Agenda of Traffic Subcommittee

HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_BLACK_AGENDA_COVER

Traffic Subcommittee

5 September 2018

Order Paper for the meeting to be held in the

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

on:

Monday 10 September 2018 commencing at 3.00pm

Membership

Cr MJ Cousins (Chair)

Cr S Edwards (Deputy Chair)

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)

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

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

PURPOSE

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

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

TERMS OF REFERENCE:

The Traffic Subcommittee will have authority to:

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

related matter.

1.1 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 10 September 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 - 9 October 2018

i) Block Road - No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/1115)

Report No. TRS2018/4/224 by the Traffic Engineer 8

ii) Jackson Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/1213)

Report No. TRS2018/4/225 by the Traffic Engineer 12

iii) Eldon Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/1218)

Report No. TRS2018/4/226 by the Traffic Engineer 16

iv) Brookfield Lane - Proposed Give Way Control Crowther Road - Proposed Stop Control (18/1228)

Report No. TRS2018/4/227 by the Traffic Engineer 22

v) Bolton Street - Proposed Mobility Carpark Relocation (18/1300)

Report No. TRS2018/4/228 by the Traffic Engineer 28

vi) Mabey Road - Proposed Mobility Carpark (18/1309)

Report No. TRS2018/4/229 by the Traffic Engineer 32

vii) Hathaway Avenue and Troon Crescent - Proposed Stop Controls (18/1320)

Report No. TRS2018/4/230 by the Traffic Engineer 36

viii) Bay Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (18/1333)

Report No. TRS2018/4/231 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 43

ix) Rodney Street - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions (18/1345)

Report No. TRS2018/4/232 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 47

x) High Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (18/1346)

Report No. TRS2018/4/233 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 52

xi) Kings Crescent - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/1347)

Report No. TRS2018/4/234 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 57

xii) Whiteman Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions (18/1349)

Report No. TRS2018/4/235 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 61

xiii) Witako Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/1356)

Report No. TRS2018/4/236 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 65

xiv) Marsden Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (18/1357)

Report No. TRS2018/4/237 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 69

xv) Oakleigh Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (18/1358)

Report No. TRS2018/4/238 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 73

xvi) Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions (18/1359)

Report No. TRS2018/4/239 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer 77

xvii) Cambridge Terrace - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions (18/1396)

Report No. TRS2018/4/240 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations 87

xviii) Belmont School - Proposed Mobility and No Parking on Grass Restrictions (18/1397)

Report No. TRS2018/4/241 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations 91

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 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

25 June 2018

File: (18/1115)

Report no: TRS2018/4/224

Block Road - 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 the proposed extension to the No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Block Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of the proposed extension to the No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Block Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reason the extension of the parking restrictions will reduce the likelihood of vehicles being damaged by floodwaters and reduce the safety hazard associated with retrieval of vehicles from the floodwater.

Background

2. The Block Road carriageway underneath the Melling Bridge has minimal freeboard to the Hutt River as the route is an over-dimensional route.

3. Due to the low freeboard, rising floodwaters from the Hutt River occasionally flood and close Block Road during heavy rainfall events. This often leads to vehicles parked in the area having to be towed to avoid rising floodwater, or in the event of rapidly rising floodwater, being flooded and damaged.

4. There is a safety risk associated with the retrieval of the vehicles, both to professional towing staff and motorists who might try and retrieve their own vehicle. In addition, the activity associated with retrieving these vehicles is an unwanted distraction when the city’s personnel are busy trying to manage flood events.

5. No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines) and a pedestrian refuge island were installed in 2016 to tie in with an upgrade to the riverside cycle path and Park and Ride areas.

6. During a recent rain event (12 June 2018), six cars needed to be relocated due to being in the flood zone in the lower section of Block Road. Removal costs are covered by Council.

7. Council’s Divisional Manager, Infrastructure Contracts, requested that the Transport Division look at extending the existing No Stopping At All Times restriction in the area to reduce the likelihood of cars having to be rescued during flood events.

8. A Council Traffic Engineer carried out a site visit on 13 June 2018 (the day after the most recent flooding event) to visually inspect the site to determine the number of carparks affected by the flooding based on floodwater staining on the road.

Discussion

9. The Proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions in Block Road (refer Appendix 1) will reduce the likelihood of needing to relocate cars during flood events and minimise the risk of vehicles being damaged.

10. The extent of the proposed No Stopping At All Times restriction was determined from the examining high water mark left by the most recent flood event, which approximately represented a one in two year flood event.

11. Removal of cars during flood events poses a safety risk to tow staff and those motorists who might try and retrieve their own vehicle. The proposed restrictions will therefore reduce the overall safety risk.

12. Car parking in this area is heavily utilised by Melling Rail Station Park and Ride customers and the demand is high during weekday periods. The extension of the no stopping at all times markings will remove eight existing carpark spaces.

Options

13. Three options were considered:

a. Leave the existing restrictions as they are and maintain the current level of risk for vehicles and motorists in the event of rising floodwater.

b. Proceed with the proposed changes to extend the existing No Stopping At All Times restriction (as shown in Appendix 1), reducing the available parking in the area by eight spaces, and reduce the risk for vehicles and motorists in the event of rising floodwater.

c. Further extend the No Stopping At All Times restriction to further future proof the area against larger flooding events (any extension would further reduce the available parking spaces).

14. Council Officers believe that Option b. presents a good balance between reducing risk and the loss of parking in the area. To fully eliminate risk, all parking in the area would need to be removed; however this is considered to present an unacceptable reduction in the parking level of service in the area.

Consultation

15. As there are no residences directly adjacent to the parking spaces that will be lost, no public consultation has been undertaken. Those affected will be Park and Ride customers and alternate parking is available within reasonable walking distance.

Legal Considerations

16. This restriction is made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

17. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2018/2019 maintenance and operations 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 local government in that it improves road safety for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings and signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Block Road - No Stopping At All Times Restrictions Plan	11

Author: Danny Wood

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

14 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

16 July 2018

File: (18/1213)

Report no: TRS2018/4/225

Jackson Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. To recommend that Council approve the installation of the Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions outside 390 Jackson 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 on Jackson Street as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed restriction will improve accessibility to the existing bus stop and reduce the risk of vehicle conflict.

Background

2. A Councillor passed on a public request to Council’s Traffic Asset Manager to investigate parking in the vicinity of the existing bus stop outside 390 Jackson Street, Petone.

3. The concern expressed is that when a car is parked immediately behind the bus stop, buses are forced to enter the stop at a sharp angle to the kerb. This can result in the westbound traffic lane being blocked, or cars having to overtake on the flush median.

Discussion

4. The existing on road parking space is located outside number 390 Jackson Street, between an existing bus stop and the intersection with Aurora Street.

5. The proposal involves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines) extending from the bus stop to the hold lines on Aurora Street as shown in Appendix 1. This would prevent vehicles parking immediately preceding the bus stop.

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

7. The proposed restriction would improve accessibility to the existing bus stop, prevent buses blocking the westbound carriageway and reduce the likelihood of vehicle conflict by reducing the occurrences of vehicles overtaking on the flush median.

Options

8. The options are:

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

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

Consultation

9. Consultation documents were delivered to five surrounding residences on Jackson Street and Aurora Street.

10. Three responses were received, all in support of the proposal.

11. At its meeting on 3 September 2018, the Petone Community Board resolved to endorse the recommendation contained in the officer’s report.

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 2018/2019 maintenance and operations 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 in that it improves road safety for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings and signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Jackson Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions	15

Author: Danny Wood

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

19 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

17 July 2018

File: (18/1218)

Report no: TRS2018/4/226

Eldon Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. To recommend that Council approve the installation of the proposed No Stopping At All Times and No Stopping Saturdays 7am to 12pm restrictions on Eldon Grove, as shown attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of the proposed No Stopping At All Times and No Stopping Saturdays 7am to 12pm restrictions on Eldon Grove, as shown attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

- would prevent vehicles parking too close to driveways in the cul-de-sac turning areas;

- would prevent parked vehicles restricting access to the street on Saturday mornings when parking demand is highest due to sport at the nearby Taita College;

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

- are supported by the local residents who responded to the consultation documents. These markings will also promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Background

2. An Eldon Grove resident telephoned Council with a request for No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines) to be installed between numbers 22 and 33 Eldon Grove, Taita.

3. The concern is that when vehicles park in the cul-de-sac turning area, visibility and accessibility for users of residential driveways is compromised.

Discussion

4. Discussions with the resident revealed that manoeuvring in the cul-de-sac can be compromised when vehicles are parked in the area.

5. Due to weekend sporting events at Taita College, the resident advised that Eldon Grove is utilised as a parking overflow when Eastern Hutt Road is full. Vehicles often park in the cul-de-sac turning areas and the corners of the T intersection.

6. Eldon Grove has a somewhat unusual geometry with twin cul-de-sacs off a central T intersection.

7. Although the complainant was only concerned about the eastern cul-de-sac, officers have adopted the proposed restrictions on the western cul-de-sac as well so that the restrictions within the street are consistent.

8. Officers originally proposed that the parking restrictions would apply at all times as shown in Appendix 1.

9. The consultation feedback suggested that parking was primarily an issue during the Saturday morning period when parking demand is highest.

10. As a result of the consultation feedback Officers amended the proposal as shown in Appendix 2 to include No Stopping At All Times restrictions across the driveways within the two cul-de-sac turning areas, and No Stopping Saturdays 7am to 12pm within the remaining cul-de-sac areas, and the inside corners of the T intersection.

11. The proposed restrictions would result in the loss of approximately 12 on road parking spaces during the Saturday morning restricted period, however, most of these spaces are not technically legal under the requirements of Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 which states that ‘A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand or park the vehicle on any part of the 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…’.

12. The proposed restrictions will improve accessibility for residents of the street, especially during the busy Saturday morning period.

Options

13. The options are:

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

b. install the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions and No Stopping Saturdays 7am to 12pm restrictions as shown in Appendix 2 to improve accessibility within the street; or

c. install No Stopping At All Times restrictions and/or No Stopping Saturdays 7am to 12pm restrictions over some lesser or greater extent of the street.

14. Officers recommend Option b. as it will improve accessibility within the street and best matches the needs of the local residents based on the consultation feedback.

Consultation

15. Consultation documents were delivered to all residences in Eldon Grove.

16. Eleven questionnaires were returned; six (55%) in favour, four (36%) against and one (9%) partial approval of the proposal.

17. Comments from some of the opposing residents include:

a. “I agree that all vehicles should be parked one metre from any driveway. The proposed changes will restrict off street parking for up to 13 homes at the end of the cul-de-sac. Saturday netball does create problems with inconsiderate parking but that’s all”.

Officer’s response: The proposal has been amended to take into account the consultation feedback.

b. “Please leave the current road markings as they are with your plans there will be no space for anyone to park in the street. Tennent’s are having difficulty parking there now with no room for visitors. There isn’t any street parking anywhere else along the street. Saturday creates alot of parking issues due to the netball at Taita College.”

Officer’s response: The proposal has been amended to take into account the consultation feedback.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

19. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2018/2019 maintenance and operations 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 local government. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Eldon Grove - No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	20
2 ⇩	Eldon Grove - No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	21

Author: Danny Wood

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

25 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

18 July 2018

File: (18/1228)

Report no: TRS2018/4/227

Brookfield Lane - Proposed Give Way Control Crowther Road - Proposed Stop Control

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of a Give Way Control at the intersection of Brookfield Lane and Moores Valley Road, Wainuiomata, as shown attached as Appendix 1, and the installation of a Stop Control at the intersection of Crowther and Moores Valley Roads, as shown attached as Appendix 2.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the proposed Give-Way Control and associated signage at the intersection of Brookfield Lane and Moores Valley Road, Wainuiomata, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

(ii) approves the proposed Stop Control and associated signage at the intersection of Crowther and Moores Valley Roads, as shown attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

For the reasons:

- The proposed changes at Brookfield Lane will reduce motorist confusion and reduce the likelihood of vehicle conflict.

- The existing control at Crowther Road does not meet the recommended sight distance requirements for a Give Way control. When sight distance is restricted, a Stop control is required.

- The proposed markings will encourage compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Background

2. Council workers undertaking works in the Brookfield Lane area identified a potential hazard at the intersection of Brookfield Lane and Moores Valley Road due to a lack of Give Way signage and markings clarifying who has priority at the intersection.

3. During the site investigation a Council Traffic Engineer identified that the intersection of Crowther Road and Moores Valley Road, approximately 1km south of Brookfield Lane, does not meet the minimum sight distance requirements for the current Give Way Control and recommends a Stop Control be installed.

4. The area has relatively low traffic volumes, however, due to the relatively high operating speeds and intersecting angles of the roads, there is potential for high speed vehicle conflict.

Discussion

5. Brookfield Lane intersects Moores Valley Road in a ‘Y’ configuration.

6. Moores Valley Road is the ‘continuing’ road in terms of the definition in the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004. Brookfield Lane is the ‘terminating’ road.

7. In the absence of any control signs and markings, vehicles approaching the intersection on Brookfield Lane need to give way to vehicles travelling through the intersection on Moores Valley Road.

8. However, the current road geometry, markings and vehicle travel patterns means there is a lack of clarity around who gives way.

9. The installation of the proposed Give Way control on the Brookfield Lane approach to Moores Valley Road will clarify priority traffic at the intersection to reduce confusion and improve road safety.

10. Due to the vehicle operating speeds in the area, which has an 80km/h posted speed limit, it is proposed to install additional Advanced Warning signage on Brookfield Lane approach to the intersection to make motorists more aware as they approach the intersection.

11. The Crowther Road approach to the intersection with Moores Valley Road, approximately 1km south of the Brookfield Lane intersection, is currently Give Way controlled.

12. Vegetation on private property in the vicinity of the intersection means that the inter-visibility sight distance to vehicles on Moores Valley Road is restricted when approaching from Crowther Road.

13. This sight distance restriction means that a Stop control is more appropriate than a Give Way control, as it alerts motorists to the need to stop before proceeding.

Options

14. The three options are:

a. Leave the intersection controls as they are and accept the current level of service for road safety.

b. Upgrade the intersection of Brookfield Lane and Moores Valley Road to a Give Way control (on Brookfield Lane) to improve road safety and encourage compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

c. Upgrade the existing intersection of Crowther Road and Moores Valley Road from a Give Way control to a Stop control (on the Crowther Road approach) to improve road safety and make the control appropriate for the available sight distances.

15. Council officers recommend that Council endorse the installation of both Options b. and c. to improve road safety and encourage compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Consultation

16. Consultation documents were delivered to 60 surrounding residences on Moores Valley Road, Brookfield Lane and Crowther Road.

17. Eight responses were received, seven (88%) in support of the proposal and one (12%) partially in support of the proposal.

18. Comments from the resident partially in support of the proposal include:

a. “In our view we agree that the Crowther Rd junction should be a Stop sign. When we occasionally exit that road we are very aware of the lack of visibility and speeds involved. On the other hand we do not agree with your proposal for the Brookfield junction.”

19. The Wainuiomata Community Board will consider the recommendation at its meeting on 5 September 2018 and the resolution will be tabled at the Traffic Subcommittee meeting on 10 September 2018.

Legal Considerations

20. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017 (Effective 1 January 2018).

Financial Considerations

21. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2018/2019 maintenance and operations budget.

Other Considerations

22. 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 in that it improves road safety for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings and signs to minimise the likelihood of accidents.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Brookfield Lane - Proposed Give Way Control	26
2 ⇩	Crowther Road - Proposed Stop Control	27

Author: Danny Wood

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

30 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

30 July 2018

File: (18/1300)

Report no: TRS2018/4/228

Bolton Street - Proposed Mobility Carpark Relocation

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the relocation of an existing mobility carpark from Jackson Street to Bolton Street as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the relocation of the existing mobility carpark from Jackson Street to Bolton Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons:

- The proposed location on Bolton Street is better suited to a mobility carpark due to the extra space available and more level carriageway.

- These markings will also promote compliance with the New Zealand Standard 4121:2001 Section 5 (Access and Mobility).

- It will support Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

Background

2. A disabled customer contacted Council requesting a mobility carpark be installed at 303 Jackson Street, Petone (across the road from an existing mobility park outside 328a Jackson Street).

3. The customer advised she considered the existing mobility carpark to be too dangerous to access her vehicle due to the limited separation between the parking space and the carriageway lane.

4. The customer also advised that the cross-fall between the driver’s door and the kerb was quite steep and she had fallen in the past.

Discussion

5. During the Traffic Engineer’s site visit, it was noted vehicles heading towards SH2 (westbound) on Jackson Street cut the corner when turning into Bolton Street. As the mobility carpark is the last carpark on Jackson Street before the turn into Bolton Street, the close proximity of turning vehicles adds to the difficulty for disabled drivers trying to access their vehicle.

6. It was also noted that the road cross-fall in the existing mobility space is quite steep.

7. The drop kerb for someone utilising the current mobility carpark is located in front of the parked vehicle. This means a disabled driver would have to enter the live carriageway to access the drop kerb.

8. There are no businesses specific to the mobility carpark location and the proposed relocation of the carpark would not affect the surrounding businesses.

9. The existing mobility parking space and adjacent spaces have a P60 time restriction. Once the mobility restriction is removed from the parking space, it will be retained as a P60 parking space for all users.

Options

10. The three options are:

a. To leave the existing mobility carpark as it is and accept the current level of service for accessibility and road safety.

b. Improve accessibility and user safety by installing a mobility carpark across the road outside 295 Jackson Street as per the initial request. This carpark allows better movement room outside the vehicle but is located across the road from the existing carpark.

c. Improve accessibility and user safety by relocating a mobility carpark on the Bolton Street side of 328 Jackson Street and installing a drop kerb in front of the parked vehicle as per the Traffic Engineer’s recommendation outlined in Attachment 1. This would be a closer relocation than Option b. and provide greater movement room around the parked vehicle.

11. Based on the options above, from a safety perspective it is recommended Option c. be installed as it improves the overall safety for disabled users due to the available space surrounding the carpark, the proposed drop kerb and flatter gradient to the adjacent footpath.

Consultation

12. Consultation documents were delivered to the 20 surrounding businesses and residences on Jackson Street and Bolton Street.

13. Four responses were received, all in support of the proposal.

14. At its meeting on 3 September 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 2018/2019 maintenance and operations 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 in that it improves safety for the benefit of all road users and promotes compliance with the New Zealand Standard 4121:2001 Section 5 (Access and Mobility). It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings and associated signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Bolton Street - Proposed Mobility Carpark Relocation	31

Author: Danny Wood

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

34 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

31 July 2018

File: (18/1309)

Report no: TRS2018/4/229

Mabey Road - Proposed Mobility Carpark

Purpose of Report

1. To recommend that Council approve the installation of a Mobility Carpark on Mabey Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approve the installation of a Mobility Carpark on Mabey Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons:

- The existing Mobility Carpark is inconveniently located, at the opposite end of the parking area from the hall entrance ramp.

- The proposed space will comply with the requirements of New Zealand Standard 4121:2001 Section 5 (Access and Mobility).

Background

2. A member of the public requested that the existing Mobility Carpark outside the Avalon Public Hall on Mabey Road be relocated as it is inconveniently located at the opposite end of the parking area from the hall’s access ramp.

Discussion

3. The Traffic Engineer’s investigation identified that the existing space did not have the correct signage to enable enforcement and no record of a formal Council resolution could be found.

4. The existing space does not meet the dimensional requirements of NZS 4121:2001 Section 5 (Access and Mobility).

5. The member of the public explained that the existing Mobility Carpark is rarely used by disabled motorists as it is located too far from the hall’s entrance and access ramp. Disabled motorists instead prefer to use the unrestricted spaces closer to the ramp; however, these are not always available as they are occupied by other vehicles.

Options

6. Three options were considered:

a. Leave the existing Mobility Carpark as it is and accept the current level of service for accessibility, but install the correct signage and obtain a formal Council resolution to legalise the space.

b. Remove the existing Mobility Carpark markings and retain the existing space as an unrestricted parking space.

c. Improve mobility accessibility and user safety by blacking out the current mobility carpark and installing a compliant Mobility Carpark closer to the Hall entrance and access ramp.

7. Officers recommend the adoption of Option c. as that would provide the most convenient outcome for disabled users, as well as allow the space to be upgraded to meet the dimensional requirements of the New Zealand Standard, and be legalised by Council resolution.

Consultation

8. Consultation documents were delivered to six surrounding residences on Mabey Road.

9. One response was received in support of the proposal.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

11. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2018/2019 maintenance and operations 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 local government in that it improves safety for the benefit of all road users and promotes compliance with the New Zealand Standard 4121:2001 Section 5 (Access and Mobility). It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings and associated signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Mabey Road - Proposed Mobility Carpark	35

Author: Danny Wood

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

39 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

01 August 2018

File: (18/1320)

Report no: TRS2018/4/230

Hathaway Avenue and Troon Crescent - Proposed Stop Controls

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of Stop controls at the intersections of Hathaway Avenue and Troon Crescent with Military Road, and at both ends of Fry Street where it intersects with Troon Crescent and Boulcott Street, as shown attached as Appendices 1 and 2 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the installation of Stop controls at the intersections of Hathaway Avenue and Troon Crescent with Military Road, shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(ii) approves the installation of Stop controls at both ends of Fry Street where it intersects with Troon Crescent and Boulcott Street, as shown attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

For the reasons:

- The proposed changes will improve road safety.

- The sight distances available to motorists approaching the intersections are restricted by roadside development and vegetation and warrant the installation of Stop controls.

- The proposed changes will promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Background

2. A member of the public made a request for the installation of a Give Way or Stop control on the Hathaway Avenue approach to the intersection with Military Road after a near miss with another vehicle while exiting the Boulcott's Farm Heritage Golf Course carpark access road.

3. The concern raised was that with increased traffic exiting the golf club, the priorities at the intersection needed to be more clearly defined.

4. There is anecdotal evidence that motorists often exit from Hathaway Avenue and Troon Crescent onto Military Road without slowing down and looking for approaching vehicles. The risk of such a manoeuvre has increased due to increased traffic from the upgraded Golf Clubhouse.

Discussion

5. The intersection of Hathaway Avenue and Military Road currently has no priority control markings. In this instance, priority is governed by the requirements of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 4.2 (4) which states ‘A driver on a terminating road who is approaching or crossing a T-intersection must give way to a vehicle on the continuing road, including a vehicle turning or about to turn right into the terminating road’.

6. The absence of a priority control is usually satisfactory when traffic volumes are low and adequate sight distance is available for vehicles approaching the intersection.

7. The installation of a priority control on the Hathaway Avenue approach to the intersection (the terminating road) would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 and reduce the likelihood of vehicle conflict.

8. Whether the priority control is a Give Way or Stop control is defined by the sight distance available to a motorist at a point 9m from the intersection limit line. In a 50 km/h area, if this sight distance is less than approximately 50m, a Stop control is warranted.

9. Due to the sight distances available on the Hathaway Avenue approach to the intersection being restricted by boundary fencing and vegetation, a Stop control is warranted on this approach.

10. Troon Crescent intersects with Military Road approximately 175m south of Hathaway Avenue. It also has no existing priority control markings.

11. In order to maintain consistency at both intersections with Military Road (Hathaway Avenue and Troon Crescent), Troon Crescent was also assessed and determined to require a Stop control.

12. Because Fry Street and St Andrews Grove intersect with Troon Crescent, these too were assessed to maintain consistency.

13. The intersections at both ends of Fry Street (at Troon Crescent and Boulcott Street) were determined to require Stop controls.

14. St Andrews Grove provides access for approximately six residences. Due to the very low traffic volumes, it was determined that marking a priority control is not warranted.

15. The proposed priority controls are supported by the majority of the respondents to the public consultation, although the low number of responses received suggests that community feeling is neither strongly for nor against the proposal.

Options

16. Three options have been considered:

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

b. install Stop control signs and markings on the following four intersections to improve the level of service for road safety and compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004;

i. Hathaway Avenue and Military Road; and

ii. Troon Crescent and Military Road; and

iii. Fry Street and Troon Crescent; and

iv. Fry Street and Boulcott Street.

c. install Stop control signs and markings on one or more of the four intersections described in 16b above.

17. Officers recommend Option b. as they believe it will reduce the risk of vehicle conflict at minimal cost, without any significant effect on motorist delay.

Consultation

18. Consultation documents were delivered to approximately 250 surrounding businesses and residences on Boulcott Street, Fry Street, Hathaway Avenue, Military Road and Troon Crescent on Friday 10 August 2018. The consultation period closed on Friday 24 August.

19. Thirty-eight consultation responses were received (15% of those delivered).

20. The low response rate suggests that community feeling is neither strongly for nor against the proposal.

21. Of the 38 responses received, 23 (61%) agreed with the proposed priority controls, 10 (26%) did not agree with the proposed changes and five (13%) partially agreed with the proposal.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

23. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2018/2019 maintenance and operations budget.

Other Considerations

24. 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 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 to minimise the likelihood of accidents.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Boulcott Street, Fry Street & Troon Crescent - Proposed Stop Intersections	41
2 ⇩	Hathaway Avenue & Troon Crescent - Proposed Stop Intersections	42

Author: Danny Wood

Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

45 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

06 August 2018

File: (18/1333)

Report no: TRS2018/4/231

Bay 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 on The Esplanade, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P30 parking restrictions over two existing car parks on The Esplanade, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

- would improve parking turnover and availability for local business customers;

- support Council’s Parking Policy 2017; and

- are supported by the directly affected residents.

Background

2. Council received a request from Shoreline Café to improve parking availability by installing P30 parking restrictions over two existing car parks on The Esplanade.

3. The Esplanade has high daily traffic volumes and the local business is located in a predominantly residential area.

4. The concern expressed is that customers intending to stop at the café are discouraged from doing so due to the lack of available parking spaces.

5. The currently unrestricted parking spaces in the area are typically used by local residents for the majority of the day, which prevents customers from being able to find short-term parking spaces nearby.

Discussion

6. Existing P30 parking is provided for around three to four vehicles immediately outside the business on the corner of Bay Street and The Esplanade.

7. The proposal involves installing P30 parking restrictions over two existing car parks approximately 30m west of the café.

8. The installation of two P30 parking restrictions, as proposed, would improve short-term parking availability in the area.

9. The Road-Space hierarchy in Council’s Parking Policy 2017 indicates a similar level of priority for short term parking (ranked fifth) and residential parking (ranked fourth) in Live and Play land use areas. In this regard, it is considered that increasing the number of short term parking spaces supports the Parking Policy.

10. The proposed changes are supported by the directly affected residents.

Options

11. The options are:

a. to leave the parking in the area as it is and accept the current level of service for parking availability; or

b. install P30 parking restrictions over the two currently unrestricted parking spaces to improve the parking availability level of service for customers of local businesses.

Consultation

12. A plan of the proposal and petition form were forwarded to the manager of Shoreline Café who consulted the three directly-affected properties at Nºs 1 and 3 Bay Street and Nº 143 The Esplanade.

13. All three consulted parties support the proposal.

14. At its meeting on 3 September 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 existing 2018/2019 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 in that it meets the current and future needs of the community through cost effective performance of regulatory functions.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	The Esplanade - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions	46

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

50 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

08 August 2018

File: (18/1345)

Report no: TRS2018/4/232

Rodney Street - Proposed P120 Parking 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, L and T bar parking markings and P120 parking restrictions on Rodney Street, attached as Appendix 1 attached to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of installation of No Stopping At All Times restrictions, L and T bar parking markings and P120 parking restrictions on Rodney Street, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed restrictions would:

- improve parking availability and accessibility on 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.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to improve accessibility and parking availability on Rodney Street, by installing No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines), L and T bar parking markings and extending the current P120 (Monday to Friday only) parking restrictions on the street.

3. Rodney Street is a relatively narrow road in a residential area within walking distance to the Woburn Railway Station.

4. The concern expressed is that vehicles parked in sections of the road make it difficult for residents to enter or exit their driveways, as well as safely navigate the street.

5. In addition, due to its proximity to public transportation, the available on street parking spaces are frequently occupied by Rail commuters’ vehicles for the majority of the day.

Discussion

6. P120 restrictions are already installed in front of Nºs 1 – 5 Rodney Street outside a disability care facility. The remaining on road parking is currently unrestricted.

7. The installation of the proposed changes would more clearly demark the on street parking spaces, discouraging vehicles from obstructing access to and from residents’ driveways.

8. The proposed P120 parking restrictions would discourage some rail commuter parking and make it more likely for residential visitors to find on road parking during the day.

9. The proposed No Stopping at all Times restrictions would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 which states that ‘A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle so as to obstruct entry to or exit from any driveway.

10. The proposal is in keeping with Council’s Parking Policy 2017 which places the lowest priority on commuter parking in ‘Live and Play’ areas.

11. The public consultation was inconclusive, with 47% of respondents supporting the proposed changes and 38% against.

Options

12. The options are:

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

b. install the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions, L and T bar parking markings and P120 parking restrictions to improve the accessibility and parking availability level of service in the street; or

c. only install the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions and L and T bar parking markings, omitting any further parking time restrictions.

13. Officers recommend Option b. as it is expected to reduce the likelihood of vehicles being parked too close to residents driveways, as well as increasing the likelihood of finding short term parking in the street.

Consultation

14. Consultation documents were delivered to 38 directly-affected residences at Nºs. 1 – 20, 22, 24 and 26 Rodney Street; N ºs 20 – 23 Cambridge Terrace; and Nº 11 Waiwhetu Road.

15. Thirteen questionnaires were returned; six (47%) in favour of the proposed changes, five (38%) against and two (15%) in favour of installing only broken yellow lines, and L and T bar parking markings on Rodney Street.

16. Comments from supporting residents include:

a. “Parked cars encroaching on driveway is a real problem.”

b. “Fantastic that something finally being done. I still don’t like the two parks (1A) on either side of road, 3 parks (23 Cambridge) as it makes too tight to get through.”

c. “In addition, reduce the parking opposite 1A and extend the broken yellow lines. Cars park too close to the corner and it makes it very hard to turn the corner especially when a vehicles is coming in the opposite direction.”

Officer’s response: Officers consider that the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions outside No 1A Rodney Street provides enough space for vehicles entering the street.

17. Comments from opposing residents include:

a. “Thoughtful as there are often no parks on the street during the day. I get around that by getting others to use my driveway. Also, I doubt the P120 limit would be observed.”

b. “I live on the corner of Waiwhetu and Rodney Streets and I believe if you are trying to limit cars parking from station for safety, you need to make the whole street restricted times (Mon-Fri). I have frequent visitors/helpers to my home and they need to be able to park close by.”

c. “I am opposed as I think parking on both sides does not remove the issue of narrow roadway while vehicles are parked.”

d. “If parking places are designated, as in this proposal, on both sides of the street, we believe this will encourage even more commuters to use all the available parking spaces, with the result that Rodney Street will not be able to handle two-way traffic at all during the day.”

Officer’s response: Rodney Street is reduced to a single lane when vehicles are parked both sides of the street, however, this is effective in maintaining low vehicle operating speeds and if parking were removed from one entire side of the street at least 23 parking spaces would be lost. The demand for this parking would then relocate to adjacent streets.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

19. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2018/2019 road markings 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 local government in that it improves accessibility and parking availability 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 ⇩	Rodney Street - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions	51

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

55 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

08 August 2018

File: (18/1346)

Report no: TRS2018/4/233

High Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking 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 on High Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report, in order to accommodate the installation of a proposed pedestrian refuge island.

Recommendations

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

For the reasons the proposed restrictions would:

- Facilitate the installation of a new pedestrian refuge island to improve road safety and pedestrian accessibility.

- Promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to improve safety and accessibility on High Street by installing a refuge island to allow pedestrians to cross the street more safely.

3. The concern expressed is that the lack of pedestrian crossing facilities in the area makes it difficult for residents crossing High Street to access Mabey Road.

4. No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines) are required to facilitate the installation of the proposed refuge island, to prevent vehicles parking too close to the refuge location.

Discussion

5. High Street is approximately 13.6m wide at the site. The maximum recommended unbroken pedestrian safe crossing distance is 10m.

6. Daily traffic volumes on this section of High Street are in the vicinity of 8,300 vehicles per day.

7. Zebra pedestrian crossings are located approximately 350m south of the proposed refuge island site and approximately 400m north of the site.

8. A zebra pedestrian crossing is not warranted at this site as the pedestrian volumes are not high (approximately five pedestrians per hour would need to be crossing in this location).

9. Although pedestrian volumes are not high at the site, it is on the desire line route for pedestrians accessing the High Street bus stops from Mabey Road, including pedestrians from the Shona McFarlane retirement village and the Avalon Public Hall.

10. Council officers propose installing a pedestrian refuge island to assist with the safe crossing of High Street. No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines) are required to prevent vehicles being parked too close to the refuge island and restricting pedestrian visibility.

11. In addition, extending the No Stopping At All Times restrictions around the corner into Mabey Road would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 which states that ‘A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand or park the vehicle on any part of the 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…’.

12. The proposed restrictions would result in the loss of six on street parking spaces, three each on both sides of High Street, however, there is ample on street parking in the area and parking demand is relatively low as adjacent homes generally have off street parking provided.

Options

13. The options are:

a. To leave the area as it is without any No Stopping restrictions, preventing the installation of the proposed pedestrian refuge island, and accept the current level of service for road safety and pedestrian accessibility.

b. Install the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions to facilitate the installation of the proposed pedestrian refuge island and improve the road safety and pedestrian accessibility levels of service.

Consultation

14. Consultation documents were delivered to eleven directly affected residences at Nºs 983, 985, 987, 989, 991, 1000, 1002, 1004 and 1-2/1006 High Street.

15. Four questionnaires were returned; two (50%) in favour and two (50%) against the proposal.

16. Comments from opposing residents include:

a. “Even with the proposed change, the traffic would not slow down. I think a ‘Stop’ sign would help to reduce the speed of traffic coming from Mabey Road and High Street as well.”

Officer’s response: The installation of a Stop control on the Mabey Road approach to the intersection would be inconsistent with the controls on other side roads in the area and would only be considered in the event that sight distance is restricted. An interrogation of the crash database does not indicate a safety issue at the intersection that warrants a Stop control.

b. “I fully support the proposed refuge if you move the current bus stop down one house closer to 989 and 1001, so that 985 and 987 can have some parking spaces. If you go ahead with the refuge without moving the bus stop marginally, we will be let with no car parking because the yellow lines will be too close to the start of the bus stop.”

Officer’s response: There are no changes proposed to the parking outside Nºs985, 987 and 989 High Street and there is sufficient on street parking availability in the area.

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 2018/ 2019 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 local government in that it improves safety and 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 ⇩	High Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions	56

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

59 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

08 August 2018

File: (18/1347)

Report no: TRS2018/4/234

Kings Crescent - 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 on Kings Crescent, as shown attached Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times restrictions on Kings Crescent, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

- would improve safety, sight distance and accessibility within the street for the benefit of all road users;

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

- are supported by the local residents that responded to the petition document.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to improve road safety, accessibility and sight distance on Kings Crescent, by installing No Stopping At All Times restrictions over one existing on street parking space outside Nº 52 Kings Crescent.

3. The concern expressed is that the car park directly to the east of the driveway of Nº 52 Kings Crescent reduces the available sight distance to oncoming traffic and increases the safety risk for motorists exiting the driveway.

4. Due to the proximity of the parking space to the property’s driveway, parked cars occasionally overhang the delineated parking space and obstruct access to the resident’s property.

Discussion

5. Kings Crescent is a busy Primary Collector/Arterial street with annual average daily traffic of approximately 7,400 vehicles per day.

6. The adjacent land use in the vicinity of 52 Kings Crescent is primarily residential, however Eastern Hutt Primary School is located across the road.

7. Parking demand can be high in the area, particularly around school drop off and pick up times.

8. The close proximity of the existing parking space to the driveway of Nº 52 Kings Crescent is shown below.

9. The installation of No Stopping At All Times restrictions, as proposed, would improve the sight distance available to motorists exiting the driveway to Nº 52 Kings Crescent.

10. The proposed restrictions would also allow for easier exit movements by increasing the available manoeuvring space.

11. The existing parking space is currently unrestricted, and there are two additional car parks between the driveways of Nºs 50 and 52 Kings Crescent.

12. The proposal would result in the removal of one on street car parking space. Although there is, at times, high demand for parking spaces in the area, the loss of one parking space is considered acceptable given the current difficulty experienced by the resident.

13. The proposed No Stopping at all Times restrictions would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 which states that ‘A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle so as to obstruct entry to or exit from any driveway’.

Options

14. The options are:

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

b. install the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions to improve the road safety and accessibility levels of service.

15. Officers recommend Option b. as it would solve the resident’s accessibility issues.

Consultation

16. A plan of the proposal and petition form were forwarded to the resident of Nº 52 Kings Crescent, who consulted the other directly-affected property at Nº 50 Kings Crescent. Both parties support the proposal.

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 existing 2018/2019 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Kings Crescent - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions	60

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

63 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

08 August 2018

File: (18/1349)

Report no: TRS2018/4/235

Whiteman Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking 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 on Whiteman 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 on Whiteman Grove, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

- would improve accessibility within the street for the benefit of all road users;

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

- support Council’s Parking Policy 2017;

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

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to improve accessibility on Whiteman Grove by installing No Stopping At All Times restrictions along the end of the cul-de-sac.

3. Whiteman Grove is a relatively narrow cul-de-sac in a residential area.

4. The concern expressed is that vehicles parked on this part of the road (the head of the cul-de-sac) make it difficult for other cars to access residential driveways and turn around to exit.

Discussion

5. The installation of No Stopping At All Times restrictions, as proposed, would improve accessibility and ensure the full carriageway is available for motorists manoeuvring at the head of the cul-de-sac.

6. In addition, it would allow for the residents of the properties at the end of the street to access their driveways without any obstruction due to parked vehicles.

7. The proposed changes would result in the removal of only one full length parking space. The separation between adjacent driveways is generally so small that more cars cannot be parked legally (ie, at least 1m away from a driveway).

8. The proposed No Stopping at all Times restrictions would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 which states that ‘A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle so as to obstruct entry to or exit from any driveway’.

Options

9. The options are:

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

b. improve the level of service for accessibility by installing No Stopping At All Times restrictions to prevent parked vehicles from blocking access to the end of the street, and the residential driveways that access the street.

Consultation

10. Consultation documents were delivered to 11 directly affected residences at Nºs 1 – 11 Whiteman Grove.

11. Six questionnaires were returned; five (83%) in favour of the proposal and one (17%) against.

12. Comments from supporting residents include:

a. “Well done.”

b. “I think it will be really good to have the yellow lines around the Grove as it is very hard to get into my driveway when cars are parked on either side.”

c. “Would desire that at least 1 m be also in front of our house to facilitate access to our driveway.”

Officer’s response: The proposed plan already accounts for the 1-metre clearance from the driveway of the residence at Nº 1 Whiteman Grove.

13. Comments from the opposing resident include:

a. “The Council has let the residents down by not providing enough parking around the netball courts and stadium. The improvements have been great but there was no adequate planning for the increased demand for parking and now all the residents and the users of the venue have to face parking problems all the time.”

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 2018/2019 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 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 ⇩	Whiteman Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Parking Restrictions	64

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

67 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

10 August 2018

File: (18/1356)

Report no: TRS2018/4/236

Witako 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, and L and T bars to better define parking areas on Witako 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, and L and T bar parking markings on Witako Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

- would improve sight distance and the road safety level of service within the street for the benefit of all road users;

- improve accessibility to the driveway of Nº 38A Witako Street; and

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

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to improve the sight distance for vehicles exiting turning from Burnton Street to Witako Street by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions as shown in Appendix 1.

3. The concern expressed is that vehicles parked too close to the intersection on Witako Street reduce sight distances and increase the risk of vehicle conflict.

Discussion

4. There is anecdotal evidence of near misses between vehicles turning out of Burnton Street onto Witako Street; however there has been only one crash of this type in the past ten years (in 2010).

5. The installation of No Stopping At All Times restrictions as proposed would prevent vehicles parking too close to the intersection and ensure safe sight distances are maintained.

6. The proposed restriction would remove approximately one currently unrestricted on road parking space, however on road parking demand is not especially high in the area.

7. Installing L and T bar markings to define the parking spaces between the driveways of 1 Burnton Street and 38A Witako Street will prevent a single vehicle being parked over the space that could accommodate two vehicles, and ensure that vehicles do not park too close to the driveway of Nº 38A Witako Street.

8. There were no objections to the proposal from the three directly affected properties that were consulted.

Options

9. The options are:

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

b. install the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions to improve the road safety level of service, and the proposed L and T bar parking markings to ensure parking efficiency and accessibility.

Consultation

10. Consultation documents were delivered to three directly affected residences at Nºs 38 and 38A Witako Street and Nº 1 Burnton Street.

11. Two questionnaires were returned, both in favour of the proposal.

12. Comments from supporting residents include:

a. “Yes, yes, yes. I can’t tell you how many near misses we have on a daily basis trying to turn right exiting Burnton St. Impossible to see with parked cars!”

b. “I am grateful to be able to express my observations and comments. As one of the residents on 38A Witako Street, I would like to express my support to the proposed parking changes in this letter. (…) The cars parked on Witako Street not only represent a danger for the vehicles turning right out, but also for me and other road users, since the parking is too close to my driveway and this reduce the sight and decrease the ability to turn left and join the road.”

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

14. These changes can be funded from Hutt City Council’s 2017/2018 road markings 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 local government in that it improves road safety for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Witako Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	68

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

71 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

10 August 2018

File: (18/1357)

Report no: TRS2018/4/237

Marsden 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 on Marsden 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 on Marsden Street, 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; and

- would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Background

2. Council received a request to improve road safety on Marsden Street by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on the bend adjacent to Nº 56 Marsden Street.

3. This portion of the street is configured as a S bend and the forward visibility through the corners is restricted by the road’s horizontal curvature.

4. The concern expressed is that cars parked on the inside of this bend reduce forward sight distance and reduce the effective carriageway width, forcing drivers to cross the centreline and increasing the risk of vehicle conflict.

Discussion

5. The installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions, as shown in Appendix 1, will prevent vehicles from parking on this corner and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 which states that ‘A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand or park the vehicle on any part of the 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…’.

6. The proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions would prevent vehicles parking inappropriately on the inside of the bend, ensuring maximum sight distance is maintained reducing the likelihood of vehicle conflict.

7. Of the five consultation letters delivered, only one was returned, in favour of the proposal. It is therefore concluded that there is no significant opposition to the proposal.

Options

8. The options are:

a. To leave the area as it is, without any marked parking restrictions, and accept the current level of non-compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 and the road safety level of service.

b. Install the No Stopping At All Times Restrictions as proposed to improve compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 and the road safety level of service.

Consultation

9. Consultation documents were delivered to five directly-affected parties at Nºs 50, 56, 75, 77 and 79 Marsden Street.

10. One questionnaire (in favour of the proposal) was returned.

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 Council’s 2018/2019 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 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 ⇩	Marsden Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions	72

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

75 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

10 August 2018

File: (18/1358)

Report no: TRS2018/4/238

Oakleigh 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 on Oakleigh Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 attached to the report.

Recommendations

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

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

- would improve accessibility, parking availability and general parking turnover for customers of local businesses;

- support Council’s Parking Policy 2017; and

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

Background

2. Council received a request from a local business to improve accessibility and parking availability on Oakleigh Street by installing P30 parking restrictions over three existing on-street parking spaces.

3. The local business is situated in a primarily residential area and there are two existing P15 restricted car parks outside the business on Dowse Drive

4. The concern expressed is that customers cannot find convenient short-term parking in the area, as the on-street unrestricted parking spaces on Oakleigh Street are often fully occupied by other parties.

Discussion

5. The dairy, on the corner of Dowse Drive and Oakleigh Street has two existing P15 parking spaces located on Dowse Drive.

6. These two spaces are often insufficient for peak customer demand, customers then need to park in the existing unrestricted angle parking spaces on Oakleigh Street.

7. A driveway behind the store provides access to a number of residential dwellings, and the occupants of, and visitors to, these dwellings often fully occupy the angle parking spaces making them unavailable for customer parking.

8. The proposal involves installing P30 parking restrictions over three existing angle parking spaces directly in front of the store on Oakleigh Street. The remaining three angle parking spaces would be left without restriction.

9. The proposal is in keeping with Council’s Parking Policy 2017 which places a high priority on short term parking in ‘Shop and Trade’ areas, while still providing parking for residential and residential visitor parking.

Options

10. The options are:

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

b. to improve the accessibility and parking availability level of service by installing three P30 parking restrictions to encourage parking turnover; or

c. install some other time restriction over more, or less, parking spaces.

Consultation

11. Consultation documents were delivered to 13 directly affected residences at Nºs 268, 270, 272, 274 – 276, 279, 281 and 283 Dowse Drive; and Nºs 1-2/3 and 4 Oakleigh Street.

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

13. Comments from supporting residents include:

“We support this action that will support a small local neighbourhood business. There are a number of parking options within 200m should people need to park longer.”

14. Comments from the opposing resident include:

“I do not support the changes as I live at the residence at number 275 and my friends and family park in front of my garage and as there are no car parks. I do not accept it. Where shall my family park? My grandparents? Let them walk for 10 min? I don’t think so. I will not park somewhere else. There are enough parks for the dairy customers. Not cool/ not fair! I always get parked in and hate it.”

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

16. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2018/2019 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 in that it improves accessibility and parking availability 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 ⇩	Oakleigh Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions	76

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

80 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

10 August 2018

File: (18/1359)

Report no: TRS2018/4/239

Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No Parking on the Grass restrictions on Eastern Hutt Road, as shown attached as Appendices 1-6 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of No Parking on the Grass restrictions on Eastern Hutt Road, as shown attached as Appendices 1-6 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

- would prevent damage to the grass berm and reduce repair and maintenance costs; and

- would promote compliance with Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Background

2. Council’s Infrastructure Contracts Division requested that restrictions be put in place to prevent vehicles being parked on the grass berm along the eastern side of Eastern Hutt Road, approximately between Taita College and Peterkin Street.

3. Berm parking is common in this area and results in damage to the grass berm, particularly during the wetter months, as well as making it difficult to undertake maintenance operations such as berm mowing.

Discussion

4. The proposal involves the installation of a No Parking on the Grass restriction and associated signage on the eastern side of Eastern Hutt Road, between the southern entrance to Taita College and the northern property boundary of 40 Eastern Hutt Road, as shown on the attached appendices.

5. Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017 Clause 12.1(a) states ‘No person may stop, stand, or park a vehicle on a berm, verge, kerb, lawn, garden or other cultivation adjacent to, or forming part of a road so as to cause or be likely to cause damage to the cultivated area’.

6. Although the bylaw makes it illegal to park on, and damage, a grass berm it is often difficult to prove which vehicle has caused the damage.

7. In some cases it is therefore preferable to resolve a No Parking on the Grass restriction so that appropriate signage can be installed to allow more effective enforcement.

8. In order to clearly demark the traffic and parking lanes in the area, Council has recently installed edge lines on this portion of Eastern Hutt Road.

9. These recent changes have encouraged motorists to park on the carriageway, however signage is now needed to deter the remaining offenders.

10. The proposed restrictions will formalise the prohibition of parking on the berm, allow installation of appropriate signage, and facilitate more effective enforcement.

11. Preventing parking on the grass berm will allow regular mowing to be undertaken and reduce the costs of maintaining the berm.

12. There is sufficient free and unrestricted on road parking in the area for those who would be displaced by the proposed restrictions. Most motorists would not have to walk more than an additional 50m or so than present.

13. The proposed restrictions would promote compliance with Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017.

14. The low number of responses to the distributed consultation letters suggests that community feeling is neither strongly for nor against the proposal.

Options

15. The options are:

a. to leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept the berm maintenance costs and obstruction to mowing; or

b. approve the proposed No Parking on the Grass restrictions to allow more effective enforcement of the Traffic Bylaw and prevent damage to the berm; or

c. approve the proposed No Parking on the Grass restrictions to some greater or lesser extent along this section of Eastern Hutt Road.

16. Officers recommend Option b. allowing enforcement of the Traffic Bylaw along this entire length Eastern Hutt Road. Providing the restriction over some lesser extent may promote migration of the illegal parking.

Consultation

17. Consultation documents were delivered to 48 directly affected parties at Nº 25 Peterkin Street, and Nºs 73, 75, 77, 79, 1-20/80-82, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 109, 111, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174, ,176, 178, 180 and 188 Eastern Hutt Road.

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

19. Comments from opposing residents include:

a. “I am the Principal of Taita College. We are working on new signage ourselves and I do not want ‘no parking’ signs to be the focus of our school. This is not acceptable. We are a school, not a site for parking messages. Signs will give a very negative appeal to our school. We are already in an industrial area.”

Officers Response: As a result of the consultation feedback, signs will not be placed in front of Taita College, however it is recommended that the restrictions still be applied to this area so that signs can be installed in the future if necessary.

b. “(…) Whilst on some days, there is parking spaces available, frequently on other days there is no parking available at all, and this is forcing people to park in any available space, which obviously includes the grass areas on both sides of the road.”

Officers Response: Council Officers do not accept that there is insufficient parking in the area. There is extensive free and unrestricted parking on Eastern Hutt Road and Peterkin Street.

c. “Proposed changes: From 138 EHR heading south, we suggest the grass berm between this pathway and the kerb is concreted, so that trucks can park safely on this concrete strip, off the roadway. From the south end of 73 EHR to the north end of the grass berm of 81 EHR, signs are erected stating ‘No Truck Parking’.”

Officers Response: The cost of concreting the kerb for truck parking is not justified.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

21. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2018/2019 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

22. 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 in that it improves the conditions of existing Council assets. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road signage.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions (Appendix 1)	81
2 ⇩	Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions (Appendix 2)	82
3 ⇩	Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions (Appendix 3)	83
4 ⇩	Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions (Appendix 4)	84
5 ⇩	Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions (Appendix 5)	85
6 ⇩	Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed No Stopping on the Grass Restrictions 70.2018 18/1359 Cycle 4 2018 (Appendix 6)	86

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

89 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

22 August 2018

File: (18/1396)

Report no: TRS2018/4/240

Cambridge Terrace - Proposed P120 Parking 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, P120 parking restrictions and parking bay markings on Cambridge Terrace, 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, P120 parking restrictions and parking bay markings on Cambridge Terrace, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

- would improve parking availability and accessibility on the street for the benefit of the Hutt Valley Sexual Abuse Support and Healing Centre;

- support Council’s Parking Policy 2017;

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

- are supported by the local residents who signed the petition documents.

Background

2. Council received a request from the Operations Manager, on behalf of the Hutt Valley Sexual Abuse Support and Healing (HVSASH) Centre (the Centre), to improve parking availability in the vicinity of their premises at Nº 67 Cambridge Terrace.

3. The concern expressed is that due to the high parking demand in the area, resulting from the close proximity to Waterloo train station, it is often impossible for the Centre attendees to find parking in the vicinity of the Centre.

Discussion

4. The proposal includes the installation of P120 parking restrictions over two currently unrestricted on street parking spaces directly outside the Centre at Nº 67 Cambridge Terrace.

5. The parking restrictions as proposed would increase turnover on the two parking spaces, increasing the likelihood of parks being available for the Centre’s customers.

6. The proposal is in keeping with Council’s Parking Policy 2017 which places a higher priority on short term parking than commuter parking in ‘Live and Play’ areas.

7. The proposal also includes the installation of No Stopping at all Times restrictions (broken yellow lines) across the driveways of Nº 67 and Nº 68 Cambridge Terrace, and the installation of line markings to show the extent of the two parking spaces. These measures are proposed to prevent parked vehicles blocking driveways and ensuring efficient use of the parking spaces.

Options

9. The options are:

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

b. to install the proposed changes and improve the parking level of service for the centre.

Consultation

10. A petition was distributed to the properties at Nº 67, 66, 66A, 1/68 and 2/68 Cambridge Terrace.

11. All the consulted residents signed the petition in support of the proposal.

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 2018/2019 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

14. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in Part 2, Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of local government as defined in the Act. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard signage and markings.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Cambridge Terrace (67) - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions 36.2018 18/1396 Cycle 4 2018	90

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Reviewed By: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

93 10 September 2018

Traffic Subcommittee

22 August 2018

File: (18/1397)

Report no: TRS2018/4/241

Belmont School - Proposed Mobility and No Parking on Grass Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of a Mobility car park, No Parking on the Grass restrictions, No Stopping At All Times restrictions and all other existing restrictions outside Belmont School, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the following outside Belmont School:

(i) the proposed Mobility car park, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(ii) the proposed No Parking On the Grass restrictions, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(iii) the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(iv) the existing No Stopping At All Times restrictions, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

- would improve safety, sight distance and accessibility within the area for the benefit of all road users;

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

- support Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

Background

2. Belmont School has requested a mobility carpark close to the school’s main entrance for children/parents who cannot walk great distances.

3. Concerns were also raised about how parents mount the kerbs and park on the grass areas outside the school and damage the grass berm. In winter, the grassed areas become very slippery and damaged.

4. There is a large area suitable for parking within reasonable walking distance on the south eastern side of the school by the river.

5. The proposed No Parking on the Grass Restrictions involves formalising the prohibition of parking on the berm by installing signage to inform motorists of the requirements.

Discussion

6. Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017 Clause 12.1(a) states ‘No person may stop, stand, or park a vehicle on a berm, verge, kerb, lawn, garden or other cultivation adjacent to, or forming part of a road so as to cause or be likely to cause damage to the cultivated area’.

7. Although the bylaw makes it illegal to park on, and damage, a grass berm it is often difficult to prove which vehicle has caused the damage.

8. In some cases it is therefore preferable to resolve a No Parking on the Grass restriction so that appropriate signage can be installed to allow more effective enforcement.

9. Due to the unknown legal status of the existing restrictions (assumed to have originally installed in the eighties), officers consider it appropriate to resolve these restrictions at the same time. These include all existing No Stopping at All Times restrictions.

Options

10. The options are:

a. to approve the proposed changes to provide an improved level of service to the Belmont School community for mobility access and parking edict,

b. to leave the area as it is without any changes and accept the current level of service for accessibility and road edict.

c. to approve an alternative proposal for the area that would improve the overall level of service.

11. Officers recommend the installation of Option a. as it provides the greatest improvement in level of service to the Belmont School community for mobility access and parking edict. This option will also allow enforcement of the existing restrictions.

Consultation

12. The proposal is supported by the Belmont School, School Safety Officers and Council’s Parks and Gardens Division.

13. No further consultation has been undertaken.

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 2018/2019 road marking and signs budgets.

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 local government in that it improves safety and 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 ⇩	Belmont School - Proposed Mobility and No Parking on Grass Restrictions 35.2018 18/1397 Cycle 4 2018	94

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Reviewed By: Danny Wood

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager