HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_BLACK_AGENDA_COVER

 

 

Komiti Iti Ara Waka
Traffic Subcommittee

 

 

10 February 2022

 

 

Order Paper for the meeting to be held in the

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

on:

 

 

Thursday 17 February 2022 commencing at 2.00pm

 

This meeting is held under the Red Traffic Light setting.

Members of the public wishing to speak to items on the agenda are asked to contact democraticservicesteam@huttcity.govt.nz

 

 

Membership

 

 

Cr B Dyer (Chair)

Cr G Barratt

Cr J Briggs (Deputy Chair)

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

KOMITI ITI ARA WAKA | 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.
	Chair and Deputy Chair positions to rotate 18 months into each triennium, i.e. as at 30 April in the year prior to the next local authority election.
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 has authority to:

§   Do all things necessary to hear, consider and make recommendations to Council on any traffic related matter.

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

§   Provide options for the consideration of Council.

 

The Chair will have authority to refer any traffic matter to:

§   A Community Board; or

§   The Infrastructure & Regulatory Committee; or

§   Council.

DELEGATED AUTHORITY:

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

    


TE KAUNIHERA O TE AWA KAIRANGI | HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Komiti Iti Ara Waka | Traffic Subcommittee

 

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

 Thursday 17 February 2022 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 TE KAUNIHERA O TE AWA KAIRANGI | CounciL - 23 March 2022

a)      Hewer Crescent, Naenae - Broken Yellow Lines (22/58)

Report No. TSC2022/1/13 by the Traffic Engineer                                        7

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

 

b)      Restrictions installed under Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (22/70)

Report No. TSC2022/1/14 by the Traffic Engineer                                      11

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

 


 

c)      Proposed Changes to Route 150 (Kelson - Lower Hutt - Maungaraki - Petone) Bus Stop Configuration (22/106)

Report No. TSC2022/1/15 by the Traffic Engineer                                      29

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

 

d)      The Beltway - Cycle-only Path (22/176)

Report No. TSC2022/1/16 by the Traffic Engineer                                      84

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

 

5.       Information Item

          Work Programme 2022 (22/46)

Report No. TSC2022/1/18 by the Senior Democracy Advisor                    89

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

6.       QUESTIONS

With reference to section 32 of Standing Orders, before putting a question a member shall endeavour to obtain the information. Questions shall be concise and in writing and handed to the Chair prior to the commencement of the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

Kate Glanville

SENIOR DEMOCRACY ADVISOR

 


                                                                                       6                                                    17 February 2022

Traffic Subcommittee

20 January 2022

 

 

 

File: (22/58)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2022/1/13

 

Hewer Crescent, Naenae - Broken Yellow Lines

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of the report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times (represented by 28 metres of broken yellow lines) on the bend outside number 6 Hewer Crescent, Naenae.

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(1)   notes and receives the report;

(2)   approves the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times restriction on a 28 metre section of Hewer Crescent, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

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

(4)   notes that this resolution will take effect once the appropriate signage and/or road marking have been installed.

For the reasons of traffic flow optimisation and safer vehicle movement.

 

Background

2.    Council Officers received a request from a concerned resident about the safety of a section of Hewer Crescent, Naenae, just east of the Treadwell Street intersection.

3.    The width of the road at and around the bend is approximately 7.5 metres and vehicles parked on both sides of the road, leaves approximately 3.5 metres parked vehicles make it narrow, no space to move aside for oncoming vehicles, visibility around the bend due to parked cars.

4.    Crash Analysis Data (CAS) data summary of the last ten years shows 14 low to minor crashes in Hewer Crescent area.

5.    The area is being used by all day / commuter parking given the existence of time limited parking within the suburban centre.

Discussion

6.    Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, 6.3 Parking close to corners, bends, etc. (1) A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle on any part of a roadway so close to any corner, bend, rise, dip, traffic island, or intersection as to obstruct or be likely to obstruct other traffic or any view of the roadway to the driver of a vehicle approaching that corner, bend, rise, dip, traffic island, or intersection unless the stopping, standing, or parking is authorised by signs or markings maintained by the road controlling authority.

7.    Approximately five parking spaces will be covered by these broken yellow lines. Reference number of parking spaces removed (excluding those within the bend).

Options

8.    The options are to:

a.   Maintain the existing level of service – do nothing;

b.   Improve the visibility and manoeuvrability of vehicles operating with this section of Hewer Crescent through the installation of 28 metres of No Stopping – At All Times restriction; or

c.   Approve a modified restriction to a greater or lesser extent in consultation with Council Officers.

9.       Officers support option b), as it provides improved visibility and manoeuvrability for vehicles approaching Treadwell Street.

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.

Consultation

11.  Consultation flyers were delivered to 26 properties in the immediate vicinity seeking their feedback. Flyers were hand delivered and placed in the property letterboxes.

12.  Seven responses were received, with six supporting the proposed restriction, and one against.

13.  The submission against believes that the existing restrictions are enough.

14.  In response to the feedback received, officers note the following:

a.    “I completely with the proposed changes!! Visibility is extremely limited with the drivers often speeding around this area despite not having right of way.”

b.    There were many traffic problems observed when cars are parked on both side of the road.

c.     The road is narrow and many young ones on Hewer Crescent that have no idea that the speed at what they may hurt others, they threat the road as speedway.

d.    Yes, yellow lines must be put in place, bad crash area.

Legal Considerations

15.  These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017, and with reference to the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004. (6.3 Parking close to corners, bends, etc).

Financial Considerations

16.  These changes can be funded from Council’s existing 2021/22 transport budgets.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 - Hewer Crescent Aerial

10

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Ravi Soni

Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Bob Hu

Traffic Engineering Manager

 

 

 

Approved By: Jon Kingsbury

Head of Transport

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 - Hewer Crescent Aerial

 

 


                                                                                      10                                                   17 February 2022

Traffic Subcommittee

21 January 2022

 

 

 

File: (22/70)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2022/1/14

 

Restrictions installed under Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the retrospective parking restrictions installed under Part 6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(1)   notes and receives the report.

(2)   approves retrospectively the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times restriction (eight metres) under across the vehicle access (driveway) serving the property located at 134 Hutt Road, Petone, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 1 to this report;

(3)   approves retrospectively the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times restriction (nine metres) across the vehicle accesses (driveways) serving property numbers 16 and 18 Tirangi Road, Moera, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 2 to this report;

(4)   approves retrospectively the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times restriction (37 metres) on the inside of a bend outside property numbers 163 to 165 Riverside Drive, Waiwhetu, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 3 to this report;

(5)   approves retrospectively the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times restriction (14.5 metres) across vehicle accesses (driveways) serving property numbers 9, 11, 13 and 12 Levin Grove, Kelson, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 4 to this report;

(6)   approves retrospectively the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times restriction (five metres) across the vehicle access (driveway) servicing property number 1 Dempsey Street on Rata Street, Wainuiomata, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 5 to this report;

(7)   approves retrospectively the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times restriction (eight metres) across the vehicle access (driveway) serving property number 18 Main Road, Wainuiomata, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 6 to this report;

(8)   approves retrospectively the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times restriction (nine metres) across the vehicle access (driveway) serving property number 110 Dowse Drive, Maungaraki, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 7 to this report;

(9)   approves retrospectively the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times restriction (8.5 metres) across the vehicle accesses (driveways) serving property numbers 64 and 1/66 Brunswick Street, Hutt Central, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 8 to this report;

(10) approves retrospectively the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times restrictions (11 metres and 9 metres) across the vehicle accesses (driveways) serving property numbers 7 to 9 and 13 Richmond Street, Petone, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 9 to this report;

(11) approves retrospectively the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times restriction (5 metres) across the vehicle access (driveway) serving property number 13 King Street, Petone, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 10 to this report;

(12) approves retrospectively the installation of a No Stopping – At All Times restriction (five metres) across the vehicle access (driveway) serving property 57 Owen Street, Belmont, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 11 to this report;

(13) approves retrospectively the installation of multiple No Stopping – At All Times restrictions (90 metres) across the vehicle accesses (driveways) serving NZOSL Hutt City Terminal at 55 Port Road, Seaview, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 12 to this report;

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

(15) notes that these restrictions have already been installed and are currently being enforced through the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

For the reason that the parking restrictions appear in the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, and these resolutions formally reinforce the restriction(s) as recommended in Part 13 – Parking Control – Traffic Control Devices Manual

 

Background

2.    The Road User Rule stipulates how traffic must legally operate on the road and applies to all road users. With respect to stopping and parking, the Road User Rule stipulates parking prohibitions in certain specific locations, such as near intersections, pedestrian crossings, and bus stops.

3.    The existence of underlying legislation prohibiting parking in certain locations (for instance, within 6 m of an intersection or obstructing vehicle entrances and exits) as prescribed in the Traffic Control Devices (TCD) and Road User Rules removes the need for such restrictions to be specifically identified within a local authority bylaw and they may not need to be specifically marked or signed. However, where appropriate, they can be reinforced and identified to road users through the provision of appropriate traffic control devices. In such circumstances, however, care is needed to ensure any offence notice issued during enforcement stipulates the correct description of the offence committed. Alternatively, it is recommended the restriction is implemented through the bylaw process to negate any confusion. – (3.2 Regulation of parking - Part 13 – Parking Control - Traffic Control Devices Manual)

4.    Parking Close to corners, bends, etc (Part 6.3 Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004)
(1) A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle on any part of a roadway so close to any corner, bend, rise, dip, traffic island, or intersection as to obstruct or be likely to obstruct other traffic or any view of the roadway to the driver of a vehicle approaching that corner, bend, rise, dip, traffic island, or intersection unless the stopping, standing, or parking is authorised by signs or markings maintained by the road controlling authority.
(2) A driver must not stop, stand, or park a vehicle on any part of a road, whether attended or unattended, within an intersection or within 6 m of an intersection unless the stopping, standing, or parking is authorised by signs or markings maintained by the road controlling authority.

5.    Obstructing vehicle entrances and exits (Part 6.9 Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004)
(1) A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle so as to obstruct entry to or exit from any driveway.
(2) For the purposes of this clause, a vehicle parked alongside any part of a kerb crossing provided for a driveway or within 1 m of the prolongation of the side of a driveway must be regarded as obstructing entry or exit.
(3) Nothing in subclause (1) or subclause (2) applies to a bus that has stopped at an authorised bus stop, or a light rail vehicle that has stopped at a light rail vehicle stop, for the purpose of 
picking up or dropping off passengers.

6.    Parking on footpaths or cycle paths (Part 6.9 Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004)
(1) A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle on a footpath or on a cycle path.
(2) Subclause (1) does not apply to cycle paths if a road controlling authority indicates otherwise by means of signs or markings or if it installs facilities for the parking, standing, or storage of cycles on a footpath or cycle path.
(3) Nothing in subclause (1) prevents a person from stopping, standing, or parking a cycle, mobility device, or wheeled recreational device on a footpath if doing so does not unreasonably obstruct any other user of the footpath.

Discussion

7.    Waka Kotahi outlines where not to park on their website as follows;
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roadcode/general-road-code/road-code/about-driving/stopping-and-parking/where-not-to-park/

a.   on the right-hand side of the road, except in a one-way street

b.   where it will be in the way of other people using the road (including pedestrians)

c.   near a corner, curve, hill, traffic island or intersection, if it will stop other people from seeing along the road

d.    on the road, if you can park the vehicle off the road without damaging grass or gardens (a controlling authority may have a bylaw and/or signs prohibiting parking on a grass verge)

e.     on any footpath

f.     on a traffic island (whether it is flush or raised)

g.    on a marked bus stop or taxi stand

h.    on, or closer than 6 metres to, an intersection, unless there are parking spaces or a notice telling you that you can park there

i.     on, or closer than 6 metres to, the approach side of a pedestrian crossing

j.     closer than 6 metres to a bus stop marked only by a sign

k.    in front of, or closer than 1 metre to, a vehicle entrance

l.     alongside another parked vehicle – that is, you must not double-park

m.   on ‘no stopping’ lines (broken yellow lines) marked within 1 metre of the edge of the road, which you may see near pedestrian crossings, intersections, driveways or narrow roads

n.    where traffic signs say you must not stop or park

o.    where a sign says that part of the road is reserved for specified kinds of vehicles (for example, bus, taxi or goods service vehicles) – in many cases, this restriction is marked by a broken yellow line more than 1 metre from the kerb

p.    in a cycle lane

q.    in a bus or transit lane during the hours of operation as indicated by signs

r.     on, or closer than 500mm to, a fire hydrant, unless somebody who can move the vehicle stays with it

s.     on a yellow circle on the road containing a rectangle (as shown below) or between the circle and the footpath, unless somebody who can move the vehicle stays with it

t.     without due care and consideration for other road users. You must leave sufficient room between your vehicle and any adjacent parked vehicles to allow easy access.

8.    Council Officers routinely receive numerous safety and accessibility concerns from residents.

9.    Council Officers are looking to promote safer movement through improved manoeuvrability, visibility, and accessibility.

Options

10.  Council’s approval of these traffic resolutions will negate any confusion that may occur when enforcing offences committed.

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.  As the restrictions contained within this report are reinforcing requirements made under Part 6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, consultation was undertaken with the affected property owners only.

Legal Considerations

14.  These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017, and with reference to the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Financial Considerations

15.  These changes can be funded from Council’s existing 2021/22 transport budgets.


 

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 - Hutt Road

17

2

Appendix 2 - Tirangi Rd

18

3

Appendix 3 - Riverside Dr

19

4

Appendix 4 - Levin Gr

20

5

Appendix 5 - Rata St

21

6

Appendix 6 - Main Rd

22

7

Appendix 7 - Dowse Sr

23

8

Appendix 8 - Brunswick St

24

9

Appendix 9 - Richmond St

25

10

Appendix 10 - King St

26

11

Appendix 11 - Owen St

27

12

Appendix 12 - Port Rd

28

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Ravi Soni

Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Bob Hu

Traffic Engineering Manager

 

 

 

Approved By: Jon Kingsbury

Head of Transport

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 - Hutt Road

 


Attachment 2

Appendix 2 - Tirangi Rd

 


Attachment 3

Appendix 3 - Riverside Dr

 


Attachment 4

Appendix 4 - Levin Gr

 


Attachment 5

Appendix 5 - Rata St

 


Attachment 6

Appendix 6 - Main Rd

 


Attachment 7

Appendix 7 - Dowse Sr

 


Attachment 8

Appendix 8 - Brunswick St

 


Attachment 9

Appendix 9 - Richmond St

 


Attachment 10

Appendix 10 - King St

 


Attachment 11

Appendix 11 - Owen St

 


Attachment 12

Appendix 12 - Port Rd

 


                                                                                      28                                                   17 February 2022

Traffic Subcommittee

26 January 2022

 

 

 

File: (22/106)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2022/1/15

 

Proposed Changes to Route 150 (Kelson - Lower Hutt - Maungaraki - Petone) Bus Stop Configuration

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of changes being proposed to local Route 150 Bus Stops to improve safety and accessibility in line with Waka Kotahi’s ‘Guidelines for Public Transport Infrastructure and Facilities’ and the Wellington Regional Public Transport Plan 2021 - 2031.

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(1)   notes and receives the report;

(2)   approves the proposed changes attached as Appendix A to the report;

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

(4)   notes that these resolutions will take effect once the appropriate signage and/or road-markings have been installed.

For the reasons that the proposed bus stop layout changes will ensure that the bus box is of sufficient length to accommodate buses; no stopping restrictions will prevent other vehicles from blocking full access to the bus stop; and passengers will be able to board and alight safely and easily.

 

Background

2.    Greater Wellington Regional Council’s (GWRC) Te Mahere Waka Whenua Tūmatanui o te Rohe o Pōneke (Wellington Regional Public Transport Plan 2021 - 2031) has outline three Strategic Focus Areas:

a.  Mode Shift;

b.  Decarbonise Public Transport Vehicle Fleet; and

c.  Improve Customer Experience.

3.    As part of improving the customer experience GWRC has committed to prioritising the safety and maintenance of the public transport network to encourage safe behaviours. The associated key measure is a 40% reduction in serious injuries on the public transport network by 2030 which can be achieved by prioritising safety through continuous improvements to both infrastructure and operations.

4.    In 2018 GWRC implemented the largest range of changes to Wellington City bus services for many years. The changes were the culmination of years of engagement with residents, and community representatives and technical work to review the bus network, as well as the development and implementation of new contractual arrangements with operators in line with the Government’s Public Transport Operating Model (PTOM).

5.    The implementation of changes started on 30 April 2018 in Wairarapa, followed by the Hutt Valley on 17 June and then Kāpiti Coast, Porirua and Wellington on 15 July. While the changes caused some disruption and customer reaction, in Wellington City other less predictable issues like driver shortages led to ongoing operational issues such as reliability. The major change to bus routes and timetables occurred within Wellington City, with minor changes to timetables in other areas.

6.    A high quality, reliable, accessible and modern public transport network relies on the provision of fit for purpose, well designed and maintained infrastructure and facilities. This includes roads, bus stops and shelters, transport interchanges and hubs, rail tracks and associated infrastructure, train stations, ferry terminals and wharves, Park and Ride facilities, cycle paths and footpaths, and door-to-door transport services for those with limited access to public transport.

 

7.    Infrastructure and facilities need to provide good access, safety and personal security at all stages of the journey, particularly for people with impairments. Public transport elements also require clear and consistent branding with services and levels and information to meet customer needs for an integrated, easy-to-use customer focused system. As different agencies have ownership or control of various elements of the system, communication and cooperation between all parties is required to achieve this.


 

8.    The bus route 150 runs between Kelson, Lower Hutt, Maungaraki and Petone as shown below:

 

Discussion                                              

9.    Current bus stop infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with a changing and improving bus fleet. While new buses are designed to be fully accessible for customers, they are only accessible where the bus can pull up parallel to the kerb, allowing customers step-free access to the bus.

10.  This is particularly critical for customers with wheelchairs or other mobility aids, along with prams and wheeled luggage, where having to step out onto the roadway and then up into the bus is a significant barrier to access.


 

11.  In order to ensure consistency across the wider network, alterations to existing stops are designed to comply with Waka Kotahi’s – Guidelines for Transport Infrastructure and Facilities.

Options

12.  The options include:

a.  approve the proposed changes to the Route 150 bus stops as they appear in this report;

b.  reject the proposed changes to the Route 150 bus stops as they appear in this report; and/or

c.  provide comment to Council to assist in its decision regarding the proposed changes to the Route 150 bus stops.

13.  Officers recommend options a. and c. as the proposed changes go toward achieving the goals of the Regional Public Transport Plan.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

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

15.  Transport infrastructure and facilities that provide good access, safety and personal security at all stages of the journey, particularly for people with impairments will help to remove barriers to the use of public transport.  The more barriers removed by Council will make the choice to use public transport easier and will support moves to reduce car dependency and therefore the corresponding carbon emissions.

16.  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

17.  GWRC undertook consultation with all affected residents within proximity to the bus stops.

18.  Consultation occurred between August and September 2021 for periods of two weeks given the extent of the bus stops affected.

19.  Consultation letters were hand-delivered to residents and posted to owners before lockdown in August 2021. The consultation period was extended for an additional two weeks during lockdown to a total of four weeks. GWRC were unable to advise residents personally that the consultation period had been extended due to Alert Level 4 rules, but the Metlink Contact Centre was advised that residents could have the extension of time if they requested it.

20.  GWRC has notified the submitters regarding the upcoming meeting.

21.  GWRC has responded to all the concerns raised by the submitters.

22.  Below is a summary of the responses received:

Location

+'ve

Neutral

-'ve

Stop #

Dowse Drive, Maungaraki

8052

Dowse Drive, Maungaraki

8053

Dowse Drive, Maungaraki

1

8055

Dowse Drive, Maungaraki

1

8057

Dowse Drive, Maungaraki

1

8058

Maungaraki Road, Maungaraki

2

8061

Oakleigh Street, Maungaraki

2

8063

Dowse Drive, Maungaraki

8065

Major Drive, Kelson

2

8213

Major Drive, Kelson

8214

Major Drive, Kelson

8217

Hutt Road, Petone

9050

Dowse Drive, Maungaraki

9052

Dowse Drive, Maungaraki

2

9055

Dowse Drive, Maungaraki

9057

Acacia Avenue, Maungaraki

2

9059

Maungaraki Road, Maungaraki

1

9061

Oakleigh Street, Maungaraki

1

9063

Harrison Crescent, Avalon

1

9206

Major Drive, Kelson

2

9212

Major Drive, Kelson

9215

Major Drive, Kelson

9216

Major Drive, Kelson

9217

Hutt Road, Petone

1

1

8046

No!! Not prepared to have a bus stop right on our driveway entrance!!

We would like the entry taper to be 15 metres to remove the car park and give clear view to the crossing and pedestrians.

Hutt Road, Petone

1

1

8047

Here is my opposition to the changes as it will impact my and other people's businesses. If I lose money I will sue you for damages. There are 3 other people affected in this change you are proposing, I'm affected in Unit 1 and 3, and especially as this is a cafe that will be 24 hours but currently just standard and closed for renovations, but in saying that it is reliant on people driving in and parking any time so any bus that comes there or parks we will lose customers, I have seen buses park in the busstop at day and night whaile times are getting done or just waiting for their run to go for some reason,

They even sleep in them I’ve seen this ,and the thought of this impact I big ,

I’m not sure if you have contacted the owners of unit 2 and unit 5 in this body corp but I suggest you do as they will be affected a lot, if its changed, it’s hard enough as it is without any more changes coming.

I totally reject this proposal as units 1, 2 3, 5 need the 60-minute car parks including for parking and dropped for close access to the shops and takeaway bar etc. also the access to car parks is needed all the time. It's already hard enough with the current situation as it is.

 

 

 

 

Acacia Avenue, Maungaraki

1

1

8059

We do support better access to board the bus on one level for young people with prams, and older people to board the bus on one level also for getting off the bus.

The present bus area has ample room for kneeling and manoeuvring in and out of this stop. The buses already kneel to allow people to enter and alight! There has not been any difficulty with the bus pulling into the stop with vehicles parked there. This is an extremely busy street with not only residents in the vicinity using, but it is also used by vehicles coming from housing at the back of Maungaraki, and residents from Korokoro all using our street to get to the Dowse interchange to access Lower Hutt and the motorway. Since COVID-19 in 2020, we now have more people running their businesses from home, and there are a number of rental properties with high numbers of tenants in the immediate location where these stop changes are to be made. We cannot afford to lose any vehicle parking on this side of the road and including your Site Plan 8059.

Recommend:

1. Moving the bus stop outside either house number 22 and 24 and using the driveways as access in and out.

2. A survey be conducted to assess the actual amount of bus users. I am a bus user, and they aren’t half full, even at peak hours. The only full buses are the school pick-ups. Assess the bus size for the delivery of the service, rather than one size bus fits all!

Harrison Crescent, Avalon

1

1

8206

Having measured out your proposed distances towards my address it seems that very little room is allocated for the car park next to my driveway! As it is people encroach next to my driveway! Happy to discuss on site a couple of solutions to mitigate this. i.e. marked lies for said carpark.

Major Drive, Kelson

1

8212

We support the bus stop location on the condition the yellow line for the exit taper is continued down to the start of No 50.

The reason for this is the area will be used as parking for people wishing to visit the shop across the road and whilst we do not wish to take trade away from them the amount of traffic that stops here now (within the current bus-stop) is increasing and our driveway gets blocked often. So with the new area being the only parking space and with the number of Cars/Trucks parking here it will make getting out of our driveway far more hazardous. Parked cars here may also block drivers coming down the hill from seeing the sign showing that a corner is coming up.

As the owner/resident of 50 Major Drive, we believe the following choices:

We support the location of the proposed new bus shelter with the following condition: That the yellow line for the exit taper is continued down to the start of the driveway of No 50. The reason for this is the area will be used as parking for people wishing to visit the shop and whilst we do not wish to take trade away from them the amount of traffic that stops here now (within the current bus stop) is increasing and our driveway gets blocked often. So with this new area being the only parking space and with the number of cars/trucks parking here it will make getting out of our driveway far more hazardous. Parked cars here may also block drivers coming down the hill from seeing the sign showing that a corner is coming up. OR we do not support the location of the proposed new shelter for the following reasons: With the pohutukawa tree and then a bus shelter either off set or in line with each other, our field of view when reversing out of our driveway will be considerably limited and with the amount of traffic that comes down the hill this will make getting out of our driveway far more hazardous. OR we could offer an alternative option: The bus stop remains where it currently is; the pohutukawa tree currently within the bus stop area be removed and a bus shelter be installed in its place; this bus shelter is to be either fully "see through" or at a minimum is is 50/50 solid bottom and clear top and the 9m exit taper run to the end of the storm water drain grate between 50/438 Major Drive.

Advantages: Road marking remains the same; no new concrete footpath work required; provides a clear view of traffic coming down the road (apart from when buses are using the area); Reduces our risk when getting out of the driveway. We understand that a decision will be formed on the location/layout so offer the above ideas to assist.

Dowse Drive, Maungaraki

1

1

9058

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. I am a resident and owner of 213 Dowse Drive. I do support Metlink's efforts to improve safety and accessibility. However I object to the proposed change because I believe it makes this site less safe for me and my family.

Dowse Drive is the main route to Maungaraki and is very busy at peak times. Both 211 and 215 Dowse Drive are long term rental properties. Currently each property has 4 cars associated with it, that is 8 cars requiring parking. the car owners tend to park their cars on the street outside 211 and my place at 213. My cars are parked in the driveway. There are few options for parkign nearby with bus stops on both sides of the road.

The proposed change reduces parking spaces by 2 it would seem. This will lead to 1. Parking on the berms, 2. Close parking encroaching on my driveway.

This will make it very unsafe for me exiting my property due to reduced visibility. This will be compounded on rubbish days when the new large bins must be placed at the curb and also between 9am and 9am during which school children hurtle down the footpath on scooters. Furthermore, opening up the access to the bus stop will mean buses will swoop into the stop at greater speed, further adding to the risks I face exiting my property.

Also turning into my property becomes dangerous when there is no street parking to allow me to pull into the side of the road and allow following traffic to pass before turning. I signal and slow down but often drivers behind thinks I signalling to turn into Acacia Avenue further up the hill and must break heavily. Therefore, I object to the proposal on health and safety issues.

General Comments and Questions: 1. The site plan is a "birds’ eye" view that does not show the steep slope of Dowse Drive at this location. Is step-free access to the bus even possible on such a gradient? 2. The bus stop diagram you have provided, taken from the NZTA Standard and which you say Metlink should comply with regardless of location or frequency of use, has a bus shelter indicated on it. Will you be putting in a bus shelter to comply? That would certainly be an improvement for your customers.

Some suggestions. I would ask Metlink to consider the following options for this bus stop: 1. Given the low frequency of use of this stop and the congestion around it could the bus stop be removed entirely? Perhaps a safer option would be a stop on a flatter section of road in Acacia for example where there is less traffic and no gradient? 2. A greater separation between the two stops on opposite sides of Dowse Drive in this area may also be a solution. There appears to be much less congestion further up Dowse outside 217 and 219 for example. 3. Leave this stop as it is to preserve parking spaces. 4. If you ahead with proposal there needs to be yellow lines added at the driveway entrance of 213 to stop cars being parked too close which blocks my visibility when trying to exit. Removal of the tree growing on the berm outside 213 may also improve visibility.

Protea Street, Maungaraki

1

1

9060

I support move the Protea Street 8060 bus stop away from the Reese Jones corner. But if the proposed location requires no parking opposite the bus stop (which is not shown on the proposal) it will leave very little parking space on Protea Street. Also, cars turning right into Protea from Acacia usually do so at speed, and most cut the corner - if a bus is at the proposed stop, overtaking/passing cars will be in line with the turning cars. There is another bus stop about 200-300m on Acacia - the proposed stop is close to that. Protea Street is too narrow for bus stops - and not many people catch the bus at this stop.

I do not support these changes as they introduce a road hazard, take away any safe drop/off collection area for our business and introduce a noise nuisance. I also believe the best practice design is excessive, appears to contradict the Land Transport (Road User) Rules and is unnecessary for the Western Hills. The total impact of this design across the entire route will be unacceptable. Metlink should consider the appropriateness and efficiency of the large buses they are using on this route – some of the corners on the road up through Normandale must be very demanding for the bus drivers and other road users. I will also add that our household are regular bus users of route 150 - both for commuting and leisure. 1. It creates a dangerous road hazard with the parking space on the corner with Reese Jones. 2. It creates a noise nuisance as the proposed bus stop is now directly opposite our bedrooms. 3. It removes safe parking for our courier collections and deliveries as part of our business. 4. It removes a tree.

Maungaraki Road, Maungaraki

1

1

9062

There are currently no yellow lines behind the bus stop. Shifting the bus stop and putting in yellow lines would remove three car parks not one as stated in the letter. This is unacceptable to us as we have five cars registered to our address and we would have no street parking near our house. In the evening cars are parked on the road opposite us. Over 20 years ago the bus stop was outside #60 and our neighbours asked for it to be moved. Although the owners have changed I suggest it is moved back there or moved to outside #50. The current proposal means two houses have no parking on the street in front of them and both houses use the parking and would have to park a considerable distance away.

Protea Street, Maungaraki

1

8060

I am strongly opposed to the proposal to relocate bus stop 8060 closer to the intersection of Protea Street and Acacia Avenue.

The principal reason for my objection is one of safety. The intersection of Protea Street and Acacia Avenue is already dangerous – just ask any of the residents. The corner is blind for vehicles travelling up Acacia Ave and turning into Protea Street. Despite this vehicles coming up Acacia Avenue commonly cut this corner to varying degrees to minimise the need to slow down. This includes your own buses. It is not uncommon to see vehicles travelling around this corner at considerable speed completely on the wrong side of the road.

Protea St is not a wide street. Vehicles coming down Protea St need to move across onto the other side of the road of the road to pass buses stopped at the bus stop. If the bus stop is moved closer to the intersection, this will put them in direct line of vehicles coming at speed around the Protea St/ Acacia Ave corner. By moving the bus stop closer to this intersection you are significantly increasing the risk of accidents – there will be head on collisions, of that I have no doubt. Some vehicles may wait behind a stopped bus for it to move on, many will not and will move across the road to pass the bus.

Some people alighting from buses also cross the road after alighting. Some cross behind the stopped bus and some cross in front of it. It is desirable that this occurs as far as possible from the Protea St/Acacia Ave intersection. Moving the bus stop closer to the Acacia Ave/Protea St intersection also puts these people at greater risk.

In terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 you are a PCBU. You are required as a PCBU “to eliminate risks to health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable; and if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate risks to health and safety, to minimise those risks so far as is reasonably practicable”. You are proposing to do the complete opposite of this - far from eliminating or minimising a risk to health and safety, you are significantly aggravating it.

Accidents will occur as a result of moving the bus stop as proposed – that is inevitable. When these accidents occur, perhaps when someone dies, you will not be able to say, “We were unaware of this risk”. I do not want to be in a position following a serious accident of having to point out you were warned of the serious risk to health and safety you were creating but went ahead regardless.

You will have noted WorkSafe has been taking a much stronger line with respect to prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. I see that the former Chief Executive of the Ports of Auckland is facing prosecution in relation to accidents at the port and that even the National Emergency Management Agency is being prosecuted following the Whakaari tragedy. I would not want to see you in a similar situation.

The bus stop is currently in a much safer location than that proposed. I appreciate there may be convenience benefits to moving the bus stop but believe that health and safety should be paramount, not taking second place.

A secondary reason for not moving the bus stop is the loss of parking spaces. Although I seldom park where the bus stop is proposed, and for safety reasons would not object to a no stopping line being put in, it is commonly used for parking by the people next door, and people from several houses across the road. It is going to inconvenience a considerable number of people and encourage people to park closer to the corner.

The people across the road (at #3) have approached me with similar concerns to mine. They are fearful of the dangerous situation that will arise right in front of the driveway to their property if this goes ahead and are convinced it will lead to accidents. English is a second language for them, and they indicated that for this reason they were not providing a written submission but that they share my concerns in strongly opposing this proposal. I am sure they would be happy to discuss their concerns with you (particularly if an interpreter is available).

I hope these comments are helpful.

Maungaraki Road, Maungaraki

1

8062

There is no real need to demolish the concrete bus shelter outside 57 Oakleigh Street. There appears to be enough room between the shelter and the kerb to manoeuvre a wheelchair, walker or pram into the shelter and go from the shelter into a bus once it has kneeled. The entry taper can be extended along the entire frontage of my section to enable a bus to always pull up to the existing shelter parallel to the kerb. If a replacement shelter were erected as shown on your site plan, it would be very close to our front fence, prohibiting me from painting the fence. My letterbox would have to be moved clear and remounted by your contractor securely in a suitable new location, at your expense. Very close to our boundary there are underground power cables, a gas pipe, and Chorus fibre-optic cables. If, for example, the power cable faulted under the bus shelter, fuses would blow at two substations on the street, cutting off power to several houses in the street. The new shelter would have to be moved rapidly to allow excavating to expose the cable and repair. The same action would be required if either the gas pipe or the Chorus cables faulted. For the above reasons I believe that a relocated bus shelter is not necessary and is not a good use of ratepayers’ money.

The consultation letter omitted including a ground-level drawing of the exact placement of the bus shelter, and GWRC responded to the resident's feedback:

GWRC are undertaking a programme to replace all the older concrete shelters or shelters that don’t meet accessibility standards in the network. The space between the kerb and shelter is quite slim with approximately 600mm space, the absolute minimum for a wheelchair is 900mm, the guidelines recommend 1.2m. For accessibility we are not only working with wheelchairs, but there are also many people who are infirm and use walking frames or other aids, plus there are partially sighted people who need better design for them to get about independently.

The shelter also has low functionality, this is how well people are protected from the weather, can see the bus coming and how people perceive the cleanliness and safety of using the shelter.

The shelter will be bolted to the concrete pad so can be unbolted and moved if necessary, GWRC are happy to move the shelter if reasonable notice is received for any maintenance to be undertaken on the fence and/or for other utility companies. GWRC are aware of the water toby in the berm and we’ll check for the other services before starting work. The concrete pad only goes down by 200mm at max so wouldn’t expect to encounter services.

Major Drive, Kelson

1

8215

As the owner/occupier of the property located at the existing bus stop I would be the one most adversely affected by the new proposal. I am partially physically incapacitated and require visits from caregivers, many of whom choose to park at the kerbside of Major Drive rather than negotiate my steep driveway with their vehicles. Elimination of close by car parks would cause considerable inconvenience.

The vacant building site at 146A Major Drive is only accessible via Major Drive and at some point, in the not-too-distant future, will require the construction of a vehicle crossing and driveway thus reducing other parking options. Please refer attached proposal plan.

I would strongly advocate for moving the bus stop facility slightly south down Major Drive as per the attached proposal plan for the following reasons.

1. Locate the new bus stop adjacent to lot 23 which has its entrance way via Kelso Drive. There would be no impact upon this property.

2. Construct the new bus stop at a point beginning at the boundary of the substation and the property located at 144 Major Drive northwards back towards my property at 146 Major Drive. The vehicle crossing at 144 Major Drive would allow additional space for the exit taper as per the attached plan.

3. There is adequate space for the construction of the new shelter in front of lot 23.

4. Relocation of the new bus stop as I propose would allow vehicles turning south from Waipounamu Drive greater clearance to Major Drive at peak times when buses (inclusive of school runs) are picking up passengers.

I trust that favourable consideration will be given to this new proposal.

Dowse Drive, Maungaraki

1

9051

I do not support losing a carpark, considering there is limited parking directly outside 10 houses. Pregnant, visitors or elderly should not be expected to walk up hill any more than needed. Considering weather! Logically the bus stop should be located further up the hill opposite the downhill bus stop.

Major Drive, Kelson

1

9214

Support: No (it’s terrible) 125 Major Drive, Kelson a) My driveway is "angled", so what I reverse, I cannot have a car block my ability to get out of my driveway or block my visibility. b) The yellow lines will force the car to block my driveway as they need to be behind those lines. c) Why can’t you extend the bus stop, cars always park here "illegally" and block the bus and my visibility when I reverse. d) PARKING - used to park my second car, used for guests, used for many parents doing school pick up.

Major Drive, Kelson

1

9218

I would like to know the number of people per day that board and alight at this particular bus stop. I wouldn't deem the bus stop as being accessible anyways, given it is grassed. These parks are needed for the residents in the area, especially those with tenants where there are multiple cars per household.

 

 

23.  The Petone Community Board will consider this report and the associated bus stop changes within their catchment at its meeting to be held on
14 February 2022.  Officers will provide an update on the Petone Community Board’s recommendations relating to 9050, 8046 and 8047 Hutt Road at the subcommittee meeting.

Legal Considerations

24.  Council is the Road Controlling Authority, as defined in the Land Transport Act 1998.  In this capacity, it is empowered to make these changes.  Council ensures it does so in line with all relevant requirements, including those in the Land Transport Rule:  Traffic Control Devices 2004.  That Rule specifies the requirements for the design, construction and operation of “traffic control devices” to ensure a safe and efficient road environment.  The proposed changes in restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

25.  These changes can be and will be funded from Council’s 2021/22 transport budgets.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix A - Bus Stop Restrictions

42

2

Appendix 1 - Hutt Road (8052)

47

3

Appendix 2 - Hutt Road (8053)

48

4

Appendix 3 - Dowse Drive (8055)

49

5

Appendix 4 - Dowse Drive (8057)

50

6

Appendix 5 - Dowse Drive (8058)

51

7

Appendix 6 - Maungaraki Road (8061)

52

8

Appendix 7 - Oakleigh Street (8063)

53

9

Appendix 8 - Dowse Drive (8065)

54

10

Appendix 9 - Major Drive (8213)

55

11

Appendix 10 - Major Drive (8214)

56

12

Appendix 11 - Major Drive (8217)

57

13

Appendix 12 - Hutt Road (9050)

58

14

Appendix 13 - Dowse Drive (9052)

59

15

Appendix 15 - Dowse Drive (9055)

60

16

Appendix 16 - Dowse Drive (9057)

61

17

Appendix 17 - Acacia Avenue (9059)

62

18

Appendix 18 - Maungaraki Road (9061)

63

19

Appendix 19 - Oakleigh Street (9063)

64

20

Appendix 20 - Harrison Crescent (9206)

65

21

Appendix 21 - Major Drive (9212)

66

22

Appendix 22 - Major Drive (9215)

67

23

Appendix 23 - Major Drive (9215)

68

24

Appendix 24 - Major Drive (9217)

69

25

Appendix 25 - Hutt Road (8046)

70

26

Appendix 26 - Hutt Road (8047)

71

27

Appendix 27 - Acacia Avenue (8059)

72

28

Appendix 28 - Harrison Crescent (8206)

73

29

Appendix 29 - Major Drive (8212)

74

30

Appendix 30 - Dowse Drive (9058)

75

31

Appendix 31 - Protea Street (9060)

76

32

Appendix 32 - Oakleigh Street (9062)

77

33

Appendix 33 - Protea Street (8060)

78

34

Appendix 34 - Oakleigh Street (8062)

79

35

Appendix 35 - Major Drive (8215)

80

36

Appendix 36 - Dowse Drive (9051)

81

37

Appendix 37 - Major Drive (9214)

82

38

Appendix 38 - Major Drive (9218)

83

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Ravi Soni

Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Bob Hu

Traffic Engineering Manager

 

 

 

Approved By: Jon Kingsbury

Head of Transport

 


Attachment 1

Appendix A - Bus Stop Restrictions

 






Attachment 2

Appendix 1 - Hutt Road (8052)

 

 


Attachment 3

Appendix 2 - Hutt Road (8053)

 

 


Attachment 4

Appendix 3 - Dowse Drive (8055)

 

 


Attachment 5

Appendix 4 - Dowse Drive (8057)

 

 


Attachment 6

Appendix 5 - Dowse Drive (8058)

 

 


Attachment 7

Appendix 6 - Maungaraki Road (8061)

 

 


Attachment 8

Appendix 7 - Oakleigh Street (8063)

 

 


Attachment 9

Appendix 8 - Dowse Drive (8065)

 

 


Attachment 10

Appendix 9 - Major Drive (8213)

 

 


Attachment 11

Appendix 10 - Major Drive (8214)

 

 


Attachment 12

Appendix 11 - Major Drive (8217)

 

 


Attachment 13

Appendix 12 - Hutt Road (9050)

 

 


Attachment 14

Appendix 13 - Dowse Drive (9052)

 

 


Attachment 15

Appendix 15 - Dowse Drive (9055)

 

 


Attachment 16

Appendix 16 - Dowse Drive (9057)

 

 


Attachment 17

Appendix 17 - Acacia Avenue (9059)

 

 


Attachment 18

Appendix 18 - Maungaraki Road (9061)

 

 


Attachment 19

Appendix 19 - Oakleigh Street (9063)

 

 


Attachment 20

Appendix 20 - Harrison Crescent (9206)

 

 


Attachment 21

Appendix 21 - Major Drive (9212)

 

 


Attachment 22

Appendix 22 - Major Drive (9215)

 

 


Attachment 23

Appendix 23 - Major Drive (9215)

 

 


Attachment 24

Appendix 24 - Major Drive (9217)

 

 


Attachment 25

Appendix 25 - Hutt Road (8046)

 

 


Attachment 26

Appendix 26 - Hutt Road (8047)

 

 


Attachment 27

Appendix 27 - Acacia Avenue (8059)

 

 


Attachment 28

Appendix 28 - Harrison Crescent (8206)

 

 


Attachment 29

Appendix 29 - Major Drive (8212)

 

 


Attachment 30

Appendix 30 - Dowse Drive (9058)

 

 


Attachment 31

Appendix 31 - Protea Street (9060)

 

 


Attachment 32

Appendix 32 - Oakleigh Street (9062)

 

 


Attachment 33

Appendix 33 - Protea Street (8060)

 

 


Attachment 34

Appendix 34 - Oakleigh Street (8062)

 

 


Attachment 35

Appendix 35 - Major Drive (8215)

 

 


Attachment 36

Appendix 36 - Dowse Drive (9051)

 

 


Attachment 37

Appendix 37 - Major Drive (9214)

 

 


Attachment 38

Appendix 38 - Major Drive (9218)

 

 


                                                                                      84                                                   17 February 2022

Traffic Subcommittee

31 January 2022

 

 

 

File: (22/176)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2022/1/16

 

The Beltway - Cycle-only Path

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of the report is to formalise ‘The Beltway’ as a cycle-only path.

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(1)   notes and receives the report; and

(2)   approves the classification of ‘The Beltway’ as a 6.5 kilometre cycle-only path, along sections of local roads as shown on the plans attached as Appendices 1 and 2 to the report.

For the reason that formalisation of the facility will allow for both enforcement, and improved safety.

 

Background

2.    The Beltway Cycleway is part of Council’s work to change the way the city moves and to help everyone get from A to B in the easiest, safest and most enjoyable way, whether you are commuting to work, going to school or just out for a recreational ride.

3.    Cycleways (like Beltway) and Shared Paths can reduce traffic and improve air quality.  They are cheaper than roads, safer for cyclists, resilient and they will make our city more attractive.

4.    The route, when completed, will eventually run from Taita to Seaview along High Street and Oxford Terrace adjacent to the Hutt Rail Line and, over time, will provide additional links to form a connected Lower Hutt cycling network between residential areas, workplaces, the hospital, schools and recreation areas.

5.    This project was included in the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) 2018-21 priority list of projects in the Wellington Region and was jointly funded by Hutt City Council and NZTA.

6.    The cycleway runs 6.5 kilometers from north of the Waterloo Railway Station to the River Trail at Taita and is a 2.5m wide sealed lane that is fully separate from the road.

7.    The Beltway cycleway is one of several major projects for cycling and walking in the Hutt Valley, including Te Hikoi Ararewa (Wainuiomata Hill Shared Path), Te Ara Tupua (Ngauranga to Petone Shared Path), and the Eastern Bays Shared Path.

Discussion

8.    This report seeks to formalise ‘The Beltway’ as a cycle-only path.

9.    Cycle-only paths are available for the exclusive use of cyclists and are therefore different to shared paths, which include other users such as pedestrians.  Note however that the legal definition for cycle path is ‘part of the road that is physically separated from the roadway that is intended for the use of cyclists, but which may be used also by pedestrians.’ (Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 definition).

10.  Cycle-only paths are assumed to not be located within the road corridor; they can be situated adjacent to a road or through reserves and non-road corridors.  

11.  Cycle-only paths are preferred over shared paths where they are likely to be used by a significant volume of people travelling by cycle.

12.  Care is required to ensure pedestrians can be well accommodated elsewhere and that it is obvious to pedestrians not to use the cycle facility.

13.  As the definition of cycle path permits pedestrians, there is no specific legislation for cycle only paths. At present, shared path legislation applies.

Options

14.  The projects approval was based on the provision of a cycle-only path, which restricts Council to the current classification presented.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

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

16.  Cycleways (like Beltway) and Shared Paths, can reduce traffic and improve air quality, they’re cheaper than roads, safer for cyclists, resilient and they will make our city more attractive.  

Consultation

17.  Extensive consultation was undertaken pre 2018 when The Beltway was first proposed. The agreed location was not without dissenting views, but Council agreed its importance, and approved the facility.

Legal Considerations

18.     Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 - 6.14 Parking on footpaths or cycle paths.

(1)     A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle on a footpath or on a cycle path.

(2)     Subclause (1) does not apply to cycles if a road controlling authority indicates otherwise by means of signs or markings or if it installs facilities for the parking, standing, or storage of cycles on a footpath or cycle path.

 

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

Financial Considerations

20.  These changes where part of the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) 2018-21 priority list of projects in the Wellington Region, and jointly funded by Hutt City Council and NZTA.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Appendix 1 - The Beltway Cycleway - Central Section

87

2

Appendix 2 - The Beltway Cycleway - Northern Section

88

    

 

 

 

Author: Ravi Soni

Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Bob Hu

Traffic Engineering Manager

 

 

 

Approved By: Jon Kingsbury

Head of Transport

 


Attachment 1

Appendix 1 - The Beltway Cycleway - Central Section

 


Attachment 2

Appendix 2 - The Beltway Cycleway - Northern Section

 

 


                                                                                      89                                                   17 February 2022

Traffic Subcommittee

18 January 2022

 

 

 

File: (22/46)

 

 

 

 

Report no: TSC2022/1/18

 

Work Programme 2022

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

That the work programme be received and noted.

 

 

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Traffic Subcommittee Work Programme 2022

90

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Kate Glanville

Senior Democracy Advisor

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved By: Kathryn Stannard

Head of Democratic Services

 

 

 


Attachment 1

Traffic Subcommittee Work Programme 2022