HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_BLACK_AGENDA_COVER

 

 

Traffic Subcommittee

 

 

19 February 2019

 

 

 

Order Paper for the meeting to be held in the

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

on:

 

 

 

 

 

Monday 25 February 2019 commencing at 3.00pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Membership

 

Cr MJ Cousins (Chair)

Cr S Edwards (Deputy Chair)

 

Cr J Briggs

Cr T Lewis

Cr L Sutton

Cr G Barratt (Alternate)

Cr C Barry (Alternate)

Deputy Mayor D Bassett (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        Regulate its own processes and proceedings to achieve its purpose and objective.

 

1.2        Provide options for the consideration of Council

 

The Chair will have authority to:

 

1.3        Refer any traffic matter to:

 

            1.3.1     A Community Board; or

            1.3.2     The Policy and Regulatory Committee; or

            1.3.3     Council.

 

DELEGATED AUTHORITY:

 

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

 

    


HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Traffic Subcommittee

 

Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

 Monday 25 February 2019 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 - 26 March 2019

i)       Muritai Road - Proposed Mobility Parking Restrictions (18/1699)

Report No. TRS2019/1/2 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations 8

 

ii)      Orr Crescent - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (19/47)

Report No. TRS2019/1/4 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer                     12

 

iii)     Naenae Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (19/57)

Report No. TRS2019/1/13 by the Traffic Engineer                                   17

 

iv)     Gracefield Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (19/67)

Report No. TRS2019/1/14 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer                   21

 

v)      Connolly Street - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions (19/68)

Report No. TRS2019/1/15 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer                   26

 

 

 

vi)     Rutherford Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions (19/73)

Report No. TRS2019/1/16 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer                   30

 

vii)    Amberley Grove - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions (19/76)

Report No. TRS2019/1/17 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer                   34

 

viii)   Bristol Square - Proposed P10 Parking Restrictions (19/89)

Report No. TRS2019/1/18 by the Assistant Traffic Engineer                   39

 

ix)     Eastern Hutt Road Proposed Parking Restriction on Omnibus Parking (19/182)

Report No. TRS2019/1/20 by the Traffic Asset Manager                         44

 

x)      Myrtle Street - Proposed Mobility Parking Restrictions (19/203)

Report No. TRS2019/1/19 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations 52  

5.       Information Items

a)      Review of Parking - No Stopping At All Times Restriction - Richmond Grove (19/148)

Memorandum dated 30 January 2019 by the Senior Traffic Engineer      56

 

b)      Review of Parking - Shepherd Grove (19/150)

Memorandum dated 7 February 2019 by the Traffic Asset Manager       59

 

c)       Review of Parking - Near 313 Jackson Street (19/151)

Memorandum dated 31 January 2019 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations          62

 

d)      Review of Parking - Gear Street Parking Restrictions (19/154)

Memorandum dated 4 February 2019 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations          65     

6.       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                                                    25 February 2019

Traffic Subcommittee

07 February 2019

 

 

 

File: (18/1699)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TRS2019/1/2

 

Muritai Road - Proposed Mobility Parking Restrictions

 

Purpose of Report

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

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)    approves the installation of a Mobility Parking Restriction outside Muritai School as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

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

For the reasons that the proposed restrictions will improve the availability of mobility parking in the vicinity of the school.

 

Background

2.    A parent of Muritai School has requested the installation of an additional Mobility Carpark at the main entrance of the school for children/parents who cannot walk great distances.

3.    There is currently a single Mobility carpark 30m north of the proposed site just adjacent to a pedestrian crossing. Access into the school grounds at this point has been recently blocked off.

Discussion

4.    Officers consider that the provision of an additional Mobility Carpark is warranted in close proximity to the school entrance.

5.    Two existing on road parking spaces will be lost to provide the Mobility Carpark.

6.    The existing Mobility Carpark will be retained to assist with the increased mobility attendance at the school

Options

7.    The options are:

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

b.  improve the level of service for accessibility by installing a Mobility Parking Restriction and No Stopping At All Times restrictions to allow appropriate, accessible parking in the vicinity of the school; or

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

8.    Officers recommend Option b as this will improve accessibility for mobility impaired students at minimal loss of existing on road parking.

Consultation

9.    Muritai School supports the proposal.

10.  The Eastbourne Community Board will consider the recommendation at its meeting on 19 February 2019 and the resolution will be tabled at the Traffic Subcommittee meeting on 25 February 2019.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

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

Other Considerations

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

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Muritai Road - Proposed Mobility Parking Restrictions 43.2018 18/1699 Cycle 1 2019

11

    

 

 

 

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 

 

Approved By: John Gloag

Divisional Manager, Transport

 


Attachment 1

Muritai Road - Proposed Mobility Parking Restrictions 43.2018 18/1699 Cycle 1 2019

 


                                                                                      15                                                    25 February 2019

Traffic Subcommittee

09 January 2019

 

 

 

File: (19/47)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TRS2019/1/4

 

Orr 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 at the intersection of Orr Crescent and Epuni 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 at the intersection of Orr Crescent and Epuni Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons, the proposed restrictions:

-      would improve road safety for the benefit of all road users;

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

-      would support Council’s Parking Policy 2017; and

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

 

Background

2.    Council received a request to improve road safety at the intersection of Orr Crescent and Epuni Street.

3.    The concern expressed is that cars parked too close to the intersection restrict the sight distance available for motorists turning out of Orr Crescent.

4.    Vehicles parked close to the intersection within Orr Crescent also increase the risk of conflict between vehicles turning into, and out of, the street.

Discussion/

5.    Orr Crescent is a relatively narrow residential street with approximately 8m between kerbs. When vehicles are parked both sides of the carriageway only a single traffic lane remains.

6.    When vehicles are parked in close proximity to the intersection, motorists are forced to approach the intersection in the middle of the carriageway, rather than as far left as possible. This increases the risk of conflict with vehicles turning into the street.

7.    In addition, vehicles parked too close to the intersection on both Epuni Street and Orr Crescent reduce the available sight distance for motorists to detect oncoming traffic.

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

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 on any part of a roadway so close to any corner, bend, rise, dip, traffic island, or intersection as to obstruct other traffic or any view of the roadway to the driver of a vehicle approaching that corner, bend, rise, dip, traffic island or intersection unless the stopping, standing or parking is authorised by signs or markings maintained by the road controlling authority.”

10.  White centreline markings are proposed on Orr Crescent to help keep users as far left as possible and identify where to wait when turning right.

11.  All of the residents that chose to respond to the consultation documents agree with the proposed measures.

Options

12.  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.    improve the road safety level of service by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions as shown attached in Appendix 1; or 

c.    installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions over some greater, or lesser, extent.

13.  Officers recommend Option b as it will prevent vehicles parking too close to the intersection, while still maintaining sufficient road side parking ion the area for residents.

Consultation

14.  Consultation documents were delivered to 14 directly affected residences at Nºs 17, 20, 20A, 21, 1-2/22, 23, 23A, 24, 24A, 28A, 28B, 28C and 28D Epuni Street.

15.  Seven questionnaires were returned, all in favour of the proposal.

16.  Comments from supporting residents include:

a.    “We support the changes but also want to add the comment that the parking in our end of the street is becoming very crowded with views being obstructed as you exit your driveway.”

b.    “We have said yes but we must say we have seldom seen cars parked where the proposed yellow lines would be.”

c.     “(…) I would ask that the Council place some yellow lines from my driveway back towards Orr Crescent allowing for parking of only one motor vehicle, but a distance back which allows me some visibility when entering out onto this busy roadway.”

Officer’s response: (c) Bearing in mind the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 and the specifications regarding the distance cars can be parked from the intersection, there would not be appropriately sufficient space to maintain two car parks at the requested location. After communication with resident, it was agreed that broken yellow lines will be installed over his driveway, up to one-metre extension on each side, to assist in maintaining a safe sight distance when he’s entering and exiting his property.

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 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

Orr Crescent - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

16

    

 

 

 

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Orr Crescent - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

 


                                                                                      19                                                    25 February 2019

Traffic Subcommittee

10 January 2019

 

 

 

File: (19/57)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TRS2019/1/13

 

Naenae Road - 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 on Naenae Road, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

Recommendations

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

For the reasons the proposed restrictions:

-      would prevent vehicles parking too close to driveways;

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

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

 

Background

2.    A Naenae Road resident submitted a Request for Service to the Hutt City Council Enquiries team. The request was for No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines) to be installed between numbers 182 and 184 Naenae Road, Naenae.

3.    The concern is that when vehicles park between the two driveways, visibility and accessibility for users of the residential driveways is compromised.

Discussion

4.    The kerbside space between the driveways for 182 and 184 Naenae Road was measured at 3.7m. A standard marked parking space is a minimum of 5m, meaning when a vehicle parks in this location it will overhang one, or both, of the adjacent driveways restricting accessibility.

5.    No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines) are proposed over both driveways, and the space between, to prevent vehicles parking in the area.

6.    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.

7.    The proposed restrictions will improve accessibility for residents of 182 and 184 Naenae Road.

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.   install the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions as shown in Appendix 1 to improve accessibility within the street; or

c.   install No Stopping At All Times restrictions over some lesser or greater extent of the street.

9.    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

10.  Consultation documents were delivered to the residents at 182 and 184 Naenae Road.

11.  Two questionnaires were returned, both in favour 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 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. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

182 Naenae Rd, Naenae - No stopping at all times markings

20

    

 

 

 

Author: Danny Wood

Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

182 Naenae Rd, Naenae - No stopping at all times markings

 


                                                                                      24                                                    25 February 2019

Traffic Subcommittee

14 January 2019

 

 

 

File: (19/67)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TRS2019/1/14

 

Gracefield Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions at the intersection of Gracefield Road and Seaview Road, and the relocation of the northern No Parking sign, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)    approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions at the intersection of Gracefield Road and Seaview Road, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(ii)   approves the relocation of the existing No Parking sign, 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;

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

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

 

Background

2.    Council received a request from a local business to improve road safety at the intersection of Gracefield Road and Seaview Road by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions.

3.    The concern expressed is that cars parked too close to the intersection restrict sight distance and reduce the space available for vehicle manoeuvring.

4.    Gracefield Road is a busy Primary Collector Road which provides access to the Wainuiomata Hill Road and the Gracefield commercial/industrial area.

5.    There are a relatively high number of vehicle manoeuvres from off road parking areas and industrial/commercial activity, which adds to the complexity of the driving task for motorists.

6.    A water pumping station and service area is located immediately southeast of the intersection at 73 Seaview Road. Parking in front of the pumping station is prohibited to allow 24 hour service access.

7.    Parking demand is relatively high in the area due to employee parking at the nearby industrial activity.

Discussion

8.    The proposal involves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines) on the south eastern corner of the intersection, and also opposite the intersection on Seaview Road.

9.    The proposed restriction from Gracefield Road into Seaview Road would prevent vehicles parking in the vicinity of the throat island and corner, and ensure that sight distance and manoeuvring space is maintained for vehicles exiting Gracefield Road.

10.  The proposed restriction would extend past the water pumping station to prevent vehicles parking between the pump station and the corner, and reinforce the existing No Parking restriction at the pump station service area.

11.  An existing No Parking sign outside the pumping station would be relocated further north to prevent vehicles from parking behind the proposed broken yellow lines. 

12.  Vehicles parked on the carriageway and berm opposite the intersection on Seaview Road restrict the manoeuvring space available on Seaview Road and increase the risk of vehicle conflict.

13.  Vehicles parked in this area also damage the road seal edge, increasing maintenance costs.

14.  The proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in this area would tie into the existing restriction to the north and ensure the intersection is free of obstruction by parked vehicles.

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

16.  The proposed 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 on any part of a roadway so close to any corner, bend, rise, dip, traffic island, or intersection as to obstruct other traffic or any view of the roadway to the driver of a vehicle approaching that corner, bend, rise, dip, traffic island or intersection unless the stopping, standing or parking is authorised by signs or markings maintained by the road controlling authority.”

17.  The two businesses immediately adjacent to the intersection were consulted and approve of the proposed measures.

Options

18.  The options are:

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

b.    improve the road safety level of service by installing No Stopping At All Times Restrictions as shown in Appendix 1 to prevent parked vehicles obstructing sight distance and manoeuvring space; or

c.     to install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions over some greater or lesser extent to improve road safety.

19.  Officers recommend Option b as it provides a good balance between road safety amenity and the retention of existing parking.

Consultation

20.  Consultation documents were delivered to two directly affected businesses at Nºs 74 Seaview Road and 240 Gracefield Road.

21.  Both questionnaires were returned in favour of the proposal.

22.  At its meeting on 18 February 2019, the Petone Community Board resolved to endorse the recommendations contained in the officer’s report.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

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

Other Considerations

25.  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 sight distance and safety for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Gracefield Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

25

    

 

 

 

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Gracefield Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

 


                                                                                      28                                                    25 February 2019

Traffic Subcommittee

14 January 2019

 

 

 

File: (19/68)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TRS2019/1/15

 

Connolly Street - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of P60 parking restrictions over eight currently unrestricted parking spaces on Connolly Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P60 parking restrictions over eight currently unrestricted parking spaces on Connolly Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons, the proposed restrictions:

-      would improve parking availability on the street for the benefit of all road users;

-      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 parking availability on Connolly Street, by installing P60 parking restrictions over eight currently unrestricted on-street car parks.

3.    A new business centre, The Verve @ Connolly, opened in 2018 on the intersection of Rutherford Street, Melling Road and Connolly Street. All three roads are classified as Primary Collectors under the NZTA One Network Road Classification system.

4.    The adjacent land use on Connolly Street is primarily residential, however there are three childcare centres, including one in The Verve complex.

5.    The Verve complex includes a birthing centre and various other medical services (orthodontist, chemist etc,) and several currently vacant units.

6.    The surrounding area on Rutherford Street and Melling Road is a mix of commercial activities.

7.    Parking in the area is also utilised by commuters accessing the nearby Melling Railway Station.

8.    The concern expressed is that local business customers cannot find convenient short-term parking in the vicinity, as the existing on-street unrestricted parking spaces are often fully occupied by commuters and other longer term users.

Discussion

9.    The proposal involves installing P60 parking restrictions over eight existing, currently unrestricted, parallel on street parking spaces directly in front of the new business centre located at Nº 2 Connolly Street.

10.  The P60 parking restrictions, as proposed, would promote more turnover of parking and improve the availability of parking for local business customers.

11.  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.

12.  The proposed measures are supported by all the residents/business owners that chose to respond to the consultation documents.

Options

13.  The options are:

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

b.    install the P60 parking restrictions over eight existing on street car parking spaces, as shown in Appendix 1, to improve parking turnover and availability; or

c.     install some longer, or shorter, duration time restriction over some greater, or lesser, extent of parking in the area.

14.  Officers recommend Option b as its provides a mix of short and long term parking options in the area to cater for commercial, residential and commuter parking demand.

Consultation

15.  Consultation documents were delivered to eight directly-affected residences and premises at Nºs 1, 1/7, 2, 1-3/9 and 11 Connolly Street.

16.  Two questionnaires were returned; both in favour of the proposed changes.

17.  Comments from supporting residents include:

a.    “Please also consider similar parking restrictions on the opposite side of the proposed location.”

Officer’s Response: Officers believe that the eight proposed P60 spaces would cater for the current short term parking demand, and minimise the impact on other long term parking users.

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 parking availability for the benefit of all road users. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road signs.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Connolly Street - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions

29

    

 

 

 

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Connolly Street - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions

 


                                                                                      31                                                    25 February 2019

Traffic Subcommittee

15 January 2019

 

 

 

File: (19/73)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TRS2019/1/16

 

Rutherford 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 over two existing Pay and Display parking spaces on Rutherford Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P30 parking restrictions over two current Pay and Display (HC3, 9am – 5pm Monday-Friday) parking spaces on Rutherford Street, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reason the proposed restrictions would improve accessibility to the adjacent vet clinic for customers dropping off animals in emergency situations.

 

Background

2.    Council received a request from a local business (Pet Vet) to improve parking availability on Rutherford Street by installing P30 parking restrictions over two current Pay and Display (HC3, 9am – 5pm Monday-Friday), on-street parking spaces.

3.    Rutherford Street is a busy road located in a commercial area with daily traffic volumes of approximately 15,000; therefore parking turnover is highly encouraged for the growth of local businesses.

4.    A veterinary service has opened at Nº 53 Rutherford Street and has requested that two currently metered parking spaces directly outside the site be changed to P30 spaces, so that customers can more easily find car parks when dropping off an animal in an emergency situation.

Discussion

5.    The proposal involves installing P30 parking restrictions over two current Pay and Display (HC3, 9am – 5pm Monday-Friday) parking spaces on Rutherford Street.

6.    The installation of the P30 parking restrictions, as proposed, would improve short-term parking availability in the area and allow customers of the veterinary service to more easily find a car park during emergency situations.

7.    Out of two directly-affected premises that were consulted (one of them being the local business that requested the proposed measures); both have expressed support for the proposal.

8.    The P30 parking restriction would apply between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday. Outside of these times the spaces would be unrestricted free parking.

Options

9.    The options are:

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

b.   improve the availability of free short term parking by installing P30 parking restrictions over two current Pay and Display (HC3, 9am – 5pm Monday-Friday) parking spaces.; or

c.   install short term parking of shorter, or longer, duration over some other extent of existing parking.

10.  Officers recommend Option b as it will improve accessibility for customers seeking urgent access to the vet clinic, while maintaining the bulk of the pay and display parking for motorists seeking longer duration parking.

Consultation

11.  Consultation documents were delivered to two directly-affected premises at Nºs 51 and 53 Rutherford Street.

12.  One questionnaire was returned, in favour of the proposal. The other consulted party was the business that requested the proposed measures, therefore all parties agree with the proposal.

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 Council’s 2018/2019 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 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

Rutherford Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions

33

    

 

 

 

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Rutherford Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions

 


                                                                                      37                                                    25 February 2019

Traffic Subcommittee

17 January 2019

 

 

 

File: (19/76)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TRS2019/1/17

 

Amberley Grove - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of P120 (Monday to Friday 8am to 12pm only) parking restrictions over five parking spaces on Amberley Grove, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P120 (Monday to Friday 8am to 12pm only) parking restrictions over five parking spaces on Amberley Grove, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons, the proposed restrictions:

-      would improve parking availability on the street for local residents and visitors;

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

-      would support Council’s Parking Policy 2017; and

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

 

Background

2.    Council has received a request from a local resident to improve parking availability on Amberley Grove by installing P120 parking restrictions over five existing, currently unrestricted parking spaces.

3.    Amberley Grove is a residential cul-de-sac located relatively close to Lower Hutt’s commercial area and nearby businesses.

4.    The concern expressed is that commuters often park on the street, making it difficult for local residents and visitors to find parking during the week.

5.    There are a 10 unrestricted parking spaces on the street to accommodate the parking demands of residents, visitors and commuters.

6.    There are 17 dwellings on Amberley Grove.

7.    Council installed No Stopping At All Times restrictions and L and T bar parking markings in the street in 2018 to prevent commuters parking over residents’ driveways.

Discussion

8.    Due to the limited number of on street parking spaces on Amberley Grove (10), residents and visitors often cannot find a park due to occupancy by CBD commuters.

9.    The proposed P120 time restrictions would discourage commuter parking and make it more likely for residential visitors to find on-street car parks during the day.

10.  By limiting the P120 parking restrictions to the hours of 8am to 12pm Monday to Friday only, it is intended to discourage commuter parking but allow longer term parking for local residents and visitors during the day and on weekends.

11.  The proposal supports Council’s Parking Policy 2017, which places the lowest priority on commuter parking in ‘Live and Play’ areas.

12.  From the conducted public consultation, the majority of residents (71%) are in agreement with the proposed time restrictions.

Options

13.  The options are:

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

b.    improve the parking availability level of service by installing P120 (Monday to Friday 8am to 12pm only) parking restrictions to allow local residents and visitors to find parking spaces during the week; or

c.     install some longer, or shorter, time restriction over some greater or lesser extent.

14.  Officers recommend Option b as it would ensure at least five parking spaces would be available for local residents, while still making some parking available for commuters.

Consultation

15.  Consultation documents were delivered to 19 directly-affected residences at Nºs 1-17 Amberley Grove and Nºs 120, 122 Kings Crescent.

16.  Seven questionnaires were returned; five (71%) in favour of the proposal and two (29%) against it.

17.  Comments from supporting residents include:

a.     “Parking restrictions shall be 8am to 5pm, NOT 8am to 10am. Also, outside 1 and 2 Amberley Grove for 2 car parks are too close, should change it into 1 car park.”

Officer’s response: After consideration, Council has decided that extending the P120 parking restrictions from 8am to 12pm (rather than 8am to 10am) would be more effective in ensuring commuters do not occupy these car parks all day.

b.     “I definitely support the proposed changes and hope they can be instigated as soon as possible. Many thanks.”

c.     “I wish the parking restriction could be applied to the other parking spaces too because commuters would park on those, further impacting on residents’ parking on my side of the street.”

Officer’s response: Officers consider that providing parking for both residents and commuters is appropriate, and that five on street spaces should be enough for residents and their visitors.

d.    “A speed hump at the end of the grove would be good too. Would stop/slow people who use the grove to turn around or think it is a short cut.”

Officer’s response: A speed hump is not being considered as there is no evidence of a speed problem within the street.

18.  Comments from opposing residents include:

a.     “This has never been an issue to me or any friends or family coming to visit me. I have lived here for 18 years and this ‘request’ has been made by disgruntled residents who are jealous of some people owning >2 cars. This is a matter of neighbor dynamics and such a change is completely unnecessary and unwarranted.”

Officer’s response: As the majority of residents have expressed support for a time restriction, the proposed measures are considered appropriate. As there will still be unrestricted spaces within the street, parking availability for residents with >2 cars should improve. 

19.  Following public consultation and feedback, officers are recommending that the duration of the time restriction be from 8am to 12pm, rather than 8am to 10am as originally proposed.

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 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

Amberley Grove - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions

38

    

 

 

 

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Amberley Grove - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions

 


                                                                                      42                                                    25 February 2019

Traffic Subcommittee

25 January 2019

 

 

 

File: (19/89)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TRS2019/1/18

 

Bristol Square - Proposed P10 Parking Restrictions

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of P10 Pick up Drop off parking restrictions over three currently unrestricted parking spaces on Bristol Square, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of P10 Pick up Drop off 8.30-9.00am and 2.30-3.15pm Monday-Friday School Days only parking restrictions over three currently unrestricted parking spaces on Bristol Square, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report:

For the reasons, the proposed restrictions:

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

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

-      would support Council’s Parking Policy 2017; and

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

 

Background

2.    Council received a request to improve accessibility and parking availability on Bristol Square by installing P10 Pick up Drop off parking restrictions over three currently unrestricted on-street parking spaces.

3.    Bristol Square is a relatively wide residential street within walking distance of Eastern Hutt Primary School. 

4.    The concern expressed is that busier roads with higher traffic volumes, such as Kings Crescent and Pretoria Street, are experiencing congestion during drop off and pick up times for Eastern Hutt Primary School.

Discussion

5.    The proposal involves establishing a more definitive drop off/pick up zone on Bristol Square by installing P10 parking restrictions over three currently unrestricted on-street parking spaces.

6.    The installation of P10 parking restrictions, as proposed, would encourage parents to drop off and pick up children in Bristol Square, which would assist in relieving the congestion on Kings Crescent and Pretoria Street.

7.    From site inspections conducted by Council during peak flow hours, it was observed that some parents already use this section of Bristol Square as a drop-off/ pickup zone.

8.    This zone is already marked by a pou (1.5 m high decorated pole), so the proposed measures would serve to encourage more parties to do so in the future. 

9.    In order to make it safer for students, Eastern Hutt Primary School has negotiated with Pretoria Street Surgery Centre so that the students can walk through their property to access the newly installed drop-off/ pick up locations.

10.  This section of Bristol Square currently has 25 carparks nearby and the proposal would be applied to only three parking spaces, maintaining as many unrestricted, on-street car parks as possible.

11.  The proposal is in keeping with Council’s Parking Policy 2017 which places a high priority on short term parking in ‘Work and Learn’ areas, while still providing parking for residents and residential visitors.

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.   improve the accessibility and parking availability level of service by installing P10 parking restrictions over three currently unrestricted parking spaces on Bristol Square (as shown in Appendix 1), to improve car park turnover during drop off/pickup hours.

13.  Officers recommend Option b as this would improve short term parking availability during the busy drop off and pick up times, while still maintaining adequate unrestricted parking for other users outside those periods.

Consultation

14.  Consultation documents were delivered to 12 directly-affected residences at Nºs 31, 35, 37 and 39 Pretoria Street and Nºs 7, 12, 14, 16 – 19, 21 – 25 Bristol Square.

15.  Eight questionnaires were returned; six (75%) in favour and two (25%) against the proposed changes.

16.  Comments from opposing residents include:

a.   “We are concerned that given the proximity of the proposed Bristol Square zoning change to the Red Cross Pretoria Street facility, we expect that our facility will be used as a short cut from Bristol Square to Pretoria Street. This raises safety concerns as we have on-site parking for about 10 vehicles and as our first course starts at 8:30 am, it is reasonable to expect a significant amount of on-site vehicle movement. Our observations from approximately 8:15 to 9:05 am this morning showed that approximately 2/3 of the children were dropped off at the Pretoria St. Bus Stop zone which accommodates 3 cars at any one time. This is the most convenient drop off spot as an entrance to the school is situated beside the bus stop. This seems to be the preferred drop off location. Perhaps it could be considered to relocate the bus stop so as to make the pick and drop more convenient to parents.

Officer’s response: Eastern Hutt Primary School has negotiated with Pretoria Street Surgery Centre so that the students can transit through their property to access the newly installed drop-off/pick up locations. Council wardens regularly patrol the three school entrances and the Parking Services Manager has confirmed this will continue on a regular basis. In addition, Council will be working closely with the school to discourage this action from parents and students so that there’s no burden to the Red Cross Pretoria Street facility. Moving the bus stop is not practical or viable, since it is needed on days when school trips are held.

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 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

Bristol Square - Proposed P10 Parking Restrictions

43

    

 

 

 

Author: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Bristol Square - Proposed P10 Parking Restrictions

 


                                                                                      50                                                    25 February 2019

Traffic Subcommittee

13 February 2019

 

 

 

File: (19/182)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TRS2019/1/20

 

Eastern Hutt Road Proposed Parking Restriction on Omnibus Parking

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the prohibition of Omnibus parking on Eastern Hutt Road, between Peterkin Street and High Street, and Eldon Grove, at all times, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the prohibition of Omnibus parking at all times on Eastern Hutt Road, between Peterkin Street and High Street, and Eldon Grove, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons the proposed prohibition would:

-      reduce the risk of vehicle conflict;

-      improve accessibility for other road users including students at Taita College;

-      prevent damage to the footpath, grass berm and underground services; and

-      improve pedestrian accessibility and safety.    

 

Background

2.    A passenger transport company has operated out of the premises at 125 Eastern Hutt Road for a number of years. The date the company started operating from the site is not known, however aerial photography appears to show buses on the site at least as early as 2004/2005.

3.    Following changes to the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) public transport system in 2018, Council started receiving complaints from the public about bus parking on Eastern Hutt Road in the vicinity of Taita College, opposite 125 Eastern Hutt Road.

4.    The complaints centred on buses parking on both sides of the carriageway, reducing the space available for passing motorists and increasing the risk of vehicles conflict.

5.    Anecdotal evidence and media reports suggest that the transport company secured a number of school bus routes as a result of the GWRC changes, and the additional buses used to service these routes were not able to be accommodated off street within the company’s premises. The buses were therefore parked roadside within approximately 250m either side of 125 Eastern Hutt Road.

Discussion

6.    Eastern Hutt Road is classified as a Primary Collector under the New Zealand Transport Agency’s One Network Road Classification system.

7.    Traffic volumes on Eastern Hutt Road range between 8,500 and 8,800 vehicles per day.

8.    Taita College is located directly opposite the site at 188 Eastern Hutt Road. A school pedestrian crossing is located outside the school.

9.    Buses were originally being parked on both sides of the carriageway which at times meant other traffic had to stop when a truck was navigating between buses.

10.  After being approached by Parking Services, the transport company began parking on one side of the carriageway only. This improved the situation, however complaints from the public continued, and buses are still occasionally observed parking on both sides of the carriageway.

11.  Officers have observed up to 12 buses being parked in this area during the day. Similar reports have been received from the public.

12.  The complaints received from the public can be summarised as:

a.    the parked buses force other road users to travel near. Or over the road centreline increasing the risk of vehicle conflict;

b.    the parked buses reduce the parking space available to other road users, including parents dropping off and picking up children from Taita College;

c.     buses parked on footpaths reduce the space available to footpath users; and

d.    the parked buses create visual obstructions which make it more difficult for motorists to see pedestrians crossing, or about to cross the road, particularly school children.

13.  The buses are often parked on the grass verge and concrete footpaths which can damage these areas and the services beneath.

14.  Council officers have tried discussing the parking behaviour with employees of the transport company, however these discussions have been non-productive.

15.  The following photographs demonstrate the typical bus parking behaviour.

16.  Parking Services have visited the site on several occasions, but have commented that the buses are not parked illegally if they are on the carriageway, and parked one side of the carriageway only.

17.  Officers consider that the bus parking creates a safety risk to pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists by increasing the risk of conflict between road users.

18.  To remedy the situation it is proposed to prohibit parking of buses on Eastern Hutt Road between Peterkin Street and High Street, and Eldon Grove, at all times. The restriction would apply to the full width of the road reserve, as shown in Appendix 1.

19.  The parking prohibition would apply to the following vehicle classes: MD, MD 1, MD 2, MD 3, MD 4 and ME. 

20.  The prohibition of bus parking has been discussed with the Principal of Taita College who says that when buses visit the school for trips etc, they use the school’s internal road and parking and they will therefore not be affected by the parking prohibition.

Options

21.  The options considered were:

a.    install time restricted parking to limit the time all vehicles could be parked in the area;

b.    install No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines) to prevent all parking in the area at all times;

c.     install No Stopping At All Times restrictions to prevent parking outside of school drop off and pick up times;

d.    modify the carriageway centreline and edge line locations and prohibit parking on one side of the carriageway;

e.     physical works to widen the available carriageway; and

f.     prohibit Omnibus Parking (Vehicle Classes MD, MD 1, MD 2, MD 3, MD 4 and ME ) at all times on Eastern Hutt Road between Peterkin Street and High Street, and on Eldon Grove.

22.  Option a is not recommended as it would inconvenience all road users and the restriction could be managed by ‘rotating’ buses throughout the time restricted area.

23.  Option b is not recommended as it would inconvenience all road users, and drastically reduce accessibility for parents dropping off and picking up students at Taita College.

24.  Option c is not recommended as it would inconvenience all road users outside of the school drop off and pick up times.

25.  Option d is not recommended as it would reduce accessibility by removing car parking spaces and still allow buses to be parked on one side of the carriageway.

26.  Option e is not recommended as it would incur significant financial cost upon ratepayers in order to prevent the undesirable parking behaviour.

27.  Option f is recommended as it will prevent bus parking in the area at low physical cost and maintain the existing parking facilities for all other road users. 

Consultation

28.  The proposed prohibition of bus parking was discussed with the Principal of Taita College, who strongly supported the proposal.

29.  Three attempts were made to call the owner of Boss Transport, the parent company associated with the various companies that operate from the site at 125 Eastern Hutt Road. A voice mail was left on each occasion requesting contact and feedback on the proposal; however no communication has been received.

30.  A letter and plan detailing the extent of the proposal was hand delivered to the desk of the owner of Boss Transport at 125 Eastern Hutt Road on Friday 8 February. This letter also requested feedback and offered the option of presenting directly to the Traffic Subcommittee during public comment. No response had been received at the time this report was finalised.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

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

Other Considerations

33.  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 by maintaining parking accessibility in the area for road users other than buses. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because the physical cost of implementing the changes is low and can be accommodated within existing budgets.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed Bus Parking Restrictions 12.2019 19/182 CYCLE 1 2019

51

    

 

 

 

Author: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: John Gloag

Divisional Manager, Transport

 

 

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services


Attachment 1

Eastern Hutt Road - Proposed Bus Parking Restrictions 12.2019 19/182 CYCLE 1 2019

 


                                                                                      54                                                    25 February 2019

Traffic Subcommittee

15 February 2019

 

 

 

File: (19/203)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TRS2019/1/19

 

Myrtle Street - Proposed Mobility Parking Restrictions

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council approves the installation of a P60 Mobility Car Park and associated No Stopping At All Times restrictions outside Ss Peter & Paul School, Myrtle Street as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)    approves the installation of a P60 Mobility Parking Restriction outside Ss Peter & Paul School, Myrtle Street as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(ii)   approves the installation of No Stopping at all Times Restrictions outside Ss Peter & Paul School, Myrtle Street as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons, the proposed restrictions:

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

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

-      would support Council’s Parking Policy 2017;

 

Background

2.    A parent of one of Ss Peter & Paul School’s students has requested the installation of a Mobility Carpark at the main entrance of the school for children/parents who cannot walk great distances.

Discussion

3.    Officers consider that the provision of an additional Mobility Carpark is warranted in close proximity to the school entrance.

4.    One existing on-street parking space will be lost to provide the Mobility Carpark.

5.    Two existing mobility parking spaces are located nearby on Myrtle Street, however these are frequently occupied all day, so not useful for school users.

6.    It is proposed that the existing 60 minute restriction be retained for the proposed space to prevent it from being occupied all day by mobility impaired workers.

Options

7.    The options are:

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

b.  improve the level of service for accessibility and safety by installing a Mobility Parking Restriction and No Stopping At All Times restrictions to allow appropriate, accessible parking in the vicinity of the school; or

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

8.    Officers recommend Option b as this will improve accessibility for mobility impaired students and parents at minimal loss of existing on-road parking.

Consultation

9.    Ss Peter & Paul School supports 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 existing 2018/2019 road 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 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

Myrtle Street - Proposed Mobility Carpark 37.2018 19/203 Cycle 1 2019

55

    

 

 

 

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Myrtle Street - Proposed Mobility Carpark 37.2018 19/203 Cycle 1 2019

 

  


MEMORANDUM                                                  57                                                   25 February 2019

Our Reference          19/148

TO:                      Chair and Members

Traffic Subcommittee

FROM:                Alan Hopkinson

DATE:                30 January 2019

SUBJECT:           Review of Parking - No Stopping At All Times Restriction - Richmond Grove

 

 

Recommendation

That the Traffic Subcommittee:

(i)    receives the information; and

(ii)   notes that Officers will submit a report in Meeting Cycle 2 recommending the extension of the new No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Richmond Grove, as requested by the requester.

 

Purpose of Memorandum

1.    The purpose of this memorandum is to report on a review of new parking restrictions in Richmond Grove as requested by the Traffic Subcommittee at its meeting on 13 November 2017.

Background

2.    At its meeting on 13 November 2017 the Traffic Subcommittee asked officers to review the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions in Richmond Grove approximately 12 months after installation.

3.    Council Officers contacted the original requester in January 2019.

4.    The requester advised that the new Broken Yellow Lines did not go far enough to the north, and that there was still an issue with a neighbour’s truck parking at the northern end of the existing markings but still too close to their driveway.

5.    The Land Transport (Road User Rule) 2004 states that : 

6.3 Parking close to corners, bends, etc

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

6.    The requester also indicated that their neighbours were also having access difficulties – principally when leaving their driveway. Again, the problem relates to the parking outside the requester’s property. 

7.    The proposed solution is to extend the existing No Stopping At All Times restriction a further 11 metres to the north. This should ensure that the requester has sufficient visibility to leave their property in safety. The extra clear space should also assist with their neighbours’ access issues.

8.    As a result of this review, Officers intend submitting a report to the Petone Community Board and Traffic Subcommittee in Cycle 2 of 2019 recommending the extension of the No Stopping At All Times restriction as requested by the requester.

9.    The Petone Community Board received and noted this information at its meeting on 18 February 2019.

10.  It is recommended that the Traffic Subcommittee receive the memorandum and notes the preparation of the report in Cycle 2 recommending the extension of the new No Stopping At All Times Restrictions.

 

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Richmond Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

58

    

 

 

 

 

Author: Alan Hopkinson

Senior Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 

 

Approved By: John Gloag

Divisional Manager, Transport

 

 


Attachment 1

Richmond Grove - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

 


MEMORANDUM                                                  60                                                   25 February 2019

Our Reference          19/150

TO:                      Chair and Members

Traffic Subcommittee

FROM:                Damon Simmons

DATE:                07 February 2019

SUBJECT:           Review of Parking - Shepherd Grove

 

 

Recommendation

That the Traffic Subcommittee:

(i)    receives the information; and

(ii)   notes that Officers will subsequently submit a report recommending changing the existing P5 time restriction to a P10 or P15 restriction in Shepherd Grove.

 

Purpose of Memorandum

1.    The purpose of this memorandum is to report back on the review of the new P5 parking restriction in Shepherd Grove, Taita as requested by the Traffic Subcommittee at its meeting on 9 April 2018.

Background

2.    At its meeting on 22 May 2018, Council approved the Traffic Subcommittee’s recommendation to endorse the Officer’s recommendation to install a P5 parking restriction outside the Taita Kindergarten in Shepherd Drive, Taita.

3.    Officers were reluctant to impose such a short duration restriction due to difficulties with enforcement; however the complainant felt that it was warranted.

4.    Council requested Officers to review the parking in six months’ time.

Review

5.    Officers spoke to the staff of Taita Kindergarten to review whether the P5 restriction was working as intended.

6.    The kindergarten staff indicated that the P5 restriction was too short for many parents, and that a P10 restriction would be preferred.

Discussion

7.    It is recommended that the Traffic Subcommittee receive the memorandum and notes that the preparation of a subsequent report recommending changing the P5 time restriction to a P10 or P15 restriction.

 

 

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

G150.2017 Shepherd Grove #2 - Changing parking restrictions

61

    

 

 

 

 

Author: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 

 

 

 

Approved By: John Gloag

Divisional Manager, Transport

 


Attachment 1

G150.2017 Shepherd Grove #2 - Changing parking restrictions

 


MEMORANDUM                                                  63                                                   25 February 2019

Our Reference          19/151

TO:                      Chair and Members

Traffic Subcommittee

FROM:                Zackary Moodie

DATE:                31 January 2019

SUBJECT:           Review of Parking - Near 313 Jackson Street

 

 

Recommendation

That the Traffic Subcommittee:

(i)    receives the information; and

(ii)   notes that no further action is taken at this time, although Officers will likely review the parking in the area, near 313 Jackson Street, further once the effects of any changes to the bus stop are finalised and incorporated by Greater Wellington Regional Council.

 

Purpose of Memorandum

1.    The purpose of this Memorandum is to report back on the review of parking in the area of 313 Jackson Street, 12 months after the completion of the building and opening of three new businesses.

Background

2.    The occupant of a new liquor store at 313 Jackson Street requested Council Officers to change the existing P60 parking restriction on three roadside parking spaces outside 313 Jackson Street to three P15 parking restrictions to accommodate his customers. The business had not opened at the time of the request.

3.    Public consultation indicated little support for the P15 proposal and Officers recommended that the restriction instead be altered to P30 to accommodate the needs of the surrounding businesses.

4.    As the business had not yet opened, and so any parking problem was perceived, the Traffic Subcommittee recommended to Council to make no change, and review the situation in 12 months’ time. 

5.    At its meeting on 13 December 2017, Council approved the Traffic Subcommittee recommendation and asked Officers to review parking in the area in 12 months’ time.

Review

6.    Officers conducted three separate surveys of the parking availability for the 39 spaces in the surrounding area in January 2019. The survey showed occupancy of 59%, 66% and 70%.

7.    Intervention is generally not warranted under Council’s Parking Policy, and international good practice, when the parking occupancy is less than 85%.

Discussion

8.    The original requester is still requesting the installation of P15 parking restrictions outside the liquor store.

9.    As the surveyed parking occupancy is generally light, it is considered that parking turnover in the area is acceptable and further parking restrictions are not currently warranted.

10.  Greater Wellington Regional Council is undertaking a review of bus stops within the region to minimise hazards, and this stop has been identified for a review. Any reconfiguration of the bus stop could affect nearby parking.

11.  Officers will likely review the parking in the area further once the effects of any changes to the bus stop are finalised and incorporated.

12.  The Petone Community Board received this information at its meeting on 18 February 2019.

13.  It is recommended that the Traffic Subcommittee receive the memorandum and notes that no further action be taken until the results of the GWRC review of bus stops within the region are known.

 

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

G119.2017 Jackson Street

64

    

 

 

 

 

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

G119.2017 Jackson Street

 


MEMORANDUM                                                  66                                                   25 February 2019

Our Reference          19/154

TO:                      Chair and Members

Traffic Subcommittee

FROM:                Zackary Moodie

DATE:                04 February 2019

SUBJECT:           Review of Parking - Gear Street Parking Restrictions

 

 

Recommendation

That the Traffic Subcommittee:

(i)    receives the information; and

(ii)   notes that Officers will subsequently submit a report recommending further parking time restrictions on Gear Street.

 

Purpose of Memorandum

1.    The purpose of this memorandum is to report back on the review of new parking restrictions in Gear Street.

Background

2.    At its meeting on 13 December 2017 Council approved the Traffic Subcommittee’s recommendations for changes to the parking restrictions in Gear Street and asked Officers to review the parking situation in 12 months’ time.

3.    Officers had recommended (with additional changes) that five new angle parking spaces be created outside 10 -14 Gear Street and that two of the spaces have P15 restrictions and three spaces have P30 parking restrictions.

4.    The Traffic Subcommittee recommended that the three proposed P30 spaces instead have no time restriction, in response to feedback from other businesses in the street.

5.    The changes were made due to high parking demand in the street due to existing businesses and increased demand due to a new Asian supermarket that had recently opened.

Review

6.    Officers conducted three separate surveys of the parking availability within the surrounding area in January 2019. The results showed occupancy of 75%, 91% and 86% (average 84%) out of 24 carparks, as well as additional illegally parked vehicles.

7.    The parks outside 10 -14 Gear Street were regularly fully occupied and vehicles were observed parked illegally surrounding the supermarket. Some vehicles were located over driveways and No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines).

Discussion

8.    The incidences of illegal parking in the area suggest that parking demand at times exceeds the supply of spaces.

9.    The occupant of 10 -14 Gear Street suggested that the mechanic workshop directly opposite the supermarket has been using the three unrestricted car parks to store vehicles that they are working on.

10.  These spaces are often taken up throughout the day and overnight, and the mechanic employees regularly swap the vehicles out for other cars they are working on. They also use the time-restricted parks for longer than the time-imposed limit.

11.  The Wellington Motorcycles representative indicated that they felt the parking changes were working well.

12.  Officers consider that the three unrestricted spaces outside 10 -14 Gear Street should be changed to P30 restrictions as originally proposed.

13.  The Petone Community Board received this information at its meeting on 18 February 2019.

14.  It is recommended that the Traffic Subcommittee receive the memorandum and notes the preparation of a subsequent report recommending further parking time restrictions on Gear Street.

 

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

G206.2016 Gear Street Parking Review 2019

67

    

 

 

 

 

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Victor Fraga

Assistant Traffic Engineer

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager  


Attachment 1

G206.2016 Gear Street Parking Review 2019