HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_BLACK_AGENDA_COVER

 

 

Traffic Subcommittee

 

 

2 November 2020

 

 

 

Order Paper for the meeting to be held in the

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

on:

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 10 November 2020 commencing at 2.00pm

 

 

Membership

 

 

Cr L Sutton (Chair)

Cr B Dyer (Deputy Chair)

Cr J Briggs

Cr K Brown

Cr A Mitchell

Cr N Shaw

 

 

Cr D Hislop (Alternate)

Deputy Mayor Lewis (Alternate)

Cr S Rasheed (Alternate)

 

 

 

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

 

Have your say

You can speak under public comment to items on the agenda to the Mayor and Councillors at this meeting. Please let us know by noon the working day before the meeting. You can do this by emailing DemocraticServicesTeam@huttcity.govt.nz or calling the Democratic Services Team on 04 570 6666 | 0800 HUTT CITY

 

 


HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_SCREEN_MEDRES

 

TRAFFIC SUBCOMMITTEE
Membership:	6
Alternates:	3
Quorum:	Half of the members
Meeting Cycle:	The Traffic Subcommittee will meet on an eight weekly basis or as required.
Reports to:	Council

PURPOSE

The Traffic Subcommittee has primary responsibility for considering and making recommendations to Council on traffic matters and considering 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 refer any traffic matter to:

 

1.2.1         A Community Board; or

1.2.2         The Community and Environment Committee; or

1.2.3         Council.

 

DELEGATED AUTHORITY:

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

 

    


                                                                       3                                         1 September 2020

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Traffic Subcommittee

 

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

 Tuesday 10 November 2020 commencing at 2.00pm.

 

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

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.        

4.       Recommendations to Council - 8 December 2020

i)       Manor Park: Proposed Speed Limit, Parking Restrictions, Road Marking and Signage Changes. (20/1208)

Report No. TSC2020/6/239 by the Traffic Asset Manager                       16

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

ii)      Jackson Street, Petone - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (20/1270)

Report No. TSC2020/6/240 by the Senior Traffic Engineer                     31

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

iii)     Buick Street, Petone - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (20/1263)

Report No. TSC2020/6/241 by the Traffic Engineer                                 35

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

iv)     Eastbourne and Days Bay - Proposed P180 Electric Vehicle Parking Restrictions (20/1264)

Report No. TSC2020/6/242 by the Traffic Engineer                                 39

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

v)      Ropata Crescent, Boulcott - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (20/1088)

Report No. TSC2020/6/243 by the Traffic Engineer                                 53

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

vi)     Cedar Street, Maungaraki - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (20/1090)

Report No. TSC2020/6/244 by the Traffic Engineer                                 57

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

vii)    Kamahi Street, Stokes Valley - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (20/1141)

Report No. TSC2020/6/245 by the Traffic Engineer                                 64

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

viii)   Waterloo Road, Hutt Central - Proposed Changes to School Bus Stop Times (20/1143)

Report No. TSC2020/6/246 by the Traffic Engineer                                   70

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

ix)     Victoria Street, Alicetown - Proposed P60 Time Restriction and Bus Stop Modification (20/1225)

Report No. TSC2020/6/247 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations    74

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

x)      Cuba Street, Petone - Proposed P10 Time Restriction (20/895)

Report No. TSC2020/6/248 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations               80

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

xi)     Glen Road, Stokes Valley - Proposed No Stopping Restriction (20/1275)

Report No. TSC2020/6/249 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations    85

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

xii)    Waddington Drive, Naenae - Proposed P10 (School Days) Time Restriction (20/1276)

Report No. TSC2020/6/250 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations    90

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

 

 

 

 

xiii)   Margaret Street, Hutt Central - Proposed P15 Loading Zone Class Restriction (20/1285)

Report No. TSC2020/6/251 by the Traffic Engineer - Network Operations    95

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

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.   

 

 

 

 

 

Kate Glanville

SENIOR DEMOCRACY ADVISOR

              


                                                                                      14                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

07 October 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1208)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/239

 

Manor Park: Proposed Speed Limit, Parking Restrictions, Road Marking and Signage Changes.

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to gain Council’s approval for the lowering of the default urban speed limit, installation of parking restrictions (no stopping at all times and no stopping on grass) within the suburb of Manor Park.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)    approves the reduction of the permanent speed limit from 50 km/h to 40 km/h over the areas of Manor Park shown in Figure 2 in the report;

(ii)   approves the installation of ‘No Stopping At All Times’ restrictions as shown in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 attached to the report; and

(iii)  approves the installation of ‘No Stopping On Grass’ restrictions as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.

For the reason(s)

The proposed speed limit reduction would encourage lower vehicle operating speeds, the proposed ‘No Stopping At All Times’ restrictions would reduce the likelihood of vehicle conflict and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, and the proposed ‘No Stopping On Grass’ restrictions would reduce the likelihood of damage to the grass berm/ stop bank.

 

Background

2.    The Mayor of Lower Hutt (Campbell Barry) and Councillor Brady Dyer met with a group of concerned residents from Manor Park on 24 June 2020. A follow-up meeting between the resident group and Councils’ Traffic Asset Manager was held on 14 July 2020 to discuss transport issues raised with the Mayor and Councillor.

3.    The main issues (transport related) raised during these meetings included:

a.   Concerns regarding current parking practices on Manor Park Road – vehicles parking on both the footpath and stop bank side of road narrowing the carriageway to a single traffic lane;

b.   Vehicles parking too close to corners, forcing drivers to cross the centreline with limited forward visibility;

c.   High vehicle operating speeds;

d.   Need for additional off-road parking for the Hospital;

e.   A desire for localised traffic calming (such as speed humps).
It is noted that this was not supported by the majority.

4.    There is anecdotal evidence that users of the golf course often speed through the suburb between the State Highway and the Golf Course.

5.    Manor Park is a predominantly residential suburban neighbourhood; however it accommodates a Rehabilitation Hospital (14 Manor Park Road) and serves as the sole access route for the Manor Park Golf Course ( northern extent of the suburb).

 Discussion

6.    A tube count survey of vehicle volumes and operating speeds was undertaken on Manor Park Road (outside the Hospital) between 31 August to 8 September 2020. The survey results (summarised) are shown in Table 1 below.

Measure

Result

AADT

591 vehicles per day

Total vehicles surveyed

4532 vehicles

Posted speed limit

50 km/h

% Exceeding Posted speed limit

40%

Mean speed of those exceeding

55.7 km/h

Mean speed

48.1 km/h

Maximum speed

90.1 km/h

85% Speed

55.98 km/h

95% speed

61.20 km/h

Table 1. Summary of Traffic Survey Data (August/ September 2020)

7.    Speed data suggests relatively poor compliance with the posted 50 km/h speed limit, with approximately 40% of all motorists exceeding the posted speed limit.

8.    There is anecdotal evidence from residents that golfers regularly exceed the speed limit when travelling to/ from the golf course, however it is not possible to confirm this hypothesis from the survey data.

9.    It is likely that the proximity of the local roads to the exit from the State Highway which has a 100 km/h speed limit contributes to higher operating speeds within the area.

10.  The roads within the study area (Figure 2) have a One Network Road Classification of ‘Access’. An Access road is defined as ‘often where your journey starts and ends. These roads provide access and connectivity to many of your daily journeys. They also provide access to the wider network’.

11.  The NZTA/ Waka Kotahi MegaMaps tool indicates that the Safe and Appropriate Speed for the streets being considered is 40 km/h (refer Figure 1),

12.  The Safe and Appropriate Speed is derived from several metrics including the Infrastructure Risk Rating (IRR), and the Collective and Personal Risk. For an ONRC ‘Access’ classification, the determining factor is the IRR.

13.  The IRR is a predictive road assessment methodology designed to proactively assess road safety risk and is a significant input to the speed management framework. The key features which contribute to the IRR are: Road stereotype; alignment; carriageway width; roadside hazards; land use; intersection density; access density and traffic volume. The IRR for the roads within the study area is Low Medium (on a scale of low, low medium, medium, medium high, high).

14.  The NZ Speed Management Guide (NZTA Waka Kotahi) indicates that the Safe and Appropriate Speed for a residential neighbourhood with an IRR of ‘low’ to ‘medium high’ is 40 km/h.

Figure 1. NZTA Mega Maps Tool – Safe and Appropriate Speed

15.  Due to the relatively high operating speeds and the indicated safe and appropriate speed, it is therefore proposed to reduce the posted speed limit within the area shown in Figure 2 from 50 km/h to 40 km/h. The outcome of consultation on this proposal is discussed later in this report.

16.  Local area traffic calming was also considered to encourage lower operating speeds however due to funding commitments to higher priority areas, physical traffic calming is not being considered further at this time.

17.  The reported crash history for the previous 10 years shows only a single crash (in 2016). This crash involved a car travelling on Golf road striking a parked car at around 10.30pm (i.e. during darkness).

Figure 2 Extent of proposed speed limit reduction from 50 km/h to 40 km/h.

18.  Due to the relatively high operating speeds, the support of the community and the alignment with the approach of the NZTA Speed management guide to reduce urban speed limits to the safe and appropriate speed, it is proposed to reduce the posted speed limit to 40 km/h within the area shown in Figure 2.

19.  In order to address the concerns around vehicles parking on both sides of Manor Park Road narrowing the carriageway to a single vehicle lane, and concerns around vehicles parking too close to corners, it is proposed to install ‘No Stopping At All Times’ restrictions (broken yellow lines) at a number of locations as shown in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.

20.  A number of amendments (generally minor extensions to the restrictions) to the extent of the broken yellow lines were made as a result of the feedback received by the community.

21.  Along with installing broken yellow lines along the southern side of Manor Park Drive, it is also proposed to realign the centreline and mark a parking bay line (fog line) along the northern side of Manor Park Drive. This would improve the carriageway channelisation both when parked cars are present, and when there are no cars parked.

22.  Removing the parking on one side of Manor Park Drive, and ensuring that two carriageway lanes are provided may result in marginally increased vehicle operating speeds. It is anticipated that the lowered speed limit may offset this increase;  however officers would undertake another operating speed survey in around 6 – 12 months’ time to quantify any operating speed changes. 

23.  Some residents raised concerns about vehicles parking on the grass verge on the southern side of Manor Park Road, which also forms the toe of the stop bank. The consultation feedback received several comments that it isn’t actually a problem, and that no cars park there.

24.  Officers propose resolving a ‘No Stopping On Grass’ restriction along the length of Manor Park Road adjacent to the stop bank, but intend not installing the signage unless there proves to be a problem in the future. This would help address concerns around sign pollution raised during consultation.

Options

25.  The options in relation to the posted speed limit are:

a.   Retain the existing permanent 50 km/h speed limit; or

b.   Reduce the permanent speed limit in the study area to 40 km/h.

26.  Officers recommend Option 25(b) as this speed limit reflects the safe and appropriate speed limit for the study area, is generally supported by the community and is likely to promote lower vehicle operating speeds.

27.  The options in relation to the proposed ‘No Stopping At All Times’ restrictions are:

a.   Leave the area unchanged; or

b.   Install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) as shown in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2; or

c.   Install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) over some greater or lesser extent.

28.  Officers recommend Option 27 (b) as this option would reduce the likelihood of vehicle conflict, improve accessibility, promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 and is well supported by the community.

29.  The options in relation to the proposed   ‘No Stopping On Grass’ restrictions are:

a.   Leave the area unchanged; or

b.   Install ‘No Stopping On Grass’ Restrictions as shown in Appendix 1; or

c.   Install ‘No Stopping On Grass’ Restrictions over some greater or lesser extent.

30.  Officers recommend Option 29 (b) as this option would reduce the likelihood of damage to the grass berm/ stop bank.

31.  Note that officers intend installing the ‘No Stopping On Grass’ signage only if parking on the grass proves to be a problem in the future to avoid unnecessary sign pollution.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

32.  The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

33.  The decision would not increase greenhouse gas emissions, and would not be affected by a changing climate. There are no opportunities in this decision to reduce emissions or build resilience.        

Consultation

34.  Consultation letters were hand delivered to 107 properties, including all residences in the study area, the hospital and the golf course.

35.  Consultation letters for the proposed speed limit change were also sent to Waka Kotahi NZTA, the Road Transport Forum NZ, NZ Police and NZ Automobile Association as required by the Land Transport Rule, Setting of Speed Limits 2017.

36.  At the time of finalising this report the only organisation to have responded was Waka Kotahi NZTA, in support of the proposed speed limit reduction. Any other feedback subsequently received will be presented to the Traffic Subcommittee.

37.  The details of the community consultation are summarised in Appendix 3.

38.  A letter objecting to the majority of the proposed changes was received from the Hospital (14 Manor Park Road). This letter is included as Appendix 4. The hospital’s main concern seems to be the effect on their staff and patients from the loss of on street parking. In addition to their own approximately 20 off-street parking spaces, around 30 – 35 on street parking spaces would still be available within approximately 120m of the hospital frontage on the northern side of Manor Park Road. This is deemed sufficient.

39.  Overall, 41 responses were received from the community consultation.

40.  In relation to the proposed speed limit reduction, 35 responses (85%) support lowering the speed limit to 40 km/h, with 6 responses (15%) opposed.

41.  In relation to the proposed parking restrictions, 38 responses (93%) support the proposed changes (some with minor additions requested). 1 response (2%) indicated ‘no’ support but then supported the changes in their comments with additions requested, and 2 responses (5%) opposed the proposed changes.    

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

43.  These changes can be funded from Council’s 2020/21 road markings and road signs budgets.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 Manor Park Proposed Parking Restrictions Plan 1

24

2

Appendix 2 Manor Park Proposed Parking Restrictions Plan 2

25

3

Appendix 3 Manor Park Proposed Parking Restrictions Summary of Consultation Feedback

26

4

Appendix 4 Submission to HCC on parking 29 Sept 2020 FINAL (Hospital)

27

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Charles Agate

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

Approved By: John Gloag

Head of Transport

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Manor Park Proposed Parking Restrictions Plan 1

 


Attachment 2

Appendix 2 Manor Park Proposed Parking Restrictions Plan 2

 


Attachment 3

Appendix 3 Manor Park Proposed Parking Restrictions Summary of Consultation Feedback

 


Attachment 4

Appendix 4 Submission to HCC on parking 29 Sept 2020 FINAL (Hospital)

 


 


 


 


                                                                                      24                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

19 October 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1270)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/240

 

Jackson Street, Petone - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to gain Council’s approval for the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (broken yellow lines) on Jackson Street, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

Recommendation

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of a No Stopping At All Times restriction on Jackson Street, as shown in the Appendix 1 attached to this report.

For the reasons that the proposed restrictions would improve accessibility and safety for local residents and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

 

Background

2.    Te Ara o Paetutu is a private road that serves as access for 33 private residences (a further 24 residences in the development access directly to Jackson Street).

3.    Council received requests from two residents that recently moved to the development to improve safety and manoeuvrability where the private road exits on to Jackson Street. Broken yellow lines were requested to replace three parking spaces immediately west of the private road exit onto Jackson Street.

4.    The concern expressed is that, when exiting Te Ara o Paetutu onto Jackson Street, the vehicles parked in front of the four units west of the exit obstruct the sight distance available to exiting drivers.

Discussion

5.    The proposal involves the installation of a ‘no stopping’  restriction by way of ‘broken yellow lines’ removing three existing on street parking spaces in front of units no. 435A, 435B, 435C, and 435D Jackson Street. The units in question are shown as numbers 14, 15, 16 and 17 in Appendix 1.

6.    The proposal will reduce the on-street parking stock by three but improve the visibility and manoeuvrability for all residents exiting the development.

Options

7.    The options are to:

(a)   leave the area as it is and accept the current accessibility level of service; or

(b)   install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) as shown in Appendix 1; or

(c)   install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) over some greater or lesser extent.

8.    Officers recommend Option (b) as it would increase safety and accessibility for the residents/visitors and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

9.    The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

10.  The decision will not increase greenhouse gas emissions, and will not be affected by a changing climate. There are no opportunities in this decision to reduce emissions or build resilience.        

Consultation

11.  Consultation documents were delivered to four affected residences at numbers 435A, 435B, 435C, and 435D Jackson Street.

12.  There were no responses received by the Council.

13.  At its meeting on 2 November 2020, the Petone Community Board resolved to endorse the recommendation contained in the officer’s report.

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 2020/21 road markings budget.

 

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 Jackson Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Plan

34

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Marian Radu

Senior Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 

 

 

Approved By: John Gloag

Head of Transport

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Jackson Street - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Plan

 


                                                                                      28                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

19 October 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1263)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/241

 

Buick Street, Petone - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to gain Council’s approval for the installation of a parking restriction (no stopping at all times) on Buick Street, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

Recommendation

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of a No Stopping At All Times restriction on Buick Street, as shown in the Appendix 1 attached to this report.

For the reasons that the proposed restriction would improve accessibility for local residents and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

 

Background

2.    Council received a request from a local resident concerned about safety and manoeuvrability issues experienced in the vicinity of the shared driveway servicing no’s. 51 and 53 Buick Street. The preferred option would be to convert the existing two parking spaces in front of no. 51 into a single parking space.

3.    The existing utility pole in front of no.53 Buick Street, in conjunction with vehicles parked on both sides of the road, results in restricted manoeuvrability and visibility for users of the driveway (refer street view below).

Discussion

4.    The proposal involves the installation of a ‘no stopping’  restriction by way of ‘broken yellow lines’ leaving one centralised parking space in front of no.51 Buick Street.

5.    The proposal would reduce the on-street parking stock by one and provide the residents at no.’s 49, 51, and 53 with 2.7m of additional space over the legally required 1m, improving manoeuvrability at their driveways.

Options

6.    The options are to:

(a)   leave the area as it is and accept the current accessibility level of service; or

(b)   install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) as shown in Appendix 1; or

(c)   install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) over some greater or lesser extent.

7.    Officers recommend Option b) as it would increase accessibility for the resident and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

8.    The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

9.    The decision will not increase greenhouse gas emissions, and will not be affected by a changing climate. There are no opportunities in this decision to reduce emissions or build resilience.        

Consultation

10.  Consultation documents were delivered to five affected residences at numbers 49, 51, 53, 55, and 57 Buick Street.

11.  Four responses were received, all in favour of the proposal.

12.  At its meeting on 2 November 2020, the Petone Community Board resolved to endorse the recommendation contained in the officer’s report.

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 2020/21 road markings budget.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 Buick Street Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Plan

38

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Threesa Malki

Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Charles Agate

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Buick Street Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Plan

 


                                                                                      36                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

19 October 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1264)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/242

 

Eastbourne and Days Bay - Proposed P180 Electric Vehicle Parking Restrictions

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to gain Council’s approval for the installation of the proposed Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations and the associated P180 EV Parking Restrictions on Oroua Street, Eastbourne and in Pavillion Carpark, Days Bay.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)    approves the installation of a P180 EV Parking Restriction on Oroua Street, Eastbourne, ‘Reserved for Electric Vehicles on charge only, for a maximum of 180 minutes (8.00am to 6.00pm, Monday to Sunday other than public holidays)as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report; AND/OR

(ii)   approves the installation of a P180 EV Parking Restriction in Pavilion Carpark, Days Bay, ‘Reserved for Electric Vehicles on charge only, for a maximum of 180 minutes at all times’ as shown in Appendix 2 attached to this report.

For the reason that the proposed restrictions would facilitate the installation, effective operation of the proposed EV charging stations, improve parking turnover and availability of the EV parks, benefitting both local businesses and their customers. The proposed changes have garnered support from the community, and would support Council’s Parking Policy (2017).

 

Background

2.    Council was approached by representatives of Meridian Energy Ltd in 2019 with an interest to install EV charging stations in Days Bay and/or Eastbourne.

3.    A Meridian representative also spoke to the proposal at the Eastbourne Community Board meeting on 18 February 2020.

4.    A wider discussion took place at the subsequent Eastbourne Community Board meeting on 25 August 2020, and a presentation was given by Council to a neighbourhood group of over 50 Days Bay residents in September 2020.

5.    The two sites identified for this purpose are in the vicinity of the Eastbourne Library and shops, and in the Days Bay Pavilion Carpark (Williams Park).

6.    At present there are no public facilities to charge electric cars in the Eastern bays.

Discussion

7.    On 27 June 2020, Hutt City Council joined many other Councils both nationally and internationally in declaring a Climate Emergency, and in doing so cited “the need to raise awareness on climate change and to prioritise reducing Council and city-wide emissions to net zero carbon.”

8.    The Eastbourne Community Board agreed to a similar Climate Emergency declaration earlier that same month.

9.    This proposal also falls within the ‘objectives for the supply and management of parking’ in Council’s Parking Policy 2017, which states “A city that is environmentally resilient – reflecting Council’s work in leading environmental stewardship and resilience.”

10.  Transport produces approximately half of the city’s carbon emissions and this can be reduced through initiatives that support walking, cycling and public transport, and as is the case in this proposal, by reducing exhaust emissions from vehicles.

Oroua Street, Eastbourne

11.  The site at Oroua Street has been proposed as it is not immediately adjacent to any residential or commercial building, and, is adjacent to a suitable electricity supply.

12.  This will allow broad public access for homeowners and businesses, whilst being close enough to the Eastbourne retail village, primary school, and library, to provide attractions for people when they recharge their vehicle.

13.  Some EVs have a charging inlet at the front of the vehicle and others at the rear. A perpendicular carpark allows vehicles to either nose in or reverse in so that cables reach.

14.  This will require the reorientation of two currently angled car parks in Oroua Street and result in the loss of one car parking space.

15.  A three hour time limit ensures multiple users can enjoy the facility each day.

Pavilion Carpark, Days Bay

16.  A range of locations in Days Bay have been investigated.

17.  Car parking along Marine Drive near the Days Bay shops or near the wharf have some advantages in terms of public profile, however, these locations are not viable because the equipment would be too exposed to salt, sea spray, and sand on a regular basis, and inundation by seawater and debris during storms. Either of these could result in an electrical safety hazard and/or mean the equipment routinely needs repair or replacement.

18.  Therefore, car parks within the Pavilion carpark have been proposed; this is more sheltered from the natural elements, has a low cost electricity supply, and still enjoys good public profile.

19.  There are existing car parks that allow vehicles to be parked nose in or reversed in, so no reorientation or loss of overall car parking is needed in order to be suited to EV charging.

20.  The intention is to enable those visiting the beach, café, and shops to charge their vehicle while doing so.

21.  A three hour time limit is designed to prevent ferry commuters from parking at the charging facility all day.

22.  Meridian’s offer is to provide a charger type that will suit all forms of electric vehicles and charge two vehicles simultaneously at a moderate speed (of about 30-100km of driving potential per hour, depending on vehicle capability) and require drivers to bring their own charging cables.

23.  Acting on consultation feedback, Meridian and Council shall review whether it is possible to install now (or at least future proof a later upgrade to) one or more chargers to a slightly faster capability (at the rate of 100-150km driving potential per hour), which would also have the added benefit of not requiring a driver to bring their own charging cable.

24.  Should a decision be taken to proceed, the charging stations will be targeted to be running early 2021, in time for the reopening of Days Bay Wharf and the new fully electric East-by-West harbour passenger ferry. Doing so would provide a joint marketing opportunity.

Options

25.  The options are to:

a)    leave both areas as they are and accept the current level of service for parking/charging of electric vehicles (i.e. no public EV chargers in the Days Bay and Eastbourne communities); or

b)    install P180 Electric Vehicle Parking restrictions on Oroua Street, Eastbourne; and/or

c)    install P180 Electric Vehicle Parking restrictions in Days Bay Pavilion Carpark, Days Bay; or

d)    install some lesser or greater parking time restriction; and/or

e)    install parking restrictions over some greater or lesser extent in these sites.

26.  Officers recommend options b) and c) as it will promote visitors with electric vehicles to these communities, and encourage locals to adopt electric vehicles within the same area. Parking restrictions give motorists more confidence to purchase and drive electric, as they need not worry about having parks blocked by petrol or diesel-fuelled vehicles.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

27.  The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide. Climate change is a principal factor in this project.

28.  The project will affect greenhouse gas emissions. A brief Climate Impact Assessment follows:

a)   A decision to proceed with this project will help facilitate a reduction in city-wide greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector, which accounts for just over half of all emissions in Lower Hutt. A decision not to proceed could delay emission reductions in the transport sector, by making it harder for some residents to be confident in either purchasing or driving an electric vehicle;

b)   The scale of emission reduction potential is difficult to estimate. An average (petrol or diesel-fuelled) vehicle releases approximately 2 tonnes of CO2e per year in New Zealand. An electric vehicle reduces this by over 80% (and more as time goes by, given New Zealand’s electricity grid is expected to become increasingly renewable). If this project were to inspire 100 motorists to shift to electric vehicles as well as encourage EV owners to use their EVs, then this would lead to approximately 160 tonnes of carbon savings per year. There are presently estimated to be over 95,000 petrol or diesel-fuelled vehicles registered in Lower Hutt; and

c)   The roading corridors in the vicinity of this project will be affected by a changing climate. It is already common for sea water to spill onto the main road along the coast in Days Bay and Eastbourne on a regular basis. The incidence rate and impact will increase as sea level rise continues, especially where they coincide with high rainfall events. The positioning of chargers is deliberately away from the immediate coastline so as to improve resilience (for example by placing the Days Bay charger within the Pavilion carpark).

Consultation

29.  Consultation documents were delivered:

a)   in relation to the Oroua Street charger;

i. to Oroua Street addresses (odd numbers 3 to 11 and even numbers 10 to 28; a mixture of homes and businesses), including Muritai Primary School,

ii.   to Rimu Street addresses (2 to 38 and 1 to 25; mostly businesses), and,

iii.  a poster and forms were placed in the window of Eastbourne Library, for the public to respond to.

b)   in relation to the Days Bay charger;

i. to shops in Days Bay (including the Pavilion Park Café, Sea Salt Café, Southlight Gallery, Van Helden Gallery, Chocolate Dayz Café, Cotti Café), given they would have an interest in potential changes affecting where their customers could park,

ii.   to others by email and in letterboxes where they expressed an interest following a Days Bay neighbourhood meeting held at the Pavilion in September 2020, or were thought to have an interest in the matter, and,

iii.  a poster and forms were placed in the window of the Pavilion Park Café, for the public to respond to,

c)   to a Facebook Group of Wellington Electric Vehicle Owners, to ascertain whether they would have any interest in visiting either charging station.

30.  In addition, Council had face to face conversations with business owners in Days Bay including the owner of Pavilion Park Café, and with several Days Bay residents.

31.  This was owing to the limited supply of car parking in the area and wanting to get local insights into the advantages and disadvantages of different options. 

32.  Overall, strong support was received.

 

Written Support

Written Opposition

Oroua Street, Eastbourne

12

2

Pavilion Carpark, Days Bay

17 + (1 not indicated)

1

 

33.  Supporters noted the general location (eastern bays) and precise car parks location as appropriate and the positive connection with reducing transport emissions and acting on climate change. They also noted that the closest alternatives for public EV charging were 10-15km away and that therefore this proposal was filling a gap. The Pavilion Park Café owner is supportive of the proposal being in their car park.

34.  Several supporters queried what the charging power and speed was to be and requested that this be faster than what has been initially considered by this proposal. A higher power level would increase the appeal of the charging stations by allowing the batteries to charge more within a given timeframe.

35.  Objecting residents raised concerns about making it harder for motorists with petrol or diesel-fuelled vehicles to find a park near the school and shops in Oroua Street and in the Days Bay Pavilion (especially on busy summer days when the beach is very popular).

36.  There was also a concern expressed about fire risk and electromagnetic field safety with the Oroua Street site near to the school community. In the case of Days Bay there was also a concern that commuters taking the ferry could abuse the electric vehicle parks by buying an electric vehicle and parking at the charger while they work in Wellington City, despite the proposed P180 time restriction

37.  Our response is that the concerns can be addressed effectively and not diminish nor change the nature of the project.

a)   While car parking limitations are understood, motorists with petrol or diesel-fuelled vehicles have ample options for parking in Days Bay and Eastbourne broadly, plus have access to a mature fuel station network. Electric vehicles do not.

b)   Electric vehicle charging equipment and electric vehicles are subject to legislated safety requirements. These requirements govern their fire risk (in this case to reduce electrical failure leading to fire) and electromagnetic field strength. Overall, fire risk and local air quality should improve because it contributes to a relative reduction in the number of petrol or diesel-fuelled vehicles and an increase in the number of electric vehicles. Fossil fuel is more prone to combustion than batteries. Emissions from running petrol or diesel-fuelled vehicles have adverse health impacts on local air quality, whereas electric vehicles do not.

c)   Council will periodically and proactively visit the two sites in the first year of operation, and then reactively where requested, to check whether overstaying is occurring, particularly by weekday ferry commuters in the Days Bay site, and to perform enforcement if this is occurring.

38.  A summary of the feedback received for both sites is included in Appendices 3 and 4.

39.  The Eastbourne Community Board will consider the recommendations at its meeting on 3 November 2020 and the resolution will be tabled at the Traffic Subcommittee meeting on 10 November 2020.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

41.  The signage and roadmarking can be funded from Council’s 2020/21 road markings budget. Some further costs have to date and will be funded from Council’s 2020/21 sustainability budget.

42.  The charging infrastructure and installation would be chiefly paid for by Meridian Energy and users would pay for the electricity that they consume while charging. Maintenance and ongoing operational costs of running the machines would be paid for by Meridian.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 Oroua Street, Eastbourne Proposed P180 EV Parking Restrictions - Plan

46

2

Appendix 2 Pavilion Carpark, Days Bay Proposed P180 EV Parking Restrictions - Plan

47

3

Appendix 3 Oroua Street, Eastbourne Proposed P180 EV Parking Restrictions - Consultation Feedback Summary

48

4

Appendix 4 Pavilion Carpark, Days Bay Proposed P180 EV Parking Restrictions - Consultation Feedback Summary

50

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Threesa Malki

Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Oroua Street, Eastbourne Proposed P180 EV Parking Restrictions - Plan

 


Attachment 2

Appendix 2 Pavilion Carpark, Days Bay Proposed P180 EV Parking Restrictions - Plan

 


Attachment 3

Appendix 3 Oroua Street, Eastbourne Proposed P180 EV Parking Restrictions - Consultation Feedback Summary

 


 


Attachment 4

Appendix 4 Pavilion Carpark, Days Bay Proposed P180 EV Parking Restrictions - Consultation Feedback Summary

 


 


 


                                                                                      46                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

21 September 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1088)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/243

 

Ropata Crescent, Boulcott - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to gain Council’s approval for the installation of a parking restriction (no stopping at all times) on Ropata Crescent, Boulcott as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

Recommendation

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the installation of a No Stopping At All Times parking restriction on Ropata Crescent, as shown in the Appendix 1 attached to this report.

For the reasons that the proposed restriction would improve accessibility and safety for local residents and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

 

Background

2.    Council received a request from a local resident to improve safety and manoeuvrability at their driveway by installing No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines).

3.    The concern expressed is that vehicles parked in front of no. 27 Ropata Crescent restrict manoeuvrability when entering and exiting the driveway at no. 24.

Discussion

4.    The proposal involves the installation of 8 metres of ‘no stopping’ parking restriction in front of no. 27 Ropata Crescent, Boulcott.

5.    The proposal would result in the reduction of on-street parking by the equivalent of one (1) space.

6.    The restrictions would provide sufficient manoeuvring space for vehicles exiting the driveway associated with no. 24 Ropata Crescent.

7.    In addition, it is proposed to remove an 11 metre section of existing centreline outside no. 26 to remove the current conflict between existing parking and the current road markings. The proposed change will assist drivers to correctly position themselves when entering and exiting the corner.

Options

8.    The options are to:

(a)   leave the area as it is and accept the current accessibility level of service; or

(b)   install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) as shown in Appendix 1; or

(c)   install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) over some greater or lesser extent.

9.    Officers recommend Option b) as it would increase driveway accessibility for residents and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

10.  The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

11.  The decision will not increase greenhouse gas emissions, and will not be affected by a changing climate. There are no opportunities in this decision to reduce emissions or build resilience.        

Consultation

12.  Consultation documents were delivered to 15 affected residences on Ropata Crescent.

13.  Six responses were received, all supporting the proposed changes.

14.  Two residents requested broken yellow lines be installed along one side of Ropata Crescent, from the Ropata Crescent & Potomaru Street intersection down to High Street, as well as one comment suggesting that the broken yellow lines should extend around the corner past no.31 Ropata Crescent.

15.  Officers’ response:

While Ropata Crescent and other surrounding residential streets have a high parking demand, the current parking situation is acceptable as these streets have low traffic volumes (i.e. Ropata Crescent September 2018 ADT = 330, Ariki Street September 2018 ADT = 441). Removal of parking from these streets will result in the issue transferring to other busier streets.

Extension of the restrictions past no.31 Ropata Crescent is not recommended given the above, along with the straight stretch of road after the corner providing motorists with sufficient visibility and time to yield (give way) to oncoming vehicles as and when required.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

17.  These changes can be funded from Council’s 2020/21 road markings budget.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 Ropata Crescent Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Plan

56

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Threesa Malki

Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Charles Agate

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Ropata Crescent Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Plan

 


                                                                                      52                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

21 September 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1090)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/244

 

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

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to gain Council’s approval for the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines) on Cedar Street, Maungaraki.

Recommendation

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions on Cedar Street as shown in Appendix 2 attached to this report.

For the reasons that either of the proposed restrictions would improve the safety within the street for the benefit of all road users; would promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004; support Council’s Parking Policy 2017 and are supported by majority of the local residents who responded to the consultation documents.

 

Background

2.    Requests were received on three instances by concerned local residents regarding parking along the corner near no. 36 Cedar Street, Maungaraki.

3.    The concerns expressed were that vehicles parked on both sides of the street reduce the available road width and obstruct sightlines making it difficult to navigate this corner, with requesters witnessing several near miss accidents.

Discussion

4.    Cedar Street is an Access Road under the One Network Road Classification with an ADT of 1093 vehicles per day (traffic counts taken in October 2020).

5.    Speed statistics (October 2020) show the 85th percentile speed of northbound traffic to be ~42km/h and of southbound traffic to be 45km/h.

6.    Visibility at this corner is naturally restricted due to the vertical curvature of the road at this location as shown in the elevation profile below (a hogging vertical curve).

Elevation profile of the street

 

View looking south from no. 37 Cedar Street

7.    To alleviate the issues raised and reduce the risk of vehicle conflict due to reduced visibility, the original proposal involved the installation of a No Stopping At All Times (NSAAT) restriction on the inside of the corner leaving one parking space in front of no. 36 Cedar Street as shown in Appendix 1.

8.    Following initial consultations, the proposal was amended to include the removal of an additional parking space in front of no. 27 Cedar Street as shown in Appendix 2 to provide residents using the nearby driveway with sufficient visibility when exiting the driveway.

Options

9.    The options are to:

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

b.    approve the No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) as shown in Appendix 1; or

c.     approve the No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) as shown in Appendix 2; or

d.    approve a No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) over some greater or lesser extent to improve road safety.

10.  Officers recommend Option (c) as it is expected to increase road safety and prevent obstructions to sight lines for motorists on Cedar Street as well as residents using the nearby driveway.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

11.  The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

12.  The decision will not increase greenhouse gas emissions, and will not be affected by a changing climate. There are no opportunities in this decision to reduce emissions or build resilience.  

Consultation

13.  Original consultation documents were delivered to 16 affected residences on Cedar Street to gauge the need for Broken Yellow Lines on the inside of the bend.

14.  Eight questionnaires were received, five in favour and two objecting to the proposed changes shown in Appendix 1.

15.  Residents’ objections are summarised as follows;

-      Not enough parking for residents. Would like to propose speed-bumps as there is a lot of speeding on the street.

-      Broken Yellow Lines will result in motorists speeding up and make it dangerous for affected residents to get in and out of our driveways.

-      The current status quo has slowed the traffic and made it safer and in particular there have not been any occurrence of boy racers lately.

-      Should you proceed with Broken Yellow Lines on Cedar Street, speed humps should be installed to prevent motorists speeding. We believe that three speed humps are necessary.

16.  Following consultation for the above restrictions, three households requested NSAAT restrictions in front of no.27 Cedar Street as vehicles parked here obstruct sightlines for vehicles exiting the nearby driveway shared by four properties.

17.  Responding to this request, a proposal with the removal of one additional parking space (as shown in Appendix 2) was consulted on with the residents of no. 27, who supported the proposal.

18.  Residents of properties at no’s. 25A, 25B, and 25C Cedar Street raised the following objections to the additional restriction;

-      We have more than six vehicles while off street parking is limited.

-      Vehicles exiting the nearby driveway can indicate a right turn and move out slowly and this is not a busy street.

-      Grass verges should be turned into parking.

-      Road is being treated as a race track, give consideration to slowing people down.

Officers’ response:

-      In assessing these requests, parking availability needs to be weighed up with safety requirements.

-      Regarding the perceived speeding issues, speed statistics have shown the 85th percentile speed of vehicles on this section to be lower than the posted speed limit.

-      Speed humps as requested by residents are not a viable option for Cedar Street due to its elevation profile and measured operating speeds. Furthermore, there should be sufficient visibility of a speed hump to the motorists which would not be met due to the corner and the crest.

-      The cost of converting the existing grass verges is currently cost prohibitive given current budgetary constraints.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

20.  These changes can be funded from Council’s 2019/20 road markings budget.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 Cedar Street Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Option b)

62

2

Appendix 2 Cedar Street Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Option c)

63

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Threesa Malki

Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Charles Agate

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Cedar Street Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Option b)

 


Attachment 2

Appendix 2 Cedar Street Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Option c)

 


                                                                                      58                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

01 October 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1141)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/245

 

Kamahi Street, Stokes Valley - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to gain Council’s approval for the proposed No Stopping At All Times restrictions on Kamahi Street as shown in Appendix 1 attached to the report.

Recommendation

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council approves the proposed No Stopping At All Times restriction on Kamahi Street, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report.

For the reasons that the proposed restrictions would:

·    improve the safety 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; and

·    are supported by majority of the local residents who responded to the consultation documents.

 

Background

2.    Council received requests from two residents of Kamahi Street to improve safety and visibility at the corner near no. 8 Kamahi Street by installing No Stopping At All Times (NSAAT) restrictions.

3.    The following concerns were raised:

·      cars parked in front of no. 10 Kamahi Street force vehicles to cross the centreline through the corner;

·      parking in front of property no’s. 11 and 13 results in vehicles parking too close to driveways as well as over the grass berms in a way that obstructs sightlines of residents exiting nearby driveways.

Discussion

4.    The proposal involves the installation of a NSAAT restriction on the northern side of Kamahi Street as well as over the driveways of eight properties.

5.    In addition, since the road width at this section is 8 metres, it is proposed to realign the centreline, leaving two 3 metre lanes and a 2 metre wide parking bay that can accommodate three vehicles.

6.    This will assist drivers to correctly position themselves when entering and exiting the corner and reduce the likelihood of conflict with parked vehicles.

7.    The proposal would result in the reduction of on-street parking by the equivalent of five (5) spaces.

8.    A check on NZTA’s Crash Analysis System (CAS) for the past 20 years shows two non-injury crashes in 2013 and 2015 caused by motorists losing control at the corner, one of which included vehicle speed as a contributing factor.

9.    Currently the traffic volumes on Kamahi Street are low; however with new developments underway in the area, traffic volumes are expected to increase.

10.  Officers originally proposed restrictions as shown in Appendix 2. Following feedback from residents, including the resident at 27 Kamahi Street, the proposal was amended as shown in Appendix 1.

Options

11.  The options are to:

(a)   leave the area as it is; or

(b)   approve the No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) as shown in Appendix 1; or

(c)   approve No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (Broken Yellow Lines) over some greater or lesser extent.

12.  Officers recommend Option b) as it would increase safety and visibility at this corner and promote compliance with the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

13.  The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

14.  The decision will not increase greenhouse gas emissions, and will not be affected by a changing climate. There are no opportunities in this decision to reduce emissions or build resilience.  

Consultation

15.  Consultation documents were delivered to 24 affected residences on Kamahi Street and they were consulted on the proposal as shown in Appendix 2 which retained three parking spaces in front of no. 27 Kamahi Street and showed NSAAT restrictions in front of no. 1/10 Kamahi Street.

16.  Nine responses were received for the proposal, seven supporting the proposed changes, one objecting, and one requesting amendments.

17.  The objecting resident commented that the street is wide enough and vehicles should be driving to the speed limit and supported the usage of signage advising motorists of possible visibility issues.

18.  Some of the supporting residents’ comments included:

-     Lines should be extended either to the driveway at no. 6 or no. 9 to give traffic more time to sort narrowness.

-     Lines should be extended along 27 Kamahi Street.

19.  The resident requesting the amendments stated that:

-     they are unaware of any accidents on the corner in the past 14 years

-     vehicles often cross the centreline whether there are parked vehicles or not

-     additional yellow lines will increase speeds through the corner

-     supports the proposal however include the section omitted in front of no. 27

-     include speed humps, one at either side of the corner, with an ability for vehicles to run their left wheels around the hump, to encourage vehicles to stay left

20.  Officers’ response:

-     Extension of the restrictions past no. 6 Kamahi Street and removal of further parking spaces is not recommended as the straight stretch of road before and after the corner provide motorists with sufficient visibility and time to give way to oncoming vehicles as and when required.

-     Incorporating feedback from residents, the amended proposal as shown in Appendix 1 includes restrictions along no. 27, a realigned centreline, and a marked parking bay at no. 1/10.

-     Speed advisory signs can be installed on Kamahi Street to alleviate the perceived speeding issues.

-     Speed humps are not suitable at corners as sufficient visibility to the humps is required so that they do not contribute to loss of control crashes.

Legal Considerations

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

Financial Considerations

22.  These changes can be funded from Council’s 2020/21 road markings budget.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 Kamahi Street Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Plan

68

2

Appendix 2 Kamahi Street Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Original proposal consulted on

69

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Threesa Malki

Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Charles Agate

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Kamahi Street Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Plan

 


Attachment 2

Appendix 2 Kamahi Street Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions - Original proposal consulted on

 


                                                                                      63                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

01 October 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1143)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/246

 

Waterloo Road, Hutt Central - Proposed Changes to School Bus Stop Times

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the proposed changes to the Chilton Saint James School bus stop parking restriction times on Waterloo Road, Hutt Central.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommend that Council:

(i)    rescinds the existing ‘School Bus Stop 8.15am-8.45am and 3.00pm-3.30pm School Days Only, P10 Other Times’ restrictions on Waterloo Road, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report;

(ii)   approves the proposed ‘School Bus Stop 8.15am-8.45am and 3.15pm-3.45pm School Days’ restriction on Waterloo Road, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report; and

(iii)  approves the proposed P10 Other Times’ restriction on Waterloo Road, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report

For the reason that the proposed restrictions would reduce the risk of vehicle conflict at the school bus stop and improve the level of service for school buses.

 

Background

2.    A request was received from a local resident regarding the existing school bus stop times on Waterloo Road near Chilton Saint James School.

3.    Currently afternoon No Parking restrictions apply on the school bus stop between 3.00pm-3.30pm.

4.    The request from the resident stated that the school buses do not arrive until after 3.30pm and therefore the times should be changed to 3.15pm-3.45pm.

Discussion

5.    Buses utilising the school bus stop (Stop 8135) are as follows:

Route

Arrival time

Metlink - 823

Hutt Intermediate School, St Bernard’s College, Chilton St James School & St Oran’s College  - Stokes Valley

3.21pm

NCS - 970

Chilton St James School, St Oran’s College  - Whitby

3.30pm

Metlink - 846

Hutt Valley High School, Sacred Heart College & Chilton St James School - Kelson

3.30pm

Metlink - 849

Hutt Central Schools – Harbour View

3.35pm

Metlink - 888

Hutt Central Schools - Eastbourne

3.35pm

Metlink - 904

Chilton St James School – Upper Hutt

3.40pm

 

6.    Officers have monitored Real-time Stop Information for a period of one week and have found the times to be consistent.

7.    As it is evident the extended bus stop is only being used between 3.15pm and 3.45pm, amending the times to reflect this is recommended.

8.    Chilton St James School supports the proposed changes.

Options

9.    The options are to:

a)    retain the existing bus stop time restrictions; or

b)    approve the proposed school bus stop time modification and associated P10 restriction; or

c)    approve some greater parking time restriction.

10.  Officers recommend option b) as this will improve the safety and efficiency at the extended school bus stop.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

11.  The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

12.  The decision will not increase greenhouse gas emissions, and will not be affected by a changing climate. There are no opportunities in this decision to reduce emissions or build resilience.         

Consultation

13.  Following the request, officers consulted with both Metlink and Chilton St James School, both groups supported the proposal.

14.  Metlink indicated that there had been no issues they were aware of and are happy with the current times to be retained. They noted that the majority of the buses do not use this stop as a terminus, however there can be up to three buses using the stop at once. For this, they agreed adjusting the times to 3.15pm-3.45pm would be of more use.

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 2020/21 road markings budget.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 Waterloo Road Proposed Changes to School Bus Stop Times - Plan

73

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Threesa Malki

Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Charles Agate

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Waterloo Road Proposed Changes to School Bus Stop Times - Plan

 


                                                                                      69                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

13 October 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1225)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/247

 

Victoria Street, Alicetown - Proposed P60 Time Restriction and Bus Stop Modification

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of a P60 (8am-6pm Monday-Sunday) time restriction within the Victoria Street Reserve Carpark located at 103 Victoria Street - Alicetown, and the extension of the adjacent bus stop and subsequent no stopping restrictions associated with the required lead-in (approach) taper.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Sub-Committee recommends that Council:

(i)         receives and notes the information;

(ii)        approves the installation of a P60 (8am-6pm Monday-Sunday) time restriction within the Victoria Street Reserve Carpark, as shown in Appendix 1 to the report;

(iii)       approves the extension of the existing bus stop (2 metres) adjacent to the Victoria Street Reserve Carpark, as shown in Appendix 1 to the report;

(iv)      approves the installation of an additional 12 metres of No Stopping At All Times restriction to facilitate an improved entry taper,  as shown in Appendix 1 to the report;

(v)       reconfirms the existing No Stopping At All Times restrictions within the Victoria Street Reserve Carpark, as shown in Appendix 1 to the report;

(vi)      rescinds any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this resolution; and

(vii)     notes that this resolution will take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in this resolution are in place.

For the following reasons - the proposed time restriction will improve parking turnover and availability within the Victoria Street Reserve Carpark and the proposed bus stop modification will:

(a)        reduce the risk of vehicle conflict at the listed on-road bus stop locations;

(b)        improve visibility and safety for the benefit of all road users;

(c)        promote compliance with the NZTA’s draft Guidelines for Public Transport Infrastructure and Facilities; and

(d)       meet the requirements as set out in Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017.

 

Background

2.    Officers received a request from Council’s Parks and Recreation Division to assist in improving the parking availability within the reserve. The car park’s primary use is to provide parking for the users of the playground, play centre as well as serving as a supplementary car park for the nearby school drop offs/pickups.

3.    With local businesses parking staff and customer cars there all day, it causes a lot of congestion as facility users are often forced to double park. The carpark is small and it becomes dangerous for caregivers and children when congested.

4.    The playground/park is the only one in the area, with the next closest being Riddiford Gardens in the CBD or the Petone Recreation Ground, so it is well used by locals. 

5.    Its usage makes accessibility a priority during the week for its primary users, given that the local businesses take up all available parking along Victoria Street.

Discussion

6.    The Victoria Street Reserve carpark is currently unrestricted, allowing vehicles to park there all day, every day.

7.    The carpark’s primary use is to provide parking for users of the nearby playground, and play centre, while providing additional parking for pickups and drop-offs for the nearby Hutt Central School.

8.    The proposed change to the bus stop will align its design with NZTA’s “Guidelines for Public Transport Infrastructure and Facilities”, promoting:

a.       sufficient length to accommodate both existing and planned buses operating on the network;

b.       buses to align correctly with the kerb allowing improved access/egress and safety for passengers;

c.       efficient running of the network by minimising the potential for buses to block traffic lanes due to poor alignment to the kerb.

9.    The bus stop modification will result in the loss of one (1) on-road ‘unrestricted’ parking space, but the effect is deemed minimal given the improved turn-over of spaces that would result from the P60 time restriction within the reserve carpark.

Options

10.   The options in relation to the parking time restriction in the Victoria Street Reserve car park are to:

a.       maintain the existing level of service for parking availability within the reserve; or

b.       approve the installation of a P60 (8am-6pm Monday-Sunday) time restriction as shown in Appendix 1; or

c.       approve a time restriction of some greater or lesser duration and extent.

11.   Officers recommend option 10(b) as it would improve the availability of parking in line with the Councils Parking Policy (12 December 2017).

 

12.   Officers also recommend the following measures to legalise the parking restriction changes:

a.       reconfirms the existing No Stopping At All Times restrictions within the Victoria Street Reserve Carpark, as shown in Appendix 1 to the report.

b.       rescinds any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this resolution;

c.       notes that this resolution will take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in this resolution are in place.

 

13.   The options in relation to the bus stop markings are to:

a.       maintain the bus stop extent and markings as they are; or

b.       approve the extension of the existing bus stop by 2 metres; and/ or

c.       approve the installation of an additional 12 metres of No Stopping At All Times restriction to facilitate an improved entry taper; or

d.      approve the adjustment of the bus stop length and No Stopping At All Times restriction to some greater or lesser extent.

 

14.   Officers recommend options 13 (b) and (c) as they would improve the safety and efficiency of the public transport network within Hutt City.

15.   In making these recommendations, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of Local Government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that these recommendations fall within the purpose of Local Government.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

16.  The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

17.  The decision will not increase greenhouse gas emissions, and will not be affected by a changing climate. There are no opportunities in this decision to reduce emissions or build resilience.     

Consultation

18.  Consultation relating to the proposed changes to the reserve carpark was restricted to the Land Owner (Hutt City Council Parks and Recreation Division, who consulted with the organisations using the facilities, and endorses the time restrictions as proposed.

19.  Consultation relating to the bus stop modification was undertaken by Greater Wellington Regional Council and ran from 4-20 March 2020.  No submissions where received.

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 2020/21 road markings budget.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 Victoria Street Reserve Proposed Time Restriction and Bus Stop Adjustments

79

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Charles Agate

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Marian Radu

Senior Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 Victoria Street Reserve Proposed Time Restriction and Bus Stop Adjustments

 


                                                                                      75                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

12 August 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/895)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/248

 

Cuba Street, Petone - Proposed P10 Time Restriction

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of a P10 (At All Times) time restriction outside the newly renovated commercial/retail property at no. 73 Cuba Street, Petone, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)         receives and notes the information;

(ii)        approves the installation of a time limited (P10 At All Times) parking     restriction on Cuba Street, as shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report;

(iii)       rescinds any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made       pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the       traffic controls described in this resolution; and

(iv)      notes that this resolution will take effect when the traffic control devices            that evidence the restrictions described in this resolution are in place.

For the reason that the proposed restriction will improve parking turnover and availability on Cuba Street, benefitting both local businesses and their customers and the proposed changes support Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

 

Background

2.    Council Officers were approached by the current leaseholder of no. 73 Cuba Street, requesting a P10 time restriction similar to that outside the commercial premises on the corner of Cuba and Atiawa Streets, for customers accessing their business.

3.    Austroads – Guide to Traffic Management: Part 11 provides the following guidance with regards to time limits;

a.       5 minute parking is appropriate in areas with a very high arrival rate e.g. where passengers are dropped off but some waiting is likely. It may apply near cinemas, post offices and hotels and may potentially be used in business districts and near schools.

b.       10 minute or ¼ hour (15 minute) parking can provide for pick-up and set-down outside schools and for a high turnover outside commercial facilities providing a high level of convenience such as banks post offices milk bars and newsagents. It is only appropriate for motorists who wish to go to the one address.

c.       ½ hour (30 minute) parking can be applicable directly outside local shops that rely on providing a reasonably high level of convenience to maintain a competitive market position. There is usually a high demand and 1-hour parking would result in inadequate parking turnover. A ½-hour restriction allows people to go to two or three shops.

d.      5 minute, ¼ hour (15 minute) and ½ hour (30 minute) parking is typically unable to be diverted into off-street locations unless off-street parking is located at the site frontage and direct access is provided to and from the abutting road.

Discussion

4.    The proposed business (dairy) meets the Austroads criteria for 10 or 15 minute parking, and is in-line with Councils 2017 Parking Policy for Shop and Trade, whereby ‘parking is a key resource to support access for customers to shops, restaurants and social opportunities’….. For example, in shopping areas short-term parking for shoppers receives high priority in order to contribute to the performance of businesses in the area’.

5.    Surrounding commercial businesses all have off-street parking facilities, with any overflow easily managed with nearby ‘unrestricted’ on street parking.

Options

6.    The options are to:

a.       Maintain the existing level of service (unrestricted) – Do Nothing;

b.       Improve the existing level of service (based on the proposed premise use) by approving the installation of a P10 time restriction, consistent with restrictions nearby; or

c.       Approve a time restriction either greater or less than the proposed P10 time restriction.

7.     Council Officers recommend option (b) as the proposed restriction meets the need of the business, and is consistent with surrounding restrictions.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

8.    The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

9.    The decision will not increase greenhouse gas emissions, and will not be affected by a changing climate. There are no opportunities in this decision to reduce emissions or build resilience.     

Consultation

10.  Consultation was restricted to the building owner and lease holder as the proposed parking is directly outside the premise at no. 73 Cuba Street, and surrounding businesses all have off-street parking facilities.

11.  At its meeting on 2 November 2020, the Petone Community Board resolved to endorse the recommendations contained in the officer’s report, subject to confirmation of the lease being signed by the proposed business.

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 2020/21 road marking budget.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 - Cuba Street, Petone - Proposed P10 Time Restriction

84

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Charles Agate

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Marian Radu

Senior Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 



                                                                                      79                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

20 October 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1275)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/249

 

Glen Road, Stokes Valley - Proposed No Stopping Restriction

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of a No Stopping (8am-4pm Monday-Friday) restriction outside property no’s. 71 & 73 Glen Road, Stokes Valley.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Sub-Committee recommends that Council:

(i)         receives and notes the information;

(ii)        approves the installation of a No Stopping (8am-6pm Monday-Friday) restriction on Glen Road, Stokes Valley, attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(iii)       rescinds any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this resolution; and

(iv)      notes that this resolution will take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in this resolution are in place.

For the reason that the proposed no stopping restriction:

(i)         maintains increased pedestrian crossing visibility during the day;

(ii)        increases the available on-road parking stock during evenings and weekends;

(iii)       maintains the minimum visibility requirements for pedestrian crossings; and

(iv)       meets the requirements as set out in Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017.

 

Background

2.    Council Officers received a request from a local resident to investigate the possibility of altering the current parking restrictions in the vicinity of Tawhai School and the pedestrian crossing.

3.    The current restrictions are believed to be excessive.

4.    Back in 2011 Bus Stop No. 9323 was relocated from outside no’s.71-73 to no’s.79-81. The ‘old’ bus stop location was reverted to No Stopping (At All Times).

Discussion

5.    MOTSAM – Part 2 Section 4 states;
4.02.04 NO-STOPPING LINES On each approach to a pedestrian crossing no-stopping lines shall be marked not more than 1 m out from the kerb and for a minimum distance of 6 m prior to the crossing. Where operating speeds are greater than 30 km/h, and on rural roads, the distance should be increased to 15 m. Where school patrols operate no-stopping line markings should be provided for a minimum of 15 m on both approach and departure sides of pedestrian crossings.

6.    The proposed change maintains the 15m departure requirement during those times when school patrols may be operational.

7.    The proposed change will result in the gain of two (2) on-road ‘unrestricted’ parking spaces outside of the proposed restriction times.

Options

8.     The options are to:

 

a.       maintain the existing level of service for both on-road parking availability and pedestrian crossing visibility; or

b.       approve the proposed changes to the current ‘no stopping’ restrictions  to better accommodate the needs of vulnerable pedestrians and local residents; or

c.       approve an adjustment of the existing ‘no stopping’ restriction over some greater or lesser extent.

9.    Officers recommend option b) as it would improve the current on-road parking stocks, while maintaining the visibility requirements for a pedestrian crossing when the school patrol is active.

10.   In making these recommendations, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of Local Government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that these recommendations fall within the purpose of Local Government.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

11.  The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

12.  The decision will not increase greenhouse gas emissions, and will not be affected by a changing climate. There are no opportunities in this decision to reduce emissions or build resilience.     

Consultation

13.  Consultation relating to the proposed changes to the current ‘no stopping’ restriction was carried out with properties no’s. 63 – 77 and no’s 56 – 62 Glen Road, Stokes Valley.

14.  Two submissions where received as follows:

a.      Support – Yes
‘Very good idea to free up parking for evenings and weekends with the restriction during the day.
Hopefully this will be approved and the changes will benefit the residents surrounding the proposed change in parking.
With the bus stop and pedestrian crossing this extra parking is a great idea and will be greatly used’.

b.      Support – Yes
‘Yes Please…..change with restriction times 8am-4pm Mon to Fri.
We are in need of more on road parking in this area for the evenings & weekends. 8 houses with 2 road carparks doesn’t work.
Also: now that HCC has given consent for 10 units at 48 Glen Rd to be built there will be more road parking – (most households have 2 cars – 10 units with 10 carparks. 10 units with 2 plus cars means atleast another 8 cars parked on the road putting more need for extra road parking).
Please Do It asap – before the new builds’.


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 2020/21 road markings budget.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1- Glen Road, Stokes Valley - Proposed No Stopping Restriction

89

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Charles Agate

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Marian Radu

Senior Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 - Glen Road, Stokes Valley - Proposed No Stopping Restriction

 


                                                                                      84                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

20 October 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1276)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/250

 

Waddington Drive, Naenae - Proposed P10 (School Days) Time Restriction

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of a P10 (8.30-9.30am, 2.45-3.30pm Monday to Friday, School Days) time restriction outside Wa Ora Montessori School at no. 278 Waddington Drive, Naenae.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)    receives and notes the information;

(ii)   approves the installation of  P10 (8.30-9.30am, 2.45-3.30pm, Monday to Friday, School Days) time restriction on Waddington Road, Naenae – outside Wa Ora Montessori School, as shown in Appendix 1 to the report;

(iii)  rescinds any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this resolution; and

(iv) notes that this resolution will take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in this resolution are in place.

For the reason that the proposed time limited restriction would:

a.   improve parking turnover and availability during school drop off and pick up times;

b.   maintain the minimum visibility requirements for pedestrian crossings; and

c.   meet the requirements as set out in Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017.

 

Background

2.    Council Officers received requests from the Wa Ora Montessori School Principal, and a concerned parent requesting Council investigate the possibility of providing some time limited parking restrictions to assist with the constant parking issues being experienced at both the beginning and end of the school day.

3.    There are currently no parking restrictions on the Waddington Drive frontage of the school.

Discussion

4.    Austroads – Guide to Traffic management: Part 11 provides the following guidance with regards to time limits;

a.      9.2.6 Drop-off/Pick-up Short-term parking for drop-off/pick-up (e.g. 5–15 minutes parking) should be given priority in premium parking locations in close proximity to some facilities such as at schools. Enforcement should ensure the turnover of this parking.

b.      9.4 Provision of Parallel Kerbside Parking Parallel kerbside parking in the direction of traffic flow is the most common form of on-street parking. It has the following advantages:
• Road crashes associated with parking manoeuvres are minimised compared to angle parking. • It requires less lane width than angle parking.

c.      10 minute or ¼ hour (15 minute) parking can provide for pick-up and set-down outside schools and for a high turnover outside commercial facilities providing a high level of convenience such as banks post offices milk bars and newsagents. It is only appropriate for motorists who wish to go to the one address

5.    The proposed time limit meets both the Austroads criteria for 10 or 15 minute parking, and is in line with Councils 2017 Parking Policy for Work and Learn, for drop off/pick up associated with schools.

6.    The location of the proposed change is directly in front of the main office entrance, and on the section of kerb that has a secondary path that would facilitate a drop off / pick up option.

Options

7.     The options are to:

 

a.       maintain the existing level of service for ‘unrestricted’ on-road parking; or

b.       approve the recommend P10 time limit with the associated restrictions (8.30-9.30am, 2.45-3.30pm, Monday to Friday, School Days)

 

8.     Officers recommend option 7 (b) as this will

a.       improve parking turnover and availability during school drop off and pick up times;

b.       maintains the minimum visibility requirements for pedestrian crossings; and

c.       meets the requirements as set out in Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017.

9.     In making these recommendations, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of Local Government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that these recommendations fall within the purpose of Local Government.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

10.  The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

11.  The decision will not increase greenhouse gas emissions, and will not be affected by a changing climate. There are no opportunities in this decision to reduce emissions or build resilience.     

Consultation

12.  Consultation relating to the proposed changes was carried out with properties no’s. 203 – 213, 274 Waddington Drive, Naenae and Wa Ora Montessori School.

13.  The proposed time limit and hours of operation have been endorsed by the school.

14.  No submissions were received from the neighbouring properties.

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 2020/21 road markings budget.

 

 

 

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 - Proposed P10 (School Days) Time Restriction - Waddington Drive, Naenae

94

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Charles Agate

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Marian Radu

Senior Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 - Proposed P10 (School Days) Time Restriction - Waddington Drive, Naenae

 


                                                                                      88                                                10 November 2020

Traffic Subcommittee

21 October 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/1285)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2020/6/251

 

Margaret Street, Hutt Central - Proposed P15 Loading Zone Class Restriction

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of a P15 Loading Zone (Goods & Services Vehicles Only) class restriction outside 1 Margaret Street, Hutt Central, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)         receives and notes the information;

(ii)        approves the installation of a class restricted (P15 Loading Zone – Goods           & Services Vehicles Only) parking restriction on Margaret Street, as     shown in Appendix 1 attached to this report;

(iii)       rescinds any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made       pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the       traffic controls described in this resolution; and

(iv)      notes that this resolution will take effect when the traffic control devices            that evidence the restrictions described in this resolution are in place.

For the reason that the proposed restriction will improve the serviceability for local businesses, without reducing the existing parking stock.

The proposed changes support Council’s Parking Policy 2017.

 

Background

2.    Council Officers were approached by a current leaseholder of a ground floor premise on Margaret Street, requesting the Council look into providing an on-road loading zone facility to service local businesses.

3.    Austroads – Guide to Traffic Management: Part 11 provides the following guidance with regards to loading zones;

a.         Service vehicles are vital to the operation of a commercial centre. They should have a high priority for the allocation of a limited number of on-street parking spaces.

Discussion

4.   The proposed location meets the Austroads criteria for 10 or 15 minute parking, and is in-line with Councils 2017 Parking Policy for Shop and Trade, whereby ‘parking is a key resource to support access for customers to shops, restaurants, and social opportunities. It is also important to provide good access to public and active transport provision, suitable mobility parking spaces close to key destinations, and that pick-up and drop-off spaces and loading zones are available to service the areas’.

5.    Surrounding commercial businesses have limited access to off-street loading facilities via service lanes, with any overflow resulting in goods and services’ vehicles occupying Pay-by-Plate spaces and parking illegally.

6.    The proposed location makes use of a section of road currently restricted through the existence of broken yellow lines.  There will be no reduction in the existing number of parking spaces available on this section of Margaret Street.

Options

7.    The options are to:

a.       Maintain the existing level of service (no dedicated facility) – Do Nothing;

b.       Improve the existing level of service by approving the installation of a P15 class restricted loading zone as proposed; or

c.       Approve a modified time restriction either greater or less than the proposed P15.

8.     Council Officers recommend option (b) as the proposed restriction meets the need of the business, and is consistent with surrounding restrictions.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

9.    The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

10.  The decision will not increase greenhouse gas emissions, and will not be affected by a changing climate. There are no opportunities in this decision to reduce emissions or build resilience.     

Consultation

11.  Consultation was restricted to local ground floor business along Margaret Street (between Queens Drive & High Street).

12.  The proposed class restriction is endorsed by both the applicant, and Council’s Parking Services.

13.  No responses were received.

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 2020/21 road marking budget.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 - Margaret Street, Hutt Central - Proposed P15 Loading Zone Class Restriction

98

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Charles Agate

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Marian Radu

Senior Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 - Margaret Street, Hutt Central - Proposed P15 Loading Zone Class Restriction