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 18 June 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 – 24 july 2018

i) Willis Grove/Hine Road - Proposed Give Way Control & No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/251)

Report No. TRS2018/3/165 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations 7

ii) Kingsley Street - Proposed Realignment of Centreline (18/395)

Report No. TRS2018/3/166 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 13

iii) Waterloo Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/667)

Report No. TRS2018/3/167 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 19

iv) Poto Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/668)

Report No. TRS2018/3/168 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 23

v) Maungaraki Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/673)

Report No. TRS2018/3/169 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 27

vi) Parliament Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (18/680)

Report No. TRS2018/3/170 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 31

vii) Pharazyn Street - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions (18/736)

Report No. TRS2018/3/171 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 35

viii) Randwick Road - Proposed Mobility & P15 Pick up Drop off Zone Restrictions (18/814)

Report No. TRS2018/3/172 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations 39

ix) Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limits 2017/2018 (18/819)

Report No. TRS2018/3/173 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations 45

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

10 18 June 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

23 February 2018

File: (18/251)

Report no: TRS2018/3/165

Willis Grove/Hine Road - Proposed Give Way Control & 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 Give Way priority control on the Willis Grove approach to Hine Road and associated No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Hine Road, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that the Council:

(i) approves the installation of a Give Way priority control on the Willis Grove approach to Hine Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(ii) approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Hine Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reason that the proposed changes will encourage drivers to slow down to the appropriate speed before entering the intersection and will improve the sight distance and space for vehicles negotiating this intersection.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to install broken yellow lines in the vicinity of the Willis Grove/Hine Road intersection.

3. The concern expressed is that vehicles park on both sides of Hine Road, reducing the available carriageway width, increasing the risk for vehicle conflict.

4. Vehicles parked either side of the intersection also reduce the visibility for vehicles exiting from Willis Grove.

Discussion

5. The Hine Road carriageway is relatively narrow at this location, with approximately 7m to 7.2m between kerbs.

6. When cars are parked both sides of the road, the available carriageway can be reduced to around 2.8m to 3m, wide enough for only a single vehicle.

7. The intersection of Willis Grove and Hine Road is currently uncontrolled.

8. Anecdotal evidence from residents indicated that motorists often exit Willis Grove without slowing or looking for vehicles on Hine Road. This behaviour, in conjunction with the narrow carriageway, increases the risk of vehicle conflict.

9. A check of the CAS (Crash Analysis System) database shows that there have been four recorded crashes within 50m of this intersection between 2007 and 2018.

- Three of these were vehicles on Hine Road hitting a parked vehicle. Causes: Crash 1 - Alcohol. Crash 2 - attention diverted. Crash 3 - hit and run.

- One of the crashes was caused by a vehicle overtaking another vehicle turning right into Willis Grove.

10. Officers originally developed a proposal to install No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines) opposite the Willis Grove T intersection (Appendix 2).

11. There was mixed community feedback on the original proposal, primarily due to the loss of road side parking.

12. Officers, in consideration of the community feedback, modified the original proposal to include a Give Way priority control on Willis Grove and reduced No Stopping At All Times restrictions on the south side of Hine Road.

13. The Give Way control will encourage motorists to slow and look for traffic when exiting Willis Grove.

14. The proposed parking restrictions will improve the sight distance for vehicles exiting Willis Grove and improve the road safety level of service for all road users by maintaining the carriageway width in the vicinity of the intersection, reducing the risk of vehicle conflict.

Options

15. The options are:

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

ii. install a Give Way control on the Willis Grove approach and No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Hine Road (Appendix 1); or

iii. install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions to prevent parking opposite Willis Grove as originally proposed (Appendix 2).

Consultation

16. Consultation documents for the original proposal (Appendix 2) were delivered to 24 local residents. The properties included: No. (3 to 17, 17A, 18, 19A, 19B Willis Grove) and (141, 143, 144, 145, 1-2/146 Hine Road).

17. Twelve responses were received: Six (50%) were in support; five (42%) were against the proposal and one (8%) did not specify their position.

18. The three residents that would be most affected by the loss of parking are all against the original proposal. These residents suggested an intersection control at the end of Willis Grove would be a better solution.

19. Comments from supporting residents include:

- “The new lines will make entering & exiting Willis Grove a lot safer”.

- “That would be greater protection to passing cars and busses & those exiting Willis Grove”

20. Comments from opposing residents include:

- “The issue at Willis Grove is no different to the rest of the road”

- “I have never had trouble getting out of Willis Grove. Hine Road is narrow when cars are parked in a variety of places, but just a little patience is required”.

- “The only reason that there could be any problem with this intersection would be if drivers do not drive sensibly according to the road conditions. The problem is that drivers coming down Willis Grove intending to turn left into Hine Road do not always slow down to the appropriate speed, take a quick look to the right and around they go”

21. As a result of the consultation feedback, the original proposal (Appendix 2) has been modified in order to retain the maximum number of on-street parking spaces but still provide an improvement to the overall intersection safety, as shown in (Appendix 1).

22. The Wainuiomata Community Board will consider the recommendation at its meeting on 13 June 2018 and the resolution will be tabled at the Traffic Subcommittee meeting on 18 June 2018.

23. Subsequent to the finalisation of the report to Wainuiomata Community Board, officers received a letter from Rev. William Ingley of 19b Willis Grove. Rev. Ingley expressed his dissatisfaction at the option recommended by officers (Option ii, Appendix 1) with his preference for No Stopping At All Times Restrictions opposite Willis Grove (Option iii, Appendix 2). Officers have spoken to Rev. Ingley by telephone, where he expressed his desire to speak during Public Comment at the Wainuiomata Community Board meeting.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

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

Other Considerations

26. 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 ⇩	Appendix 1 Willis Grove Hine Road - Proposed GiveWay Control & No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	11
2 ⇩	Appendix 2 Willis Grove Hine Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Resteictions	12

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Reviewed By: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

15 18 June 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

16 March 2018

File: (18/395)

Report no: TRS2018/3/166

Kingsley Street - Proposed Realignment of Centreline

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval to adjust the centreline on Kingsley Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report, rather than install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions as originally proposed.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the proposed realignment of the centreline on Kingsley Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed changes would improve road safety for all road users without reducing the available on street parking.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to improve road safety on Kingsley Street by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines) on the approach to the intersection with Manor Drive.

3. The concern expressed is that cars parked adjacent to the kerb in the uphill traffic lane force motorists to cross the carriageway centreline, increasing the risk of vehicle conflict.

Discussion

4. The existing carriageway width on Kingsley Street is between 8m and 9m wide on the approach to Manor Drive.

5. The downhill lane (towards Manor Drive) is already marked with broken yellow lines to prevent kerb side parking in the vicinity of the curves. The uphill lane (away from Manor Drive) has short sections of existing broken yellow lines. In between these sections, kerbside parking is permitted.

6. The road centreline is marked equidistant between the kerb either side of the road. This requires uphill motorists to cross the centreline when adjacent to parked vehicles (refer picture below).

7. Council Officers originally developed a proposal to provide continuous broken yellow lines along the uphill kerb – removing parking in this area – and removing the need for vehicles to cross the centreline.

8. This proposal was taken to the local community for comment, however almost half of the respondents did not favour the proposal due to the loss of on street parking near their homes.

9. Council Officers, in consideration of the community feedback, subsequently developed a proposal to relocate the road centreline and mark a kerbside parking lane in the uphill direction (as shown in Appendix 1).

10. The new proposal will mean vehicles do not cross the centreline when passing adjacent to parked cars and does not require the removal of any on street parking.

11. The proposed lane edge line will also serve in a traffic calming capacity by visually narrowing the carriageway in the absence of parked vehicles.

12. The originally proposed restrictions (as shown in Appendix 2) would have resulted in the removal of approximately 12 on-street car parking spaces.

Options

13. The options are:

i. to leave the area as it is and accept the current level of service for road safety, accessibility and parking availability;

ii. to realign the centreline and mark a lane edge line in the uphill direction, improving road safety (Appendix 1); or

iii. to install the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions, as originally proposed and improve the road safety level of service with the loss of 12 on street parking spaces (Appendix 2).

Option 2 (Appendix 1) is recommended as this option achieves the desired safety outcome without the loss of any on street parking.

Consultation

14. Consultation documents for the original proposal (Appendix 2) were delivered to 19 directly affected parties. The properties included: No. 37 Manor Drive; Nos. 1A, 1B and 3 Lord Street; and Nos. 3 to 13, 15, 17 and 19 Kingsley Street.

15. Nine questionnaires were returned; five (56%) in favour and four (44%) against the proposal.

16. Comments from supporting residents include:

̵ “There have been several times small accidents have happened, and buses have difficulty in gaining access to the hill. We support the proposal.”

17. Comments from opposing residents include:

̵ “If this goes ahead, where would people park? I live down a ROW and don’t want non-residents deciding this is an option. Parked vehicles means you have to drive slowly. Remove them and uphill traffic from Manor Drive won’t need to slow down at all turning into Kingsley Street. This will increase the possibility of a collision with downhill traffic.”

̵ “If these parks are removed, each household will need to park up the hill significantly away from our houses, therefore impacting the homes that normally won’t have us parking there, and loss of parking for them. Also, security for our vehicles being parked so far away from each house.”

18. As a result of the consultation feedback, the original proposed restrictions (Appendix 2) have been modified in order to retain the maximum number of on-street parking spaces, as shown in Appendix 1.

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 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 ⇩	Kingsley St - Plan Centreline Realignment Improvement	17
2 ⇩	Kingsley St - Original Plan for Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	18

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

21 18 June 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

27 April 2018

File: (18/667)

Report no: TRS2018/3/167

Waterloo 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 Waterloo 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 Waterloo Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reason the proposed restrictions would improve visibility and accessibility for the residents of the two affected private properties, and improve road safety for all road users.

Background

2. Council received a request from the resident of 92 Waterloo Road to improve accessibility and safety for motorists exiting her private driveway, by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (dashed yellow lines).

3. The concern expressed is that vehicles parked immediately adjacent to both sides of her driveway (particularly the eastern side) overhang the parking spaces and restrict access to her property.

4. The close proximity of these parked cars to the driveway reduces the available sight distance to oncoming traffic and increases the safety risk for other road users.

Discussion

5. The existing car parking spaces either side of the driveway to 92 Waterloo Road are currently unrestricted and located in close proximity to two relatively narrow driveways (92 and 98 Waterloo Road).

6. The close proximity of the parking spaces makes it difficult for driveway users to see approaching vehicles and also makes the exit manoeuvre more difficult. This becomes an undesirable situation when considered in conjunction with the relatively heavy traffic volumes on Waterloo Road.

7. The proposal involves removing two unrestricted parking spaces (one either side of the driveway for 92 Waterloo Road) by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines), as shown in Appendix 1.

8. The proposed restrictions will improve the sight distance for vehicles exiting the driveways and assist exit movements by improving the manoeuvring space available.

9. This proposal will result in the removal of two on street parking spaces.

10. Council’s Parking Policy (2017) includes a road-space hierarchy to assist officers to prioritise competing demands for on road parking spaces. For live and play land use the hierarchy shows that existing property access has a higher priority than all other parking demands (with the exception of no stopping zones).

11. The proposal parking restrictions therefore support the Parking Policy.

Options

12. The options are:

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

ii. improve the accessibility and road safety level of service by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions to prevent parked vehicles from obstructing access to two private driveways.

Consultation

13. A plan of the proposal and petition form were forwarded to Ms Lisa Chapman, resident of Nº 92 Waterloo Road, who consulted the two other directly-affected properties at Nº 92A and 98 Waterloo Road.

- All three parties (including Ms Chapman) 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 Council’s 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 ⇩	Waterloo Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	22

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

25 18 June 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

27 April 2018

File: (18/668)

Report no: TRS2018/3/168

Poto 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 Poto 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 Poto Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reason the proposed restrictions would improve visibility and accessibility for motorists and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Background

2. Council received a request from the resident at Nº 47 Poto Road to improve accessibility by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines).

3. The concern expressed is that vehicles parked on this portion of the street restrict the manoeuvring space available for drivers entering and exiting the driveway to Nº 47 Poto Road.

4. Due to the proximity to the nearby bend, cars parked in this area force motorists to travel over the centreline increasing the risk of vehicle conflict.

Discussion

5. The existing on road parking space is located between a bus stop and the driveway of Nº 47 Poto Road, directly after a 90⁰ bend.

6. Due to the topography of the area, the driveway of Nº 47 Poto Road intersects the carriageway at an acute angle. Vehicles parked near the driveway restrict vehicle manoeuvring and increase the safety risk for vehicles entering and exiting the driveway and other road users.

7. Vehicles parked in this area also restrict bus manoeuvrability at the adjacent bus stop.

8. The proposal involves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines) extending from the bus stop to within 1m from the driveway of Nº 47 Poto Road.

9. The proposed restriction would result in the loss of one on street parking space.

10. The proposed restriction would improve the manoeuvring space and sight distance for cars using the driveway; and reduce the safety hazard for all road users.

Options

11. The options are:

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

ii. improve accessibility and road safety by installing the proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions.

Consultation

12. Consultation documents were delivered to four directly-affected residences at Nº 47, 54, 56 and 58 Poto Road.

13. Only the resident at Nº 47 responded, verbally confirming their support.

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 Council’s 2017/2018 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Poto Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	26

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

29 18 June 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

27 April 2018

File: (18/673)

Report no: TRS2018/3/169

Maungaraki 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 Maungaraki 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 Maungaraki Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reason the proposed restrictions would improve safety within the street for the benefit of all road users and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to improve road safety on Maungaraki Road by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines).

3. Maungaraki Road is a relatively narrow, winding, road where sight distances can be restricted in places by the road’s horizontal curvature and steep road side embankments.

4. The concern expressed is that vehicles parked on the inside of these bends reduce the effective carriageway width and force motorists to cross the centreline, increasing the risk of vehicle conflict.

5. The safety concern is exacerbated when larger vehicles, such as buses and waste collection trucks, are transiting the street.

Discussion

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

7. These parking restrictions would also allow for larger vehicles (buses and trucks) to transit the street more safely.

8. The proposed restrictions would remove approximately 12 on street parking spaces, however at least 10 of these spaces are not permitted by the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, which states that

“a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle on any part of a roadway so close to any corner, bend, rise, dip, traffic island, or intersection as to obstruct or be likely to obstruct other traffic or any view of the roadway to the driver of a vehicle approaching that corner, bend, rise, dip, traffic island, or intersection unless the stopping, standing, or parking is authorised by signs or markings maintained by the road controlling authority”.

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

Options

10. The options are:

i. to leave the area as it is without any parking 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 Times Restrictions to prevent parked vehicles from obstructing sight distance and reducing the effective carriageway width.

Consultation

11. Consultation documents were delivered to 16 directly-affected residences at Nºs 36, 38 – 47, and A-B/51 Maungaraki Road.

12. Seven questionnaires were returned; six (86%) in favour of the proposal and one (14%) against it.

13. Comments from supporting residents include:

- “I wish to request that the status of the ‘footpath’ area directly in front of our property at 40A Maungaraki Road is changed to a single vehicle parking space (…) Over the years, car have been ticketed occasionally for parking here, and frankly residents are sick of this occurring. The area is simply not usable as a footpath. If we were to park ‘legally’ on the road side it would create exactly the kind of problem that the proposed no stopping zone seeks to address.”

Officer’s response: Because of the geometry of the road and the sharp angle of the driveway at Nº 38 Maungaraki Road, a single car parking space in front of 40A Maungaraki Road would restrict access to properties.

Comments from the opposing resident include:

- “We have lived at 47 Maungaraki Road since 2009 and we have never seen a vehicle parked on the inside of either bend shown on the plan attached to your letter, and therefore feel it is unnecessary. The problem is not because of parked vehicles, but with speeding drivers who cross the center lines to cut the corners, and buses too big for the narrow road.”

Officer’s response: Although the demand for on street parking is relatively low (most homes have sufficient off street parking), the anecdotal evidence from other residents is that vehicles have occasionally parked in these areas.

14. At its meeting on 11 June 2018, the Petone Community Board resolved to endorse the recommendation contained in the officer’s report.

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 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 ⇩	Maungaraki Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	30

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

32 18 June 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

01 May 2018

File: (18/680)

Report no: TRS2018/3/170

Parliament Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of P30 Parking Restrictions in Parliament Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P30 Parking Restrictions in Parliament Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reason the proposed restrictions would improve parking accessibility and availability within the street for the benefit of local businesses and business customers.

Background

2. Council received a request from the Development Manager at Nº 23 Parliament Street (Kiwirail) on behalf of RS Motorcycles to improve accessibility and car park availability for customers.

3. The concern expressed is that there is demand for convenient, short-term parking in the vicinity; however the existing on street time unrestricted spaces are often occupied for much of the day.

4. The close proximity of the business to the Western Hutt Rail Station means there is high week day demand for free all day commuter parking.

Discussion

5. The proposal involves installing P30 parking restrictions over two existing on-street car parks directly outside RS Motorcycles at Nº 23 Parliament Street.

6. The two existing parking spaces are currently unrestricted.

7. Council’s Parking Policy 2017 includes a road-space hierarchy to assist officers to prioritise competing demands for on road parking spaces. For shop and trade/work and learn land use the hierarchy shows that short term parking has a higher priority than commuter car parking (which has the lowest priority).

8. The proposed restrictions would enhance accessibility for customers by allowing short-term parking and encouraging higher parking turnover.

Options

9. The options are:

i. to leave the existing parking as it is without any restrictions and accept the current level of service for accessibility; or

ii. improve parking accessibility and availability in the area by installing P30 Parking Restrictions to allow appropriate, short-term parking in the area.

Consultation

10. A plan of the proposal and petition form were forwarded to Simone Hadley, Development Manager at Nº 23 Parliament Street, who consulted the eight directly-affected properties at Nºs 12, 1-6/14, 15 and 16 Parliament Street.

- All nine parties (including Ms. Hadley operator of RS Motorcycles) support the proposal.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

12. These changes can be funded from existing 2017/2018 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 ⇩	Parliament Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions	34

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

37 18 June 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

07 May 2018

File: (18/736)

Report no: TRS2018/3/171

Pharazyn Street - 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 in Pharazyn 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 in Pharazyn Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reason the proposed restrictions would improve accessibility within the street for the benefit of all road users and local businesses.

Background

2. Council received a request from the business at 2/58 Pharazyn Street (Dominator Garage) to improve accessibility for customers that frequent their store.

3. The concern expressed is that customers cannot find convenient short-term parking in the vicinity, as the on-street parking is often fully occupied by local employees and rail commuters, throughout the working week.

4. The concentration of businesses in this part of Pharazyn Street means there is high demand for short term (customers) and all day parking (local employees).

Discussion

5. Officers originally developed a proposal to install P60 parking restrictions on two existing unrestricted parking spaces immediately outside 2/58 Pharazyn Street.

6. During consultation on the proposal, the occupant of 1/58 Pharazyn Street requested that the existing unrestricted parking space outside their business also be converted to P60.

7. Officers subsequently amended the proposal to incorporate the request from the occupant of 1/58 Pharazyn Street and the current proposal therefore includes three P60 spaces as shown in Appendix 1.

8. The proposed restrictions will prevent all day parking in these spaces and improve accessibility to the businesses in the area. The remaining unrestricted parking will cater for existing long term users.

9. Council’s Parking Policy 2017 includes a road-space hierarchy to assist officers to prioritise competing demands for on road parking spaces. For shop and trade/work and learn land use the hierarchy shows that short term parking has a higher priority than local employee parking and commuter parking (which has the lowest priority).

10. The proposal parking restrictions therefore support the Parking Policy.

Options

11. The options are:

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

ii. improve parking accessibility by installing P60 Parking Restrictions on three existing parking spaces outside 1/58 and 2/58 Pharazyn Street (Appendix 1); or

iii. improve parking accessibility by installing P60 Parking Restrictions on two existing parking spaces outside 2/58 Pharazyn Street.

Option ii is the recommended option as this satisfies the requirements of the occupants of both businesses.

Consultation

12. Consultation documents were delivered to seven directly-affected residences at Nºs 56, 1-3/58, 67, 69 and 71 Pharazyn Street.

13. Four questionnaires were returned; three (75%) in favour and one (25%) against the proposal.

14. Comments from supporting residents include:

- “I support the proposed parking changes but request the same P60 time limit be extended to my business next door (1/58) as I have the same problem with no short-term parking for my customers.”

15. Comments from the opposing resident include:

- “There is plenty of off-street parking for businesses. Where will staff park? Plus another way to issue tickets (Not on) leave it as it is.”

16. As a result of the consultation feedback, the extent of the proposed restrictions has been increased by one parking space, as shown in Appendix 1.

Legal Considerations

17. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the 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 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 ⇩	Pharazyn Street - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions	38

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

42 18 June 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

14 May 2018

File: (18/814)

Report no: TRS2018/3/172

Randwick Road - Proposed Mobility & P15 Pick up Drop off Zone Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. To recommend that Council approves the installation of a Mobility Park Restriction, P15 Parking Restrictions and associated No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Randwick Road, outside Randwick Primary School, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the installation of a Mobility Park Restriction outside Randwick Primary School as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(ii) approves the installation of four P15 Parking Restrictions, from 8.15-9.15am and 2.30-3.30pm on school days only, outside Randwick Primary School as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(iii) approves the installation of No Stopping at all Times Restrictions outside Randwick Primary School as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons that the proposed restrictions will improve the road safety and accessibility level of service in the vicinity of the school.

Background

2. Council received a request from the Office Manager of Randwick Primary School to improve accessibility and parking availability for parents during the school starting and finishing times.

3. After receiving complaints of near misses in the School’s off street staff car park, the School’s Board of Trustees agreed that it had become too dangerous to allow students to be dropped off and picked up in this area.

4. Officers have been advised that there has been an increased amount of families using the off street car park to drop off and pick up their children. The car park area is not large and the available spaces are usually fully occupied by staff members. This makes vehicle manoeuvring difficult and creates a significant safety hazard for students in the area.

Discussion

5. Due to the high traffic volumes on Randwick Road (an Arterial route), and the commercial nature of surrounding buildings (and associated truck volumes), the School feels there would be significant benefit in having a designated on-road facility for students to be dropped off and picked up. In particular, special needs students would benefit from having such a facility in close proximity to the school entrance.

6. Officers consider it is appropriate to install P15 Parking Restrictions (Pick up and Drop Zone) to allow parents easy access to the school’s main entrance.

7. The P15 Parking Restrictions would only apply between the times of 8.15 - 9.15am and 2.30 - 3.30pm on school days only. At all other times, these car parks will remain unrestricted.

8. Officers also consider it is appropriate to install a separate Mobility Park Restriction to improve accessibility for families with special-needs students.

9. Associated No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines) would be installed as shown in Appendix 1, to prevent vehicles parking too close to the school and business driveways, and the school’s pedestrian crossing facility.

10. In the interests of clarity, Officers are also incorporating the existing broken yellow lines on the eastern side of Randwick Road (as shown in Appendix 1) in this resolution so that the legality of all the restrictions in the area are on record.

11. Council’s Parking Policy (2017) includes a road-space hierarchy to assist officers to prioritise competing demands for on road parking spaces. For work and learn land use the hierarchy shows that mobility parking and school drop off/pick up zones have a high priority.

12. The proposed measures therefore support Council’s Parking Policy.

13. The extent of the broken yellow lines to the south of the driveway to 39 Randwick Road (Steel and Tube), were marginally lengthened following consultation (the original proposal is shown in Appendix 2). This modification was made to improve accessibility for the heavy commercial vehicles that use the driveway.

Options

14. The options are:

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

ii. improve the level of service for accessibility and parking turnover by installing P15 Parking Restrictions, a Mobility Parking Restriction and No Stopping At All Times restrictions to allow appropriate, short-term, accessible parking in the vicinity of the school; and

iii. propose an alternative solution to improve the current level of service.

Consultation

15. Consultation documents were delivered to the school, local businesses and local residents.

16. All responses received were in support of the proposal.

17. Additional Comments:

- “All Hutt valley citizens should be able to have easy access to their local school”

- “The mobility park should have a time restriction, to stop all day parking”

- “Extend the BYL’s past the Steel&tubes access for safer use by large Trucks”

18. As a result of the consultation feedback, the original proposal (Appendix 2) has been modified in order to allow easier access into the Steel & Tube Property, as shown in Appendix 1.

19. It is unclear whether a time restriction on the mobility park would be of wider benefit. Officers propose initially installing the park without a time restriction and then reviewing if feedback suggests a time restriction would be of benefit.

20. At its meeting on 11 June 2018, the Petone Community Board resolved to endorse the recommendations contained in the officer’s report.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

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

Other Considerations

23. 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 ⇩	Appendix 1 Randwick Rd School Mobility Park & P15 Pick up Drop off Zone	43
2 ⇩	Appendix 2 Randwick Rd School Mobility Park & P15 Pick up Drop off Consultation	44

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Reviewed By: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

50 18 June 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

15 May 2018

File: (18/819)

Report no: TRS2018/3/173

Proposed School Zones 40km/h Variable Speed Limits 2017/2018

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of three School Zone 40km/h Variable Speed Limits for Knights Road, Myrtle Street and Bloomfield Terrace outside St Peter & Pauls School; Muritai Road, outside Muritai Primary School; and Dowse Drive, outside Maungaraki School - as shown attached as Appendices 1 to 3 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i) notes the specified parts of

(a) Knights Road, Myrtle Street and Bloomfield Terrace (for St Peter & Pauls School);

(b) Muritai Road (for Muritai Primary School); and

meet the New Zealand Transport Agency warrant conditions for 40km/h Variable Speed Limits in School Zones;

(ii) resolves that 40km/h Variable Speed Limits in School Zones be set from 1 August 2018 for areas around the following schools:

(a) St Peter & Pauls School, attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(b) Muritai Primary School, attached as Appendix 2 to the report;

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

For the reasons:

· to reduce the likelihood and consequences of crashes involving children arriving at or leaving school by reducing vehicle operating speeds; and

· to provide a safer road environment outside schools and reinforce driver expectations of the likely presence of children.

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 at or leaving school. They provide a safer road environment outside schools and reinforce driver expectations of the likely presence of children.

Discussion

Warrant for School Zone 40km/h Variable Speed Limits

3. 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

4. National and international use of school zone variable speed limits show that they are effective at 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.

5. The maximum periods of operation on school days are:

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.

6. 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 5c. above, but the system will automatically turn the signs off after the stipulated 10 minutes.

Provisions concerning the setting of speed limits

7. The Subcommittee must ensure that it applies the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 (“the Rule”) when it recommends a speed limit to Council.

8. The Rule provides that:

a. 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 2.2 of the Rule); and

c. Section 2.7(1) of the Rule allows Council to set a variable speed limit under its Speed Limits Bylaw subject to approval by NZTA.

9. The proposed school zones generally meet the warrant conditions set by NZTA in paragraph 3 above.

Options

10. The options are:

a. to leave the areas as they are without any changes and accept the current safety concerns will remain;

b. improve the safety for children and traffic in the vicinity of the schools by installing the proposed changes attached as Appendices 1 to 3 to the report; or

c. propose an alternative solution to improve the current level of service.

Consultation

11. Before setting a speed limit, Council must consult with affected persons and organisations in accordance with s2.5 of the Rule. When deciding to set the speed limit Council must take account of submissions received during consultation (s2.6(2) of the Rule).

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

13. Consultation letters and plans were also sent to 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), Tranzit and the Lower North Island Region – Road Transport Association New Zealand.

14. The results of the consultation are summarised below.

15. The proposal is supported by all three schools: Muritai Primary School; St Peter & Pauls School and Maungaraki School.

16. For the Muritai Primary 40km/h Variable Speed Limit, 35 consultation letters were delivered to local residents and 13 replies were received all in support of the proposal.

17. Additional comments included:

- “I Think the zone should be extended to include us (Barnardos Kidstart 199 Muritai Rd) & to cover the intersection of Makaro St/Muritai Rd. this is a busy intersection, Many School Children cross Makaro Rd on bikes/scooters. also the only crossing is near 167A Muritai so lots of our families cross from us at 199 to the opposite side of the road (to School side)”

o Officers’ response:

The current proposed location of the 40km/h variable speed sign is best situated for visibility and power supply. Alternative locations on the east side of Makaro Street were investigated however these compromised visibility and/or power supply to the sign.

- “It is a bit silly to have on either end of the speed restriction zone a piece which has one lane at 40km/h and another at 50km/h both restriction lanes must start and finish at the same spot”. (In reference to the staggered section)

o Officers’ response:

The proposed locations are best situated to make use of existing infrastructure, suitable location, provide necessary visibility to the sign and to not destabilise from existing signs.

- “the zone should be extended to include the pedestrians crossing past Rimu Street”

o Officers’ response:

The proposed locations are best situated to make use of existing infrastructure, suitable location, provide necessary visibility to the sign and to not destabilise from existing signs.

- Oroua St should also be zoned. As I understand the main school gates and entrance is on Oroua St & most Children are in that vicinity when entering and leaving school.

o Officers’ response:

40km/h school zones are prioritised on main traffic routes. Other Traffic Calming measures are under consideration for Oroua Street.

18. Following consultation with the Muritai Residents a second plan has been drafted extending the zone. However the concerns over the signs location and visibility will need to be addressed. This was raised and discussed with the Eastbourne Community Board.

19. At its meeting on 12 June 2018, the Eastbourne Community Board resolved to endorse the recommendation in relation to Muritai Road outside Muritai Primary School contained in the officer’s report. Appendix 2 to the report has been updated to reflect the option endorsed by Eastbourne Community Board for Traffic Subcommittee.

20. For the St Peter & Pauls School 40km/h Variable Speed Limit, 80 consultation letters were delivered to local residents/businesses and 10 replies were received all in support of the proposal.

21. Additional comments included:

- “I would like to see 40km/h in these areas at all times. It is a dangerous area for cyclists and pedestrians”

o Officers’ response:

Discussions at national level are being held on whether the default speed limit for urban areas should be reduced to 40km/h. These details have not been finalised. In light of this possibility these signs are capable of also been reduced to 30km/h if needed.

- “we do not want a sign located outside our property”

o Officers’ response:

The proposed locations are best situated to make use of existing infrastructure, suitable location, provide necessary visibility to the sign and to not destabilise from existing signs.

22. For the Maungaraki School 40km/h Variable Speed Limit, 80 consultation letters were delivered to local residents/businesses and 13 replies were received all in support of the proposal.

23. Additional comments included:

- “The proposal should extend over the entirety of Barberry Grove. Please also consider inserting speed bumps. This is a very busy street during drop off pick up hours and people regularly speed while supervised an unsupervised children try to cross the road.”

o Officers’ response:

Officers have reviewed this addition and have considered it appropriate to include all of Barberry Grove within the 40km/h zone as shown on Appendix 3.

24. Of the consultation letters sent to the organisations, there have been no objections. Any responses subsequently received will be tabled at the meeting.

Legal Considerations

25. The process for the determination, setting and approving of speed limit is set out in Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 Rule 54001 and the Hutt City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2015.

26. 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 (s2.7 of the Rule).

27. 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

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

Other Considerations

29. 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 Peter & Pauls School 40km/h Consultation Plan	51
2 ⇩	Muritai Primary School 40km/h Consultation Plan	52
3 ⇩	Maungaraki School 40km/h Consultation Plan	53

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

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)