, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the replacement of two Pay & Display P120 Parking Restrictions parks with P30 Parking Restriction outside Nº 22 Kings Crescent attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Background

2. Council has received a request from the Co’Ed Café, at Nº 22 Kings Crescent, to change the existing Pay & Display (P&D) P120 Parking Restriction outside their shop to a P30 Parking Restriction.

Discussion

3. The replacement of a P&D P120 Parking Restriction with a P30 Parking Restriction as proposed will encourage parking turnover and support the adjacent business.

Options

4. The options are:

a. To leave the area as it is with the existing P&D P120 Parking Restrictions or,

b. To install the proposed changes encouraging parking turnover and supporting the adjacent business.

Consultation

5. A plan of the proposal was forwarded to the Manager of the Co’Ed Café, who consulted with the only other directly affected business AllFinanz located at the same premises Nº 22 Kings Crescent, who supports the proposal.

Legal Considerations

6. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

7. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 operational budget.

Other Considerations

8. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it supports adjacent businesses. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standards signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	22 Kings Crescent - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions 1.2017	54

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager

56 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

13 December 2016

File: (16/1408)

Report no: TRS2017/1/2

Onehuka Road, Tirohanga - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Onehuka Road, Tirohanga attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Onehuka Road, Tirohanga attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Background

2. Council received a request from a resident of Onehuka Road, Tirohanga to improve parking etiquette and accessibility to the street.

3. The concern expressed is that at times cars park on the street narrowing the carriageway and obstructing access for service and emergency vehicles.

Discussion

4. The installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions as proposed will ensure an adequate carriageway width for all vehicles accessing the grove, including service and emergency vehicles.

Options

5. The options are:

i. To leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept the occasional accessibility issue will remain or,

ii. To install the proposed improvements and prevent any access obstruction, principally for service and emergency vehicles.

Consultation

6. Consultation documents were delivered to the 24 directly affected properties from Nº 2 to 29 Onehuka Road and Nº 45 Tirohanga Road.

· 16 (67%) questionnaires were returned.

̵ 11 (69%) in support the proposal.

̵ 5 (31%) object to the proposal.

§ The reasons given by the objectors were:

̵ Any problems with parking in the street have only been occasional and therefore do not require regulations and common sense usually prevails.

§ Officers’ response:

̵ A clear majority of the residents believe that it happens often enough that they support something should be done.

̵ It is important to maintain access for emergency vehicles at all times.

Legal Considerations

7. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

8. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

9. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it ensures access for emergency vehicles at all times. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Onehuka Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 16/1408	58

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager

60 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

13 December 2016

File: (16/1411)

Report no: TRS2017/1/3

Mulberry Street, Maungaraki - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Mulberry Street, Maungaraki attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Mulberry Street, Maungaraki attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Background

2. On 20 September 2016, Council approved the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on the south side of Mulberry Street to address a safety hazard caused by vehicles parked along the bend, narrowing the roadway and forcing traffic to cross the centerline, as shown in Appendix 2 attached.

3. Since the installation of the new restrictions, vehicles now park on both sides of the road east of the intersection of Mulberry Street with Chestnut Grove narrowing the roadway to one lane only at times and continuing to cause a safety hazard.

4. Council has now received several further requests from residents and commuters to further improve traffic safety on this stretch of road east of the intersection of Mulberry Street with Chestnut Grove.

Discussion

5. The installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions as proposed will ensure a safer roadway width for traffic to travel in both directions and allow cars to park at suitable locations on the south side of the street.

Options

6. The options are:

i. To leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept that the safety hazard will remain or,

ii. To install the proposed improvements and reduce the safety hazard.

Consultation

7. Consultation documents were delivered to the seven directly affected properties from Nº 56 to 72 Mulberry Street.

· Four (57%) questionnaires were returned.

̵ Three (75%) in support the proposal.

̵ One (25%) object to the proposal.

§ The reason given by the objector were:

̵ People travel way too fast in this piece of road and if you stop people from parking on both sides, it will get worse. I suggest you just leave it as is.

§ Officers’ response:

̵ Allowing on-street parking to significantly narrow the carriageway width in a high volume traffic area is not an acceptable way to address excessive speeds.

̵ Both southbound and northbound approaches to this section of road have limited visibility therefore it is important to ensure a safe roadway width for traffic travelling in both directions.

8. As this is considered to be a safety hazard, no further consultation has been undertaken.

Legal Considerations

9. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

10. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

11. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it improves safety for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Mulberry Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 16/1411	62
2 ⇩	Mulberry Street - Approved No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 16/786	63

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager

65 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

13 December 2016

File: (16/1407)

Report no: TRS2017/1/1

191 Dowse Drive, Maungaraki - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions outside Nº 191 Dowse Drive, Maungaraki attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions outside Nº 191 Dowse Drive, Maungaraki attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Background

2. Council has received a request from the resident and owner of No’s 191 and 191A Dowse Drive to improve road safety in the vicinity of the property.

3. The resident is concerned that at times cars park in the short section between the driveways of Nº 191 and Nº 191A, encroaching on the properties’ vehicle accesses and also obstructing visibility for drivers exiting the driveway.

4. The resident also notes that with the bend on the road and at times vehicles exceeding the speed limit make it difficult for drivers to judge an appropriate time to exit their properties safely.

Discussion

5. The installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions as proposed will ensure an adequate clearance from the driveways and improve safety for drivers exiting the properties.

Options

6. The options are:

i. To leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept the safety hazard will remain or,

ii. To install the proposed improvements and reduce the safety hazard.

Consultation

7. A plan of the proposal and a petition form was forwarded to the resident of Nº 191 Dowse Drive, who consulted with the resident at Nº 193 Dowse Drive.

· Both residents support the proposal.

Legal Considerations

8. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

9. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	191 Dowse Drive - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 16/1407	66

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager

68 13 February 2017

Traffic Subcommittee

03 October 2016

File: (16/1175)

Report no: TRS2016/5/241

108 Dowse Drive, Maungaraki - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Dowse Drive, Maungaraki attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Dowse Drive, Maungaraki attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Background

2. Council has received a request from the resident of Nº 108 Dowse Drive to improve road safety in the vicinity of the property.

3. The resident’s concern is that at times a car parks between the driveways to Nº 108 and Nº 106, encroaching too close to the property’s vehicle access, therefore forcing drivers exiting the driveway to reverse into the middle of the carriageway causing a traffic hazard.

Discussion

4. The installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions as proposed will ensure an adequate clearance from the driveways therefore improving safety for drivers exiting the two properties.

Options

5. The options are:

i. To leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept the safety hazard will remain or,

ii. To install the proposed improvements and reduce the safety hazard.

Consultation

6. A plan of the proposal and a petition form was forwarded to the resident of Nº 108 Dowse Drive, who consulted their neighbours at Nºs 106 and 104.

· The residents of Nº 106 asked to extend the No Stopping At All Times Restrictions an extra meter south of their vehicle access.

· A petition form was returned with three signatures in support of the proposal from the three properties.

Legal Considerations

7. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2007 (Amended 20 November 2014).

Financial Considerations

8. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2016/2017 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

9. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it improves safety for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	108 Dowse Drive - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 40.2016	69

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Lyle Earl

Traffic Assets Manager