Agenda of Traffic Subcommittee

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 Hearing of submissions on cycling matters and make recommendations to Council, via the City Development Committee.

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

1.3 Provide options for the consideration of Council

The Chair will have authority to:

1.4 Refer any traffic/cycling matter to:

1.4.1 A Community Board/Community Committee; or

1.4.2 The Policy and Regulatory Committee; or

1.4.3 The City Development Committee; or

1.4.4 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 Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

Monday 9 April 2018 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 - 22 May 2018

i) Koraunui Stokes Valley Hub - Proposed P180 Electric Vehicle Parking Restriction (17/1777)

Report No. TRS2018/2/86 by the Contractor 7

ii) Kaitawa Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/178)

Report No. TRS2018/2/87 by the Contractor 11

iii) Cambridge Terrace - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/232)

Report No. TRS2018/2/88 by the Contractor 15

iv) Shepherd Grove - Proposed Change in Parking Restrictions (18/315)

Report No. TRS2018/2/89 by the Contractor 20

v) Brunswick Street - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions (18/342)

Report No. TRS2018/2/90 by the Traffic Engineer 24

vi) Rutherford Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/343)

Report No. TRS2018/2/91 by the Traffic Engineer 28

vii) Military Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/365)

Report No. TRS2018/2/92 by the Traffic Engineer 32

viii) The Esplanade - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/366)

Report No. TRS2018/2/93 by the Traffic Engineer 36

ix) High Street (559) - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions (18/367)

Report No. TRS2018/2/94 by the Traffic Engineer 41

x) High Street (Taita Station) - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/369)

Report No. TRS2018/2/95 by the Traffic Engineer 45

xi) Lees Grove - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions (18/372)

Report No. TRS2018/2/96 by the Traffic Engineer 49

xii) Memorial Park (off Bracken Street) - P180 Parking Restrictions (18/375)

Report No. TRS2018/2/97 by the Traffic Engineer 58

xiii) Woodvale Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/397)

Report No. TRS2018/2/98 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 62

5. QUESTIONS

With reference to section 32 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.

Donna Male

COMMITTEE ADVISOR

7 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

14 February 2018

File: (17/1777)

Report no: TRS2018/2/86

Koraunui Stokes Valley Hub - Proposed P180 Electric Vehicle Parking Restriction

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of a P180 Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Restriction at Koraunui Stokes Valley Community Hub.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of a P180 Electric Vehicle Parking Restriction at Koraunui Stokes Valley Community Hub, ‘Reserved for Electric Vehicles on charge only, for a maximum of 180 minutes at all times’ as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reason, there is an increasing number of EVs on the road and this is a key way that local councils can support this growth.

Background

2. The market for EVs has grown significantly over recent years and is expected to continue to rise in the near future.

3. As at February 2018 there were 5,101 EVs registered in New Zealand, an increase of 677% since February 2016.

4. The proposal supports the objectives of the Council’s Environmental Sustainability Strategy Implementation Plan by encouraging the acquisition of fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.

5. It also falls within the objectives of the Strategic Leadership Team Business Plan 2015-18 as it meets “the current and future need of our communities for good quality local infrastructure…”

Discussion

6. The EV charger has already been installed but, as the signs and markings have not been installed, there are no restrictions on what vehicles can park in the space (ie, non EV vehicles can park there).

7. This proposal will further enhance Hutt City Council’s reputation as being the leading council in the region in the EV space.

8. The quantity of electricity an EV would consume in this park is variable, dependent on the car itself. By way of example, the model of Nissan Leaf currently in the HCC fleet would consume around 10kW in 3 hours – costing approximately around $1.50 in electricity charges.

Options

9. As the charger has already been installed the options are:

a. leave the parking space unchanged and accept that non EV vehicles can also park, reducing the availability for EV vehicles; or

b. approve the proposed P180 EV Parking Restriction to improve the availability of the space for EV vehicles.

10. The EV park would be monitored over the next six months to quantify the use of the charger, the electricity consumed and the number of parking infringements.

Consultation

11. Council’s Divisional Manager, Community Hubs, supports the proposed parking restriction.

Legal Considerations

12. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

13. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2017/2018 road markings 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 local government by promoting the environmental wellbeing of the community.

15. In making this restriction, officers want to make clear that an EV must be plugged in and charging to be legally eligible to park here for a maximum of 180 minutes.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Koraunui Stokes Valley Hub - Proposed P180 Electric Vehicle Parking Restriction Plan 17.2018 17/1777 Cycle 2 2018	10

Author: Martin Barry

Contractor

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

11 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

14 February 2018

File: (18/178)

Report no: TRS2018/2/87

Kaitawa Road - 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 at the intersection of Kaitawa Road and Waitohu Road, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions at the intersection of Kaitawa Road and Waitohu Road, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons:

- the proposed changes will improve the sight distance for vehicles exiting Waitohu Road onto Kaitawa Road; and

- the proposed changes will reduce the likelihood of vehicle conflict when approaching the intersection.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to extend the existing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions at the intersection of Waitohu and Kaitawa Roads by painting broken yellow lines.

3. The complainant identified that when cars are parked to the south of the intersection, on Kaitawa Road, the visibility for motorists exiting Waitohu Road is reduced.

4. Vehicles parked in this area, on Kaitawa Road, sometimes force motorists to cross the centreline near the bend in Waitohu Road, increasing the risk of vehicle conflict.

5. An extension of the broken yellow lines outside No. 26 Waitohu Road was also requested, to prevent vehicles parking too close to the driveways of Nos. 24 and 26 Waitohu Road.

Discussion

6. Kaitawa Road is approximately 5m wide on the southern approach to the intersection. This is close to the minimum carriageway width required for two way travel.

7. Vehicles parked south of the intersection, outside No. 2 Kaitawa Road, effectively reduce the carriageway width to around 3m, sufficient for one way movement.

8. The proposed parking restrictions would increase the sight distance available to motorists at the Waitohu Road limit line from 17m to 40m and ensure that two way movements are maintained.

9. The minimum recommended sight distance required in this situation is approximately 33m, assuming a 40 km/h design speed.

10. The broken yellow lines proposed outside Nos. 24 and 26 Waitohu Road would prevent vehicles parking too close to the driveways of these properties and within the manoeuvring space of the intersection.

Options,

11. The options are:

a. to leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept the current levels of service for accessibility and road safety; or

b. to install the proposed changes to improve visibility and increase the levels of service for accessibility and road safety.

Consultation

12. Consultation documents were delivered to ten local residents.

13. Four responses were received, all in favour of the proposal. Some of the feedback includes:

a. “Excellent proposal”

b. “Excellent idea. Stories of near misses and screech of brakes continue to flow. It makes for common sense and increased safety. The junction is a narrow bottleneck”

14. The Eastbourne Community Board will consider the recommendation at its meeting on 3 April 2018 and the resolution will be tabled at the Traffic Subcommittee meeting on 9 April 2018.

Legal Considerations

15. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

16. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2017/2018 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

17. 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 local government as the road network infrastructure is a core service as defined in the Act.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Kaitawa Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	14

Author: Martin Barry

Contractor

Reviewed By: Victor Leal

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

15 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

21 February 2018

File: (18/232)

Report no: TRS2018/2/88

Cambridge Terrace - 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 Cambridge Terrace, as shown attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Cambridge Terrace, as shown attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

For the reasons:

- the proposed changes will improve the sight distance for vehicles exiting Grenville Street onto Cambridge Terrace and for vehicles approaching the intersection on Cambridge Terrace from the north;

- Option 2 (Appendix 2) provides a greater increase in sight distance than Option 1 (Appendix 1) for the loss of a single additional car parking space; and

- the proposed changes support the the road-space hierarchy contained in Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to introduce parking restrictions to improve the sight distance for vehicles exiting Grenville Street onto Cambridge Terrace.

3. The issue identified is that vehicles parked close to, and to the north of, the intersection reduce the sight distance available to vehicles exiting Grenville Street and for southbound motorists on Cambridge Terrace.

Discussion

4. The sight distance to the right when turning from Grenville Street onto Cambridge Terrace is reduced to approximately 25m when cars are parked kerb side immediately north of the intersection.

5. The recommended minimum sight distance in this situation is 47m (for a 50 km/h design speed).

6. Two options were investigated to improve the available sight distance. Both involve the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions through the installation of broken yellow lines.

7. The option shown in Appendix 1 involves removing one parking space, leaving two remaining spaces and increasing the sight distance to approximately 35m.

8. The option shown in Appendix 2 involves removing two parking spaces, leaving one remaining space and increasing the sight distance to approximately 46m.

9. Option 2 (Appendix 2) is recommended as this provides the greatest increase in sight distance.

10. Cambridge Terrace is classified as a Primary Collector under the One Network Road Classification.

11. Average daily traffic volumes on Cambridge Terrace are in the order of 8,000 to 9,000 vehicles per day.

12. Parking demand can be high in the area during the working week due to the proximity of Woburn Rail Station.

13. Both options support the road-space hierarchy contained in Council’s Parking Policy 2017 which indicates the highest priority for No Stopping Zones and the lowest priority for commuter parking.

Options

14. The options are:

a. to leave the parking unchanged and accept the current sight distances; or

b. to remove one parking space (option shown in Appendix 1), improving the sight distance to 35m and increasing the road safety level of service; or

c. to remove two parking spaces (option shown in Appendix 2), improving the sight distance to 46m and further increasing the road safety level of service.

Consultation

15. Consultation documents were delivered to the three directly affected residences: No. 1 Grenville Street, and Nos. 37 and 38 Cambridge Terrace.

16. Residents were asked for their opinion on two options:

a. to remove one car parking space (Appendix 1); or

b. to remove two car parking spaces (Appendix 2).

17. Feedback was received from two of the three residences, both in support of the proposals.

18. One respondent did not indicate their preferred option. The second preferred Option 2 (Appendix 2) as that provides the greatest sight distance improvement.

Legal Considerations

19. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

20. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2017/2018 road markings budget.

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 local government as the road network infrastructure is a core service as defined in the Act.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Cambridge Terrace - No Stopping At All Times Restrictions Option 1	18
2 ⇩	Cambridge Terrace - No Stopping At All Times Restrictions Option 2	19

Author: Martin Barry

Contractor

Reviewed By: Victor Leal

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

20 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

07 March 2018

File: (18/315)

Report no: TRS2018/2/89

Shepherd Grove - Proposed Change in Parking Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the changing of Parking Restrictions in Shepherd Grove as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the changing of Parking Restrictions in Shepherd Grove, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons:

̵ that it will improve safety and amenity for parents dropping off and picking up their children at the kindergarten; and

̵ it will reduce the likelihood of motorists temporarily parking over nearby driveways.

Background

2. Council received a request from the kindergarten at No. 4 Shepherd Grove to provide a 5 minute parking space in the area.

3. The turning area of the cul-de-sac currently has a No Stopping At All Times restriction (broken yellow lines) to prevent parked vehicles reducing manoeuvrability.

4. Concerns were raised over the difficulties faced by parents to find parking near the kindergarten when dropping off and picking up their children.

5. These difficulties lead to motorists temporarily parking over nearby driveways.

6. There are currently approximately nine unrestricted car parks available on Shepherd Grove and more on Churton Street which intersects approximately 65m from the kindergarten.

7. Shepherd Grove is a short cul-de-sac (65m long) that has minimal traffic except that associated with the kindergarten.

Discussion

8. The proposed P5 parking restriction will provide short term parking directly outside the kindergarten to allow drop off and pick-ups.

9. The proposed restriction will apply to a single parking space only, between adjacent driveways.

10. The proposed restriction would only apply during drop off and pick up times (8.30am to 9.15am and 2.30pm to 3pm) on school days (Monday to Friday).

11. At all other times the current No Stopping At All Times restriction would remain.

12. A standard car will still be able to turn around in the cul-de-sac with a car parked in the P5 area.

13. Refuse and recycling trucks are prevented from servicing school areas during drop off and pick up hours, so a vehicle occupying this space during the times allowed will not affect these trucks.

Options

14. The options are:

i. to leave the area as it is and accept the current levels of service for road safety and accessibility will remain; or

ii. implement the P5 parking restriction as proposed to improve the amenity for kindergarten parents and local residents.

Consultation

15. Consultation documents were delivered to six local residents.

̵ Two questionnaires were returned, both in support of the proposal.

Legal Considerations

16. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

17. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2017/2018 road markings 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 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 ⇩	Shepherd Gr - Proposed Change in Parking Restrictions 18/315	23

Author: Martin Barry

Contractor

Reviewed By: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

24 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

12 March 2018

File: (18/342)

Report no: TRS2018/2/90

Brunswick Street - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions

Purpose of Report

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

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P120 Parking Restrictions, from Mondays to Fridays only, in Brunswick Street as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons:

̵ that it will improve the level of service for local businesses, customers, residents and visitors;

̵ the majority of respondents are in support of the proposal; and

̵ it supports Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

Background

2. Council received multiple requests from residents and businesses of Brunswick Street to increase parking turnover in the area.

3. The concern expressed is that long term parkers are parking along Brunswick Street for the entire day leaving few parks available for customers, residents and visitors.

4. Brunswick Street can be categorised as a mixture of “Live and Play” and “Shop and Trade” land use when considering Council’s Parking Policy Road-Space Hierarchy. In both of these land use categories, short term parking has a higher priority than commuter and local employee car parking.

Discussion

5. Existing short term parking spaces (four x P15 and two x P120) are provided outside the shops on Kings Crescent.

6. The current number of P120 spaces is insufficient for visitors to the complainants business (hairdresser) who require greater than 15 minutes per visit.

7. The other businesses in the block include a dairy and a takeaway.

8. The installation of three P120 Parking Restrictions as proposed will increase parking turnover in the area therefore improving the level of service for local businesses, customers, residents and visitors.

9. The proposal supports Council’s Parking Policy 2017 in that it assigns a high priority for short term parking over residential visitor parking and commuter parking.

10. The proposed restrictions would apply between Monday and Friday only, meaning the spaces would be available for longer term residential and visitor parking during the weekends.

11. The option to provide five rather than three P120 parking spaces (Option iii below) is also presented.

12. This option (Option iii) would provide additional short term parking, however due to the objections of some local residents we believe the provision of three P120 spaces represents an acceptable compromise.

Options

13. The options are:

i. leave the area unchanged without any restrictions and accept the current level of service for short term parking will remain;

ii. install the three proposed P120 Parking spaces (from Mondays to Fridays only) and improve the level of service for short term parking in the vicinity of the Brunswick Street/ Kings Cres. shops; or

iii. install P120 Parking Restrictions from Mondays to Fridays only on all five angle parking spaces on the southern end of Brunswick Street to provide additional short term parking in the area.

Consultation

14. Consultation documents were delivered to the 18 directly affected parties at Nº 113 Kings Crescent, and Nºs 47A to 59 and Nºs 62 to 68 Brunswick Street.

· Nine (50%) questionnaires were returned.

̵ Seven (78%) in support of the proposal.

̵ Two (22%) objecting the proposal.

§ The reasons given for the objections were:

̵ The parking problem is created by Pak n Save staff using most car parks along the street. A consent condition for the construction of Pak n Save stated that no employee should park along Brunswick Street. The angle parks are also dangerous.

̵ The intersection is already dangerous with cars in the angle spaces reversing onto the path of cars coming around the corner into Brunswick Street.

§ Officers’ responses:

̵ Officers checked with the Resource Consent Enforcement team and no such condition exists.

̵ The reported crash history for the period from 2012 to 2017 does not indicate a problem with the angle parks and it is expected that introducing a P120 restriction would not significantly increase the safety risk.

Legal Considerations

15. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

16. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2017/2018 operational budget.

Other Considerations

17. 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 road signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Brunswick Street - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions 18/342	27

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

28 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

12 March 2018

File: (18/343)

Report no: TRS2018/2/91

Rutherford Street - 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 along Rutherford Street as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

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

For the reasons:

̵ the proposed restrictions would improve safety for the benefit of all road users;

̵ a majority of the directly affected businesses support the proposal; and

̵ the proposed restrictions support Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local Road Policing constable to improve safety in the vicinity of the driveway for Nºs 16-26 Rutherford Street, following a recent crash.

3. The concern expressed is that vehicles parked adjacent to, and immediately west of, the driveway obstruct visibility for motorists exiting the property, increasing the safety risk for all traffic in the area.

4. The constable also noted that ‘visibility obstruction’ has been a contributing factor to previous crashes at this location.

Discussion

5. Council officers investigated the NZTA’s Crash Analysis System to determine the number of crashes reported in vicinity of the driveway over the previous 10 years:

· there were 13 reported crashes, of which six involved vehicles exiting the car park driveway; and

· visibility obstruction was a contributing factor in all six crashes.

6. The proposal involves removing two P120 parking spaces immediately adjacent to the driveway exit, through the installation of broken yellow lines.

7. This would increase the sight distance available to vehicles exiting the car park from approximately 25m to approximately 70m.

8. The minimum recommended sight distance in this situation is 47m (for a 50 km/h design speed).

9. The proposed restrictions support the road-space hierarchy, as included in Council’s Parking Policy 2017, which shows no stopping zones to have the highest priority.

Options

10. The options are:

i. to leave the area unchanged, retaining two existing P120 parking spaces, and accept the current road safety level of service; or

ii. change the existing P120 parking restriction to a No Stopping At All Times Restriction (through the installation of broken yellow lines), removing two parking spaces and improve the road safety level of service.

Consultation

11. A Council officer consulted 11 directly affected businesses at Nºs 16-26 and Nºs 9 to 25 Rutherford Street.

· Eight businesses signed a petition in support of the proposal.

· Consultation documents were delivered to the three businesses whose managers/owners were not present to advise their position.

̵ One response in support of the proposal was received.

12. Nine (82%) of the 11 consulted businesses support the proposal.

Legal Considerations

13. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

14. These changes can be funded from existing 2017/2018 road marking 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 utilises standard road markings.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Rutherford Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 18/343	31

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

32 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

12 March 2018

File: (18/365)

Report no: TRS2018/2/92

Military Road - 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 Military Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Military Road as shown in Appendix 1 attached.

For the reasons:

̵ the proposed restriction would improve visibility for motorists exiting two private properties, improving safety for the benefit of all road users;

̵ the proposed restriction is supported by the four directly affected properties;

̵ there is sufficient parking available in the area; and

̵ the proposed restriction supports Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Background

2. Council received a request from the resident of 34A Military Road to improve safety for motorists exiting his private driveway.

3. The concern expressed is that vehicles parked immediately adjacent to the southern side of his driveway obstruct visibility to oncoming vehicles.

4. The close proximity of the parked cars also forces vehicles exiting his property to ‘swing wide’ over the centre of the carriageway, increasing the risk of conflict with approaching vehicles.

5. The resident also noted that the new Boulcott’s Farm Heritage Golf Club development has been completed and traffic volumes along this section of Military Road are likely to increase.

Discussion

6. The existing car parking space is currently unrestricted and located on the outside of a moderate curve near the entrance to the golf club.

7. The proposal involves removing a single unrestricted car park through the installation of a No Stopping At All Times Restriction (broken yellow lines).

8. The broken yellow lines would extend into the entrance of the golf club to prevent parked vehicles obstructing normal traffic flow.

9. The proposed restriction would increase the sight distance for vehicles exiting No. 34A Military Road and reduce the likelihood of vehicle conflict by removing the need for exiting vehicles to cross the centre of the carriageway.

10. There is adequate parking provision in the area, with the golf club having extensive off street parking available.

11. The proposed restrictions support the road-space hierarchy in Council’s Parking Policy 2017 which places the highest priority on no stopping zones.

Options

12. The options are:

i. leave the area unchanged and accept the current levels of service for road safety and accessibility, or

ii. install the proposed changes to improve visibility and accessibility for drivers exiting the property at Nº34A Military Road, improving the current levels of service for road safety and accessibility.

Consultation

13. A plan of the proposal and petition form were forwarded to George Longstaff, resident of Nº 34A Military Road, who consulted the three directly affected properties at Nºs 33 and 34 Military Road and Nº 2 Hathaway Avenue.

̵ All four parties (including Mr. Longstaff) support the proposal.

Legal Considerations

14. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

15. These changes can be funded from existing 2017/2018 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

16. 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 ⇩	Military Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 18/365	35

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

36 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

12 March 2018

File: (18/366)

Report no: TRS2018/2/93

The Esplanade - 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, and No Parking Zones, on and adjacent to The Esplanade, Petone.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on The Esplanade as shown in Appendix 1 attached; and

(ii) approves the installation of No Parking Zones and No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in the off street parking areas adjacent to The Esplanade as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons:

̵ the proposed changes will improve the road safety level of service for all road users;

̵ the proposed changes would improve the level of service for accessibility for vehicles accessing the carparks and club facilities;

̵ the proposed changes are supported by the affected clubs; and

̵ the proposed changes support Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

Background

2. Council received a request from the Reserves Asset Manager, Parks & Gardens Division, to install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines) at several locations on The Esplanade, to improve sight distance and accessibility to the foreshore parking areas.

3. The concerns expressed are that vehicles parked too close to the driveways obstruct the visibility of drivers exiting the parking areas, and that motorists travelling westbound along The Esplanade often find it difficult to locate the car park entrances between parked cars.

4. The Reserves Asset Manager also noted that there are accessibility issues to the beach ramps within the off street car parks due to inconsiderate parking (ie, vehicles park in front of the removable bollards and block access by club users).

5. The Parks and Gardens Division has recently made improvements in the off street parking areas to improve accessibility for the clubs located in the area and to prevent parked vehicles blocking the foreshore shared path.

Discussion

6. The proposed restrictions involve installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines) on The Esplanade adjacent to the off street car park access points to prevent vehicles parking too close.

7. These restrictions will improve the sight distances available to motorists exiting the access points, as well as making them easier to locate for motorists turning into the car parks.

8. These car parks are often accessed by vehicles towing boat trailers, so the restrictions will also improve accessibility by providing more manoeuvring space when entering and exiting the car parks.

9. The proposed restrictions require the removal of three currently unrestricted parking spaces; two west of the driveway for the TS Tamatoa Sea Cadets’ car park (where the shoulder tapers into the traffic lane), and one east of the driveway for the Heretaunga Boating Club eastern car park.

10. The remaining proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions would not alter the number of on-street car parks available between the driveways.

11. The proposal further includes the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines) and No Parking zones (yellow cross hatching) within the off street parking areas to improve accessibility for club users and for Wellington Water access to their pumping station.

12. Three No Parking areas are proposed to be marked with yellow cross hatching. These areas will ensure access to the Wellington Water pumping station (adjacent to the Seashore Cabaret Café) and the two access points either side of the Heretaunga Boating Club.

13. It is proposed that all three No Parking areas would have adjacent No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines) to maintain clear areas for vehicle access.

14. Feedback from the Heretaunga Boating Club indicated that they prefer not to have the No Stopping At All Times Restriction located immediately east of their club house. Officers are happy to cede to this request, however we are also seeking Council resolution for this restriction in case it is needed in the future to keep the area clear.

Options

15. The options are:

i. leave the area unchanged and accept the current levels of service for road safety and accessibility; or

ii. install the proposed changes as shown in Appendix 1 to improve the levels of service for road safety and accessibility.

Consultation

16. Council officers consulted five directly affected organisations: Council Parks & Gardens Division, Heretaunga Boating Club, Petone Rowing Club, Seashore Cabaret Café and TS Tamatoa Sea Cadets.

· Four (80%) responses were received; all in favour of the proposal.

· The Heretaunga Boating Club requested that the No Stopping At All Times Restriction located immediately east of their club house not be installed. Officers believe it is preferable to install this restriction; however we are happy to defer to the Boating Club request.

· We believe it is best to also gain Council resolution for this restriction at this time, in case it needs to be installed in the future.

17. The Petone Community Board will consider the recommendation at its meeting on 4 April 2018 and the resolution will be tabled at the Traffic Subcommittee meeting on 9 April 2018.

Legal Considerations

18. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

19. These changes can be funded from 2017/2018 operational budget.

Other Considerations

20. 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 and 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 ⇩	The Esplanade - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 18/366	40

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

41 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

13 March 2018

File: (18/367)

Report no: TRS2018/2/94

High Street (559) - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of P60 Parking Restrictions, from Mondays to Fridays only, in High Street as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P60 Parking Restrictions, from Mondays to Fridays only, in High Street as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons:

̵ that it will improve the level of service for local businesses, customers, residents and visitors;

̵ it supports Council’s Parking Policy 2017; and

̵ all the respondents supported the proposal.

Background

2. Council received a request from the manager of Bay Audiology at Nº 559 High Street to increase parking turnover on the two parking spaces adjacent to their premises.

3. The concern expressed is that due to the high parking demand in the area, at times there are no parks available for customers in the vicinity of their property.

4. The high parking demand is a result of the concentration of local businesses, proximity to the CBD, a nearby school (St Orans) and residential parking demand.

5. Bay Audiology advised that most of their clients are elderly and/or have mobility impairment. As a result, even a short walk can be difficult.

6. The business manager also notes that Bay Audiology has limited off-street parking with a total of eight car parks: four allocated for their customers and four allocated for their staff in the rear of the property.

7. Occasionally the four customer parking spaces are insufficient and customers have to park along the street.

Discussion

8. The installation of P60 Parking Restrictions, as proposed, will increase parking turnover in two currently unrestricted parking spaces in the area improving the level of service for local businesses.

9. The higher turnover in parking would also improve the level of service for short term residential and visitor parking.

10. If assessed under the current District Plan requirements, Bay Audiology would be required to provide six off street parking spaces.

11. The existing off street parking exceeds the requirements of the business’ current resource consent, which requires six off street spaces (including two stacked spaces).

12. This section of High Street can be categorised as a mixture of “Live and Play” and “Shop and Trade & Work and Learn” land use when considering Council’s Parking Policy Road-Space Hierarchy. In both these categories, short term parking has a higher priority than commuter and local employee car parking.

Options

13. The options are:

i. to leave the area unchanged and accept that the current level of service for customer parking will remain; or

ii. to install the proposed changes, increase parking turnover in two parking spaces adjacent to the community health facility, and improve the parking level of service for the local business. There would also be some increase in the level of service for short term residential and visitor parking.

Consultation

14. Consultation documents were delivered to the 11 directly affected properties from Nº 555 to Nº 561, and Nºs 536 to 538 High Street.

̵ Three (27%) of questionnaires were returned.

· All in support of the proposal.

Legal Considerations

15. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

16. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2017/2018 operational budget.

Other Considerations

17. 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 standards signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	High Street (559) - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions 18/367	44

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

45 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

13 March 2018

File: (18/369)

Report no: TRS2018/2/95

High Street (Taita Station) - 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 High Street, Taita, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

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

For the reasons:

̵ the proposed measures will improve safety for the benefit of all road users;

̵ the proposed measures would meet the minimum recommended sight distance requirements; and

̵ the proposal does not result in the loss of any existing parking spaces.

Background

2. Council received a request from a member of the public to improve safety at the pedestrian crossing in High Street, adjacent to Taita Train Station.

3. The concern expressed is that cars parked in the existing space immediately south of the pedestrian crossing obstruct drivers’ visibility to pedestrians approaching the crossing, increasing the safety hazard for all road users.

4. The requester also noted (anecdotally) that traffic often travels over the speed limit on this stretch of road.

5. Officers note that the pedestrian crossing has a kerb extension on the northern side of High Street which reduces the crossing distance (to around 10m) and improves lines of clear sight between pedestrians and approaching drivers.

Discussion

6. The existing kerb extension provided on the northern side of High Street improves the sight distance available to motorists and pedestrians.

7. The NZTA guidelines suggest that broken yellow lines should be marked for a minimum distance of 6m from the crossing markings. The same guidelines suggest that 15m of broken yellow lines are ‘desirable’.

8. There are currently no broken yellow lines marked on the western side of the kerb extension; however the existing parking bay markings ensure vehicles do not park closer than 5m to the crossing.

9. Reducing the length of the two existing parking spaces (to 5m each) would allow yellow lines to be marked to approximately 6.5m from the crossing (Option ii, as shown in Appendix 1), marginally exceeding the recommended minimum spacing, without reducing the available car park spaces.

10. Increasing the dashed yellow lines to the ‘desirable’ length of 15m (Option iv) would require the removal of the two existing, unrestricted, car park spaces but would significantly increase the available sight distance.

11. An intermediate option (Option iii) would be to remove a single parking space, which would allow approximately 11m of dashed yellow lines to be marked.

12. There is often high parking demand in the area due to close proximity of Taita Rail Station. Any loss of commuter parking will increase the utilisation of the remaining parking, albeit the removal of one or two spaces would have relatively minor effect.

13. The reported crash history for the site shows that there have been no crashes reported involving pedestrians in the preceding five year period.

14. Due to the lack of a significant reported crash problems relating to pedestrians, Option ii is recommended as this option improves the available sight distance and meets the minimum sight distance requirements, without the removal of any existing commuter parking spaces.

Options

15. The options are:

i. to leave the area unchanged and accept the current road safety level of service at the pedestrian crossing; or

ii. to mark 6.5m of dashed yellow lines to improve the available sight distance and adjust the two existing parking bays to accommodate the change (as shown in Appendix 1); or

iii. to mark 11m of dashed yellow lines to improve the available sight distance and remove an existing parking bay to accommodate the change (leaving one parking space remaining); or

iv. to mark 15m of dashed yellow lines to improve the available sight distance and remove both existing parking bays to accommodate the change (leaving no parking spaces remaining).

Consultation

16. As this is considered a road safety issue no public consultation has been undertaken.

Legal Considerations

17. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

18. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2017/2018 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

19. 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 ⇩	High Street (Taita Station) - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 18/369	48

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

49 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

14 March 2018

File: (18/372)

Report no: TRS2018/2/96

Lees Grove - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No Stopping Restrictions, from 8:30am to 9:30am and 2:30pm to 3:30pm on school days only, in Lees Grove, Wainuiomata, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approve the installation of No Stopping Restrictions, from 8:30am to 9:30am and 2:30pm to 3:30pm on school days only, in Lees Grove, Wainuiomata, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons:

̵ the proposed measures would improve the levels of service for road safety and accessibility in the vicinity of the school entrance for the benefit of all road users;

̵ the proposed restrictions are supported by a majority of the directly affected residents; and

̵ the proposed restrictions support Council’s Parking Policy 2017 by implementing a No Stopping zone only during the hours when the problem occurs and allowing residential parking outside of those hours.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to improve safety in Lees Grove, Wainuiomata, along the bend north of the Fernlea Primary School entrance.

3. The concern expressed is that during school starting/finishing times there is a lack of parking etiquette from parents and caregivers picking up/dropping off children to the school.

4. The requester also notes that vehicles park along the bend, limiting drivers’ visibility, narrowing the effective carriageway width and forcing drivers to cross the centreline into oncoming traffic therefore creating a safety hazard.

5. During a site visit, Council officers noted that the road side parking clearances on the approaches to the existing KEA crossing do not currently meet Council’s guideline recommendations (there should be no parking within 15m either side of the KEA crossing).

6. Officers also note that during school starting and finishing times the effective carriageway width is reduced to one lane only due to parked cars.

Discussion

7. Lees Grove has a carriageway width of approximately 7.3m in the vicinity of the school entrance.

8. A parked car would narrow the available carriageway to around 5.2m wide which is less than the minimum carriageway width for two way travel.

9. There are already several non-continuous sections of dashed yellow lines in the vicinity of the school entrance. When cars are parked in between these sections, the carriageway is effectively reduced to a single lane which leads to congestion, impatience and dis-courteous driver behaviour.

10. The installation of No Stopping Restrictions as proposed would prevent vehicles parking close to the KEA crossing which would improve the sight distances at the crossing.

11. The proposed restrictions would ensure adequate carriageway width for two-way traffic in the vicinity of the school entrance and the bend north of the school entrance.

12. The proposed restrictions would apply during school drop off and pick up times only, minimising the inconvenience to local residents, who could utilise the on street parking outside of the restriction hours.

13. The proposed restrictions should improve parking etiquette in the vicinity of the school entrance improving the levels of service for road safety and accessibility for the benefit of all road users.

14. Initial consultation was undertaken on the proposed measures as shown in Appendix 2 (Option iii below). As a result of the consultation feedback and further on site investigation, the scheme has been amended to that shown in Appendix 1 (Option ii below).

15. The measures proposed under Option iii (Appendix 2) would not resolve the issue of vehicles parking within 15m of the KEA crossing. This issue would be resolved by Option ii (Appendix 1).

16. Option iv (Appendix 3) has been submitted by the board of Fernlea Primary School and includes a pick up zone and parking restrictions during the afternoon period only.

17. Officers are not recommending Option iv (as submitted by the school) as the proposed measures would not resolve the issues during the morning period. During the afternoon period, compliance with the P5 restriction is likely to be poor without ongoing enforcement action.

Options

18. The options are:

i. leave the area unchanged and accept the current levels of service for road safety and accessibility will remain; or

ii. install the proposed changes as shown in Appendix 1 and improve the levels of service for road safety and accessibility in the vicinity of the school entrance during the school drop off and pick up times, and resolve the parking clearance with the KEA crossing; or

iii. install the proposed changes as shown in Appendix 2, which would also improve the levels of service for road safety and accessibility albeit to a lesser extent than Option ii. This option fails to address the issue with vehicles parking too close to the KEA crossing and also would not ensure two way travel; or

iv. install the proposed changes as shown in Appendix 3, which would improve the levels of service for road safety and accessibility in the vicinity of the school entrance during the afternoon pick up period only.

Consultation

19. Consultation documents were delivered to the 13 directly affected properties from Nºs 17 to 27 and Nºs 28 to 38 Lees Grove.

20. The initial consultation plan (see Appendix 2) allowed residents to support the proposed parking changes along the entire street, part of the street (either Section 1 or Section 2) or object to all proposed changes.

̵ Overall six (46%) questionnaires were returned.

̵ For the proposed changes in Section 1 (proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions):

· Four (67%) in support of Section 1; and

· Two (33%) objecting to Section 1.

̵ For the proposed changes in Section 2 (proposed No Stopping Restrictions from 8:00am to 9:00am and 2:30pm to 3:30pm, on School Days only):

· Four (66%) in support of Section 2;

· One (17%) objecting to Section 2; and

· One (17%) did not specify their position.

̵ The reasons given for the objections were:

· It's hard enough to get a park as it is. Will be even harder getting kids to school in the rain, people park on the yellow lines now so if there are even more, it will be even more people parking illegally. What about kids with disabilities?

· Section one would help with congestion although I doubt the people will adhere the rules of not parking on yellow lines. Section two - I support in the afternoon but not the morning.

· Lees Grove does not have appropriate “School Zone” signage which clearly advises motorists of the speed limit restriction (30km) during the restricted times of 08:30 – 09:30 and 14:30 – 15:30 on School Days.

· Resolve the root cause of the issue – which is the lack of alternative parking options for the Fernlea Primary School community.

· Apply the proposed “No Stopping Restrictions” from Section 2 to Section 1, which will remediate the “parking etiquette” concerns and apparent “blind spot” of the bend during high volume traffic times.

̵ Officers responses:

· Due to the relatively narrow carriageway and the KEA crossing, parking close to the school entrance is not desirable for safety and accessibility reasons.

· The parking enforcement team will be advised of the new restrictions so they can be monitored and enforced.

· If the restrictions are imposed in the afternoon only, the safety hazard will not be addressed during the school starting times.

· Fernlea School is currently on the priority list for installation of school active signage. The congested nature of the local streets generally ensure low vehicle speeds.

· There are no options to provide local off street parking and this is an inefficient use of land in a residential area.

· Council’s Road Safety Coordinator will work with the school to promote alternative drop-off / pick-up point with the school to help with congestion at the front gate (ie, walking bus etc,).

21. As a result of the consultation feedback and further on site investigation, the scheme initially consulted on has been amended to that shown in Appendix 1 (Option ii above), which is the officer’s recommended option.

22. At the time this report was initially submitted officers had not heard back from Fernlea School who were to discuss the proposed measures at a board meeting on 22^nd March 2018.

23. The school board discussed the proposed changes (Appendix 1) at its board meeting on the 22^nd March 2018; subsequent to the Wainuiomata Community Board draft agenda meeting.

24. Officers received feedback from the school board on the proposed changes shown in Appendix 1 on the 23^rd March 2018.

25. The school board believe that the proposed restrictions will increase congestion in the vicinity of the school entrance and force parents/caregivers to park further away from the school entrance therefore increasing the inconvenience to them.

26. The school board also noted that a lot of parents will not adhere to the restrictions and that on wet days the proposed restrictions will cause a bigger inconvenience.

27. The school suggested that the No Stopping Restrictions are installed only along the northern side of the street and along the bend north of the school entrance, and that a P5 Pick Up/Drop Off zone be installed adjacent to the KEA crossing, outside Nºs 21 and 23.

28. Officers have drawn a plan with the school’s suggestions (see Appendix 3). A section of No Stopping Restrictions on the westbound approach to the KEA crossing has also been included on this option to ensure that the road side parking clearances comply with Council’s guideline recommendations.

29. The Wainuiomata Community Board will consider the recommendation at its meeting on 5 April 2018 and the resolution will be tabled at the Traffic Subcommittee meeting on 9 April 2018.

Legal Considerations

30. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

31. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2017/2018 operational budget.

Other Considerations

32. 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 and signs.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Lees Gr - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions 18/372	55
2 ⇩	Lees Grove - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions CONSULTATION 18/372	56
3 ⇩	Lees Grove - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions SCHOOL SUGGESTION 18/372	57

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

58 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

14 March 2018

File: (18/375)

Report no: TRS2018/2/97

Memorial Park (off Bracken Street) - P180 Parking Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s retrospective approval/resolution for the P180 Parking Restrictions from 8:00am to 6:00pm, Mondays to Fridays only, in Memorial Park, Bracken Street as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council retrospectively resolve the P180 Parking Restrictions from 8:00am to 6:00pm, Mondays to Fridays only, in Memorial Park, Bracken Street as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reason that parking restrictions need to be formally resolved by Council so they can be enforced.

Background

2. Council Parking Enforcement Services received a request from the Parks & Gardens Parks Asset Manager to undertake enforcement of the existing parking restrictions in Memorial Park, in Bracken Street.

3. The Parking Warden dispatched to undertake this enforcement noted conflicting information on the parking signs within Memorial Park and asked the Transport Division to clarify what the restriction should be and what had been formally resolved by Council.

4. Council officers investigated the situation and found that, in addition to the incorrect signage, the formal Council resolution for these restrictions did not clearly specify during what times the restrictions apply, therefore they cannot be legally enforced.

Discussion

5. The P180 Parking Restrictions from 8:00am to 6:00pm, Mondays to Fridays only, have previously been installed to provide adequate parking turnover in the area, ensuring satisfactory level of service for the park users.

6. This report seeks to formally approve these restrictions so they can be legally enforced.

Options

7. The options are:

i. to remove the existing restrictions and reduce parking turnover in Memorial Park during weekdays; or

ii. retrospectively resolve the P180 Parking Restrictions so they can be legally enforced.

Consultation

8. As the P180 Parking Restrictions are already installed, no consultation has been undertaken.

9. The Petone Community Board will consider the recommendation at its meeting on 4 April 2018 and the resolution will be tabled at the Traffic Subcommittee meeting on 9 April 2018.

Legal Considerations

10. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

11. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2017/2018 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 ⇩	Memorial Park (off Bracken St) - P180 Parking Restrictions 18/375	61

Author: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

62 09 April 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

16 March 2018

File: (18/397)

Report no: TRS2018/2/98

Woodvale Grove - 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 Woodvale Grove, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Woodvale Grove as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons:

- the proposed restrictions would:

· improve safety within the street for the benefit of all road users;

· promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004; and

· support Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

- the proposed restrictions are supported by the local residents who responded to the consultation documents.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to improve road safety on Woodvale Grove by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions.

3. Woodvale Grove is a relatively narrow, winding road with sight distance limited in places by the road’s horizontal curvature.

4. The concern expressed is that motorists occasionally park along the section of the road between Nos. 27 and 30, effectively reducing the road width to a single lane.

5. This increases the risk for vehicle conflict in conjunction with the limited sight distance.

Discussion

6. The installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions, as proposed, would improve the sight distance and ensure the full carriageway width is available for motorists, reducing the risk of vehicle conflict.

7. Although on road parking is not currently banned by Council resolution, parking on or near corners or bends in a way that is likely to obstruct other traffic is covered under the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

8. The proposed restrictions would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

9. Six unrestricted on road parking spaces are marked at the end of the Grove, providing sufficient parking for visitors without affecting road safety.

10. During consultation, three respondents suggested extending the No Stopping At All Times Restrictions further uphill and downhill on both sides of the road. These suggestions have been included in the proposed restrictions as shown in Appendix 1.

Options

11. The options are:

i. to leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept the current level of service for road safety; or

ii. improve the road safety level of service by installing No Stopping At All Time Restrictions to prevent parked vehicles obstructing other traffic.

Consultation

12. Consultation documents were delivered to eight directly affected residences at Nos. 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39 and 41 Woodvale Grove.

13. Three questionnaires were returned, all in favour of the proposal.

14. Comments from supporting residents include:

̵ “Please kindly consider extending the broken yellow lines further along the road, as marked up on the drawing in black.”

̵ “We welcome the proposed restrictions as many times we have had to drive uphill on the wrong side of the road on that blind bend outside No. 31 and No. 33 to get passed parked cars. We would even suggest extending the uphill no stopping lines down to No. 27.”

̵ “I suggest the no parking area extend further uphill and downhill as I have marked on the map.”

15. As a result of the consultation feedback, the extent of the proposed restrictions has been increased as shown in Appendix 1.

Legal Considerations

16. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

17. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2017/2018 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Woodvale Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions 18/397	65

Author: Victor Leal

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

Cr L Bridson	Cr J Briggs
Cr T Lewis	Cr L Sutton
Cr C Barry (Alternate)	Deputy Mayor D Bassett (Alternate)
Cr G Barratt (Alternate)	Cr M Lulich (Alternate)
Cr G McDonald (Alternate)	Cr C Milne (Alternate)