Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 7 April 2016

Time:                                    8.30am

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor David East

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

30 March 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Chris Turner

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - Terms of Reference

Chair

Cr Clearwater

Membership

Cr Cotter (Deputy Chair), Deputy Mayor Buck, Cr East, Cr Scandrett

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including  vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

The first Thursday of each calendar month except for January

Reports to:

Council

 

Long Term Plan Activities

·         water supply and water conservation

·         sewerage collection treatment and disposal

·         land and storm water drainage

·         flood protection and control works

·         natural hazards protection

­          natural hazards policy and planning

­          land instability management

­          other natural hazards management

·         roads and footpaths (inc. pedestrian malls and cycle lanes)

·         transport (including regional public transport and NZTA)

­          transport policy and planning

­          major cycle ways

­          parking (on and off street)

­          road operations

­          public transport infrastructure (including bus stops, shelters, seats and transport hubs)

­          transport education

­          harbours and marine structures

·         parks and open spaces

­          regional parks

­          garden and heritage parks

­          cemeteries

­          neighbourhood parks

·         waste management minimisation and disposal

­          residual waste collection and disposal

­          recyclable material collection and processing

­          organic material collection and composing

­          commercial and industrial minimisation

·         natural environment

­          natural environment policy and planning

­          environmental education

­          sustainability and energy initiatives and conservation of resources (including investigating electric buses)

·         all other transport issues such as regional public transport and NZTA

 

Responsibilities

·         Developing policy and strategy in relation to long term plan activities as listed above

·         Monitoring earthquake recovery related to the committees specified activities (i.e. Infrastructure rebuild, major facilities rebuild and facilities rebuild)

·         Considering recommendations from Council’s Subcommittees, Community Boards, the public, stakeholders and providers in relation to infrastructure, transport and environmental planning, delivery and operation

·         Making decisions with regard for the requirements of Sections 76 – 81 of the Local Government Act 2002 where it has the delegated authority from Council to do so, or recommendations to Council where a Council decision is required.

 

Delegations

 

Riccarton Road Corridor Public Transport Priority And Hub Decision Making Delegation

 

At the Council meeting of 13 November 2014:

It was resolved that the Council:

             33.1     Confirm that the Riccarton Public Transport Hub waiting lounge, super stop and associated street works, and the Riccarton Public Transport Priority project are both issues of metropolitan significance within the meaning of the Council’s delegations register.

             33.2     Will make the final decision on the design version for the Riccarton Public Transport Hub waiting lounge, the super stop and associated street works.

             33.3     Delegate the decision on the final design version for the Riccarton Public Transport Priority project and associated street works to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee because of tight time-lines.

             33.4     Instruct staff to ensure that the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board is kept informed on the proposals arising from both project streams and arrange appropriate briefing session(s) accordingly.

             33.5     Confirm that the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will continue to make recommendations to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on issues such as on-street works through Part A reports for the Riccarton Public Transport Priority and the Riccarton Public Transport Hub projects.

 

 

Major Cycleway Routes (MCR) Programme – Delivery Programme and Design Guides

 

At the Council meeting of 29 January 2015:

It was resolved that the Council:

             7.1       Note the progress update on the Major Cycleway Route programme.

             7.2       Adopt Revision A of the Major Cycleway Design Principles Best Practice Design Guide and the draft Way Finding and Signage Guide in principle for the four selected routes as detailed in 7.7.1, 7.7.2, 7.7.3 and 7.7.4.

             7.3       Agree to the route prioritisation.

             7.4       Agree to the Major Cycleway Route programme being declared a Metropolitan Programme and delegate to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee all decision making powers.

             7.5       Note that the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and affected Community Boards will be advised prior to any public consultation commencing on any Major Cycleway Route project.

             7.6       Note that appropriate Community Board Members will be invited by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to participate in the relevant Major Cycleway Route item discussion.

             7.7       Adopt in principle the route selection recommendations and refer the final decision to the Infrastructure Transport Environment Committee, noting the route selections as detailed below will be subject to receiving recommendations from the affected Community Board and to full consultation then approval by the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee:

                         7.7.1   Quarryman’s Trail;

                         7.7.2   Rapanui – Shag Rock;

                         7.7.3   Uni-Cycle;

                         7.7.4   Papanui Parallel.


 

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 6

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 6

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 6

B       4.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 6

B       5.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 6

A       6.       Northern Access Bus Lanes........................................................................................... 11

C       7.       Major Cycleways, Rapanui Shagrock, Section 1 - Recommended Scheme Option, Part 2......................................................................................................................................... 23

A       8.       Warning lights on the back of traffic lights on one-way streets............................... 41

B       9.       Annual Report Water Management Zone Committees ............................................ 53

B       10.     Briefing - Freight Management Plan

Staff will brief the Committee on the Freight Management Plan which is due to be presented to the Committee in May 2016.

B       11.     Briefing - River Water Quality - Sewage Getting Into Rivers

Staff will provide the Committee with a briefing on River Water Quality - Sewage Getting into Rivers.   

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on Thursday, 3 March 2016 be confirmed (refer page 7).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

There were no deputations by appointment at the time the agenda was prepared. 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

There were no petitions received at the time the agenda was prepared.  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

 

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 3 March 2016

Time:                                    8.30am

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor David East

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

29 February 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Chris Turner

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index


 

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

 

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00014

That the apology for absence from Councillor Cotter and the apology for lateness from Deputy Mayor Buck be accepted.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                     Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00015

That the minutes of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on Thursday, 4 February 2016 and Tuesday, 16 February 2016 be confirmed.

Councillor East/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                   Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Judy Stack spoke to the Committee regarding item 6 - Matuku Waterway Flood Mitigation (Heathcote Valley)

             The Committee thanked Judy Stack for her deputation.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.


 

 

 

6.   Matuku Waterway Flood Mitigation (Heathcote Valley)

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve the design and construction of the preferred pipeline diversion option for the Matuku waterway flood mitigation works in Heathcote Valley (Option 1).

 

 This item will be considered at Council on the 10th of March.

 

Committee Decided ITEC/2016/00016

Part A

That the Council:

1.              Approve the design and construction of the preferred pipeline diversion option for the Matuku waterway flood mitigation works in Heathcote Valley (Option 1).

 

Note: That the Committee request a regular review of the maintenance of the waterways through the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                     Carried

 

7     Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00017

Part C

That at 9.07am the resolution to exclude the public set out on page 48 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                        Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 9.32am.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 9.32am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2016

 

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Chairperson

   


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

Report from Shirley/Papanui Community Board  – 16 March 2016

 

6.        Northern Access Bus Lanes

Reference:

16/328316

Contact:

Adam Taylor

Adam.taylor@ccc.govt.nz

941 8552

 

 

 

1.   Shirley/Papanui Community Board Comment

 

The Board considered a report seeking its approval of the installation of a Bus/Cycle lane on Main North Road at Chaney's and associated intersection controls.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board recommends to the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee that it recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the exclusive use of southbound buses and cycles be installed on the east side of Main North Road starting at a point 285 metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m. 

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board 

2.         Revoke all parking and stopping restriction on the east side of Main North Road starting at a point 285m metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

3.         Resolve that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited on the east side Main North Road starting at a point 285m metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

4.         Resolve that a Give Way control be placed against Link Road at its intersection with Main North Road.

5.         Approve the removal of the three trees to the north of the Northern Motorway off ramp.

 

 


 

 

3.   Shirley/Papanui Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved:

2.         To revoke all parking and stopping restriction on the east side of Main North Road starting at a point 285m metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

3.         That the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited on the east side Main North Road starting at a point 285m metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

4.         That a Give Way control be placed against Link Road at its intersection with Main North Road.

5.         To approve the removal of the three trees to the north of the Northern Motorway off ramp.

The division was declared carried by 5 votes to 1 vote the voting being as follows:

For:                           Member Davidson, Member Byrne, Member Jones, Member Norrish and Member Watson

Against:                 Member Keown

 

 

4.   Shirley/Papanui Community Board Recommendation to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

 

Part A

 

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board recommends to the Committee that it recommend to Council that it:

1.              Approve that a special vehicle lane for the exclusive use of southbound buses and cycles be installed on the east side of Main North Road starting at a point 285 metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m. 

The division was declared carried by 5 votes to 1 vote the voting being as follows:

For:                           Member Davidson, Member Byrne, Member Jones, Member Norrish and Member Watson

Against:                 Member Keown

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Northern Access Bus Lanes

14

 

No.

Title

Page

a  

Main North Road bus lane design attachment

21

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

 

Northern Access Bus Lanes

Reference:

16/191201

Contact:

Adam Taylor

adam.taylor@ccc.govt.nz

039418552

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1          The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to consider the installation of a Bus/Cycle lane on Main North Road at Chaney's and associated intersection controls.

Origin of Report

1.2          This report is being provided to fulfil the Council Resolution of December 2014 which resolved to construct a bus lane on the southbound Main North Road bus approach to the Northern Motorway off ramp as part of a package of multi-agency measures to address traffic/transport problems in the north of the city.

1.3          The package of proposals has previously been agreed for construction through CEAG. 

2.       Significance

2.1          The decision(s) in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1     The level of significance was determined by using the engagement significance matrix. The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflects the assessment.

 

3.       Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board recommends to the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee that it:

1.              Approve that a special vehicle lane for the exclusive use of southbound buses and cycles be installed on the east side of Main North Road starting at a point 285 metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m. 

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board 

2.              Revoke all parking and stopping restriction on the east side of Main North Road starting at a point 285m metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

3.              Resolve that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited on the east side Main North Road starting at a point 285m metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

4.              Resolve that a Give Way control be placed against Link Road at its intersection with Main North Road.

5.              Approve the removal of the three trees to the north of the Northern Motorway off ramp.

 


 

 

4.       Key Points

4.1          This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1     Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·           Level of Service: 10.4.1 Contribute to increase number of trips made by public transport

4.2          The following feasible options have been considered:

·           Option 1 - Provide a bus lane on the southbound approach to the Empire Road off ramp (preferred option)

·           Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3          Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1     The advantages of this option include:

·      Improvements to bus journey times, particularly during the congested morning peak period.

·      Encouraging greater use of public transport by commuters

4.3.2     The disadvantages of this option include:

·           Vehicles exiting the adjacent Smith Crane site will be forced to cross and additional lane of traffic to exit the site. However given the limited number of buses that use the route, then this is unlikely to any significant increase in delay.

4.4          Community Feedback                     

4.4.2     Community consultation on the Main North Road bus priority lane was             undertaken from Monday 1 February to Monday 15 February 2016.

4.4.3     A total of 60 leaflets were hand delivered to Main North Road. The leaflet was also sent to 74 key stakeholders and 28 absentee owners. 

4.4.4     During the course of the engagement, Council received eight submissions. Six respondents were in support of the bus lane installation, one respondent did not support the installation and one did not state their preference. 

4.4.5     No response was received in relation to the tree removal

 

5.       Context/Background

Background

5.1          Since the earthquakes of 2010-2011 populations have increased in the North of Christchurch and in Waimakariri, leading to increases in congestion on the surrounding road network. This in turn has led to increased delays and journey times and other adverse outcomes such as worsening road safety conditions, and environmental impacts.

5.2          Given that the population in the North of Christchurch and in Waimakariri is anticipated to grow further, and that changes to the road network in the area (including the construction of NZTAs Northern Arterial Motorway, and CCC projects along the Marshland Road corridor), it is anticipated that, in the short term at least, these problems could worsen.

5.3          In order to address these short terms concerns CCC staff entered into negotiations with staff from NZTA, ECan and WDC to establish if it was possible to undertake some relatively low cost improvements which would address the issues in the short term, ahead of the completion of NZTAs Western Belfast Bypass and the Northern Arterial Motorway.

5.4          Staff determined that a package of measures could be delivered that would provide benefits, focussing on two main area, one which would focus on improving the operation of the Northern Motorway, the other which would look at ways in which commuters could be encouraged to use alternative modes of transport.

5.5          Measures aimed at improving the operation of the Northern Motorway included NZTAs attempts to operate a variable speed limit along the motorway, and to make changes to motorway access arrangements in Waimakariri.  Attempts to encourage the use of alternative modes of transport include enhancements to the existing bus lanes along the NZTA controlled stretch of Main North Road, the provision of a greater number of bus services by ECan and this proposal by CCC to operate a bus lane on the southbound approach to the Empire Road motorway off ramp. The operation of this bus lane will enable buses (and cyclists) which can encounter significantly delays on the approach to the traffic signals in the morning peak period to "queue jump", getting ahead of all traffic queue on the approach to intersection, reducing journey times for buses when compared to other vehicles.

5.6          A report examining the condition of three Black Poplar trees located on the western side of Main North Road to the north of the Northern Motorway off ramp was undertaken as part of this project, as it was considered possible that the proposed works could impact on the trees. This report indicated that two of the trees were found to be in poor condition, and one of the trees was found to be in a very poor condition, and that there is a high risk of structural failing of the tress which would impact adversely on road safety. Accordingly it was recommended that the trees were removed. The trees are not protected under City Plan rules.


 

6.       Option 1 - Bus Lane (preferred)

Option Description

6.1          Widen Main North Road to permit the construction of a bus lane on the southbound approach to the Empire Road off ramp signals, which will permit buses to "queue jump" when congestion occurs at the intersection. This option requires some limited localised widening of the road, and the removal of three Black Polar trees which are in "poor" or "very poor" condition, adjacent to Main North Road.

Significance

6.2          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this assessment, and more details given in relation to the consultation process below.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.3          This option may involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision may specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. This may occur as a result of increased storm water discharge to waterways as a result of marginal increases in the area of road hardstanding provided by the scheme. As part of the on-going detailed design process this issue will be addressed through reference to CCC's global consents,

Community Views and Preferences

6.4.         Submissions were received from Monday 1 February to Monday 15 February 2016, with eight responses received.

6.4.1.     Six respondents were in support of the Main North Road bus priority lane. Their feedback included:

·         Great that this work is being done to improve the efficiency of sustainable transport options.

·         We should be encouraging much more public transport use in the city.

·         This will have a positive impact on population health through improved air quality by reducing congestion.

·         It is a critical part of the wide Northern access package, aimed at encouraging greater use of public transport in this area.

6.4.2.  One respondent did not support the Main North Road bus priority lane and included the following feedback:

·         Concerns about whether the bus priority lane would improve congestion and adding an additional lane for their customers to navigate when exiting their business.

Project team response:

The proposed measures are part of a package undertaken by Christchurch City Council, NZ Transport Agency, Environment Canterbury and Waimakariri District Council to improve congestion across the wider north Christchurch area in the short term period between now and when the western Belfast bypass (and ultimately the northern arterial motorway) are completed. The combination of these measures are expected to alleviate congestion. Whilst, adding the bus lane will add an additional lane for customers exiting to navigate, it is expected that any additional delays for customers leaving your site would be negligible due to the limited frequency of buses.

 

6.4.3. One respondent who did not state their preference included the following feedback:

·         Concerns about whether cyclists could safely use the bus priority lane.

Project team response:

Whilst the intention of the bus priority lane is for passenger transport, the cycle lane will be wide enough to accommodate buses and cyclists.

No response was received in relation to the tree removal

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.4          This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

6.5          Cost of Implementation - Preliminary construction costs for the scheme were $800,000, but this will be reviewed as part of the detailed design process. Under a funding agreement, NZTA are proposing to pay $432,000 of the constructions costs, with a further $183,000 provided by WDC. Accordingly CCC will fund residual $183,000 of the final construction cost.  

6.6          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be some limited additional on-going maintenance costs, largely arising from the need to maintain a slightly wider road, and more complex signal arrangements.

6.7          Funding source - Funding has been set aside in the LTP for CCC's element of the funding.

Legal Implications

6.8          Part 1, Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

6.9          The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations.  The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of stopping restrictions.

6.10       The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council for the removal of trees.

6.11       The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

6.12       The ITE committee having delegation from the Council for the resolution of the special vehicle lanes.

Risks and Mitigations

6.13       Failing to deliver this project will result in increased journey times for public transport, due continued congestion and delay on critical routes into the city from the north.

6.14       There is some risk that the consent process could slow delivery of the project, which in turn may lead to like to programming risks in terms of other works which will be taken along the Main North and Marshland Road corridors. Attempts to mitigate this risk will be made by attempting to use CCC's Global Consents.  

Implementation

6.15       Implementation dependencies  - Subject to obtaining storm water discharge consent (or ability to use CCC's Global Consent)

6.16       Implementation timeframe - Commence construction May 2016

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17       The advantages of this option include:

·      Improvements to bus journey times, particularly during the congested morning peak period.

·      Encouraging greater use of public transport by commuters

6.18       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      Vehicles exiting the adjacent Smith Crane site will be forced to cross and additional lane of traffic to exit the site. However given the limited number of buses that use the route, then this is unlikely to any significant increase in delay.

7.       Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1          This Option would involve maintaining existing arrangements on Main North Road to the north of the Empire Road off ramp

Significance

7.2          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this assessment.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3          This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4          No feedback supported this option and this option would not deliver the required congestion reduction benefits.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5          This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

7.5.1     Inconsistency - doing nothing would lead to increased journey time delays for public transport users, and would therefore fail to encourage an increase in use of public transport.

Financial Implications

7.6          Cost of Implementation - There are no direct financial implications of this option

7.7          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There are no additional maintenance/on-going costs resulting from this proposal above those which already occur.

7.8          Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9          Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10       Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11       Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

7.12       Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13       The advantages of this option include:

·      Limit financial expenditure

7.14       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      High levels of congestion and delay, road safety concerns and adverse environmental outcome will continue

·      Further development in the north of Christchurch and Waimakariri will worsen conditions

·      This will further dis-incentivise the use of Public Transport

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Main North Road bus lane design attachment

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Authors

Adam Taylor

Lori Ford

Richard Holland

Senior Transport Planner

Consultation Leader

Team Leader Asset Planning

Approved By

David Adamson

Chris Gregory

General Manager City Services

Head of Transport

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

 

7.        Major Cycleways, Rapanui Shagrock, Section 1 - Recommended Scheme Option, Part 2

Reference:

16/238077

Contact:

Adrian Thein

adrian.thein@ccc.govt.nz

9418207

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to consider approval of the attached Rapanui-Shag Rock scheme (alternative route for Cashel Street and England / Worcester Street intersection, as per the initial report of 16th February 2016) for design and construction and provide information on the outcomes of the consultation process and the recommended changes as a result of this consultation

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.            Approve the Rapanui-Shag Rock scheme for detailed design and construction as included as Attachment B.

2.            Approve removal of the identified trees to allow implementation of the proposed scheme.

3.            Recommend that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the route are brought back to the ITE committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase prior to onsite construction.

4.            Recommend the Major Cycleway Design Guidelines are updated to reflect the lessons learned from the Rapanui-Shag Rock consultation process

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Major Cycleways

·     Level of Service: 10.5.2 Improve perception that Christchurch is a cycle friendly city based from the initial consultation, as agreed with the community board and IT&E an alternative route between England St and Aldwins Rd to be investigated and Worcester / England Street to be retained as a through road. This report and recommendation is the outcome of the further consultation on potential options

·     Option 1 - Attached in Appendix B, this includes the following:

         A neighbourhood greenway from England Street to Buccleugh Street intersection.

A neighbourhood greenway along Buccleugh Street, Olliviers Road, Wellington Street, Clive Street and Marlborough Street.

         Modifications at the intersections at England and Worcester to enable through vehicle traffic.

         This is the lower cost option that does not replace the existing deep dish kerb and channel. There were however no significant issues raised by Safety auditor.

·     Option 2 - As per the route above but with new replacement deep dish kerb & channel. This reduces the road width with indented car parking bays.

·     Option 3 - This option reverts the cycleway route via a separated cycleway along Cashel Street. We note this was discounted as per the original report to IT&E of 16th February 2016, as this options removes most on street car parking along this section of Cashel Street.

4.2       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option 1) a neighbourhood greenway along England Street, Buccleugh Street, Olliviers Road, Wellington Street, Clive Street and Marlborough Street.

4.2.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a safe, comfortable and consistent cycleway for people on bicycles that is in line with the objectives of the Major Cycleways and also in line with design guidance provided in the Christchurch Cycle Design Guide.

·     Supports the Council road hierarchy with no conflict with bus routes or over dimension routes.

·     Due to the lower traffic volumes the route enables a Neighbourhood Greenway to be implemented whereby people on bikes and vehicles share the same carriageway space.

·     Improves the crossings at all intersections along the route for people on foot or on bikes.

·     Reduce the potential for cycling crashes along the route.

4.2.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Restricted turning movements, left-in left-out only at England/Cashel Street, any affected traffic will divert to adjacent roads, away from the Major Cycleway Route.

·     Some on street parking will be removed to allow for the inclusion of street calming devices, which may directly affect a limited number of residents but is much less of a parking loss than option 3.

 

5.   Context/Background

MCR Programme

5.1       The Rapanui-Shag Rock route is one of the 13 projects in the Major Cycleways Route (MCR) Programme. The MCR programme has UCP, CCC and NLTP funding attached to it.

5.2       It is the third priority Route after the Papanui Parallel.

5.3       The Rapanui-Shag Rock route is 6.5km long and starts at Worcester Street, where it joins the AAC and finishes at Ferrymead Bridge. It travels along Aldwins Road, Dryers Road, Humphreys and Tidal View Road.

5.4       This report should be read in conjunction with the IT&E Report of 16th February 2016, as this Part 2 of Section1 of the Rapanui Shag Rock Route, (as per ITEC/2016/00013, file reference 16/6496).

5.5       As per the Council resolution of 29th January 2015, MCR Programme has been declared a Metropolitan Programme and all decisions delegated to the IT&E Committee.

Route Selection

5.6       To develop a preferred route, the following constraints were used:

·     The start point was Fitzgerald Avenue.

·     The end point was Ferrymead Bridge.

5.7       Six main routes options were developed, with additional sub-route variations. Each route option was assessed using Multi-Criteria Analysis which considers the impact across a variety of factors including cyclists, community and businesses, and network and property. The alternative route options were not selected as the preferred route for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, inconsistency with road function, social safety issues, geotechnical and flooding concerns and property issues. 

5.8       This report refers to Section 1, Part 2 of the Rapanui Shag Rock route which extends from Cashel / England Street intersection to Aldwins Road. This report also includes alterations to the proposed intersection layout at Worcester and England Street as requested by the IT&E Committee, 16 February 2016.

5.9       A diagram outlining the sections of the route covered by this report is shown in Attachment B

5.10    Construction of this project is scheduled to begin late 2016 and finish in the 2016/2017 financial year.


 

6.   Option 1 - Scheme Proposal – Alternative Route Retaining Existing Kerb and Channel (Preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The attached scheme plans (Appendix B) set out the recommended design and the following are brief descriptions of the key features;

6.2       A neighbourhood Greenway will be provided along England Street, Buccleugh Street, Olliviers Road, Wellington Street, Clive Street and Marlborough Street between Cashel Street and Aldwins Road where people on bikes share the road corridor with vehicles.

6.3       Traffic calming measures are introduced, in particular, raised platforms with cycle by-passes to restrict the speed of vehicles along the route.

6.4       The existing kerb and deep dish channel will be retained along the route, except at intersections where it will be replaced and at the cycle by passes where it will be modified to ensure safety for cyclists.

6.5       New priority intersection layouts will be implemented at England/Cashel intersection, restricting movements at England Street to left-in left-out only, and providing a midblock crossing refuge for separated facilities for people on bike and foot.

6.6       At the intersections of Olliviers/Wellington the give way control will be changed from Wellington Street where it is currently located, to Olliviers Road.

6.7       At the intersections of Wellington/Clive the give way control will be changed from Wellington Street where it is currently located, to Clive Street.

6.8       At the intersection of Worcester and England Street, all movements will be retained but priority give be given to movements from Worcester Street west to England Street south and vice versa.

6.9       This scheme proposes 31 new trees with 8 trees proposed for removal.

Significance

6.10    The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.

 

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.11    This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.12    The wider community are not specifically affected by this option due to improved service provision of the cycleway.  However, businesses and residents living directly on or near the route are affected by this option, specifically in regards to some reduced on street parking and restricted turning movements.

6.13    Consultation on the proposed route was carried out between 4th February - 24th February 2016. During this period one drop session was undertaken.

6.14    Community Drop-in Session for parties specifically affected by this option were held at the Hagley and Ferrymead Community meeting rooms on 18th February 2016.

6.15    980 consultation booklets were hand delivered to properties along the route, 475 flyers also delivered to wider community and 17 written responses received.

6.16    Of the 17 responses received 9 were on the support of the option 1 (preferred option)

6.17    There were 2 submissions received for clearer use of signage to improve safety and further 2 submissions endorsing the proposed landscaping treatment.

6.18    Full summary, including this breakdown of categories, can be viewed as Appendix A: MCR Rapanui Consultation Submission Table and Project Team responses.

6.19    Stakeholder submissions and team responses, developed during the process of analysing the submissions and working through the design review can be viewed as Appendix A.

6.20    Based on the feedback received there were no changes to the proposed plan

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.21    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

6.22    Cost of Implementation - $1.5 million Budget is provided for under Major Cycleways: Rapanui-Shag Rock route

6.23    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - projected additional costs of $1,800 per year. These have been taken account of in Councils asset management plan.

6.24    Funding source - Line item in Council's Long Term Plan (2015 – 2025) for Major Cycleways: Rapanui-Shag Rock route

Legal Implications

6.25    There are no legal implications, all work is on CCC land and existing road reserves

Risks and Mitigations

6.26    Resource consents if required will be lodged in parallel with detail design process and received prior to construction works starting.

6.27    Clashes with underground services have been identified and where possible these are avoided.

6.28    In areas where traffic calming measures are installed safe treatment options will be provided along the cycle by passes adjacent to existing deep dish kerb and channel.

Implementation

6.29    Implementation dependencies  -  Resource Consent approval

6.30    Implementation timeframe - completed FY 2016/17

7.   Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.1       The advantages of this option 1 (preferred)  include:

·    Provides a safe, comfortable and consistent cycleway for people on bicycles that is in line with the objectives of the Major Cycleways and also in line with design guidance provided in the Christchurch Cycle Design Guide.

·    This route

         Does not have any concerns relating to issues associated with social safety, ground slumping, flooding, geotechnical issues, property purchase or traffic operations.

         Supports the Council road hierarchy with no conflict with bus routes or over dimension routes.

         Provides a direct connection to the cycle route proposed to extend into the city centre to Cathedral Square, which provides connection to other Major Cycleway routes.

·    Neighbourhood Greenway - Due to the lower traffic volumes the route enables a Neighbourhood Greenway to be implemented whereby people on bikes and vehicles share the carriageway space. This type of facility 

         Has a much lesser effect on the reduction of on-street parking compared to the previous option (option 3) which fully separated the cycleway and significant loss of on street parking.

         Maximises landscaping opportunities by maintaining berms and landscape areas, and incorporating more trees, which enhances the street appeal along the route for properties and all users, including pedestrians.

         Provides a low volume, slow speed street which is more pleasant for neighbouring properties.

·    Intersection Improvements - Improves the crossings at all intersections along the route for people on foot or on bikes.

·    This option reduces the potential risk of uncovering unknown buried services and or replacement of buried services that may escalate construction costs.

·    Crashes - Reduce the potential for cycling crashes along the route. In particular, reducing the following typical crashes recorded along the route:

         moving people on bikes into the centre of the shared carriageway, with adequate clearance space for parked cars, will reduce the potential for conflict with parked car doors being opened

         Providing a safe shared space will encourage people on bikes to use the road rather than the footpath, eliminating the potential for people on bikes to be hit on the footpath by cars undertaking driveways manoeuvres.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Consultation on this scheme was carried out between 4th February to 24th February 2016. There were no significant concerns regarding the proposed scheme option 1

8.   Option 2 - Scheme Proposal – Alternative Route Replacing Kerb and Channel

Option Description

8.1       The main difference between this option (2) and the preferred option 1 is that, this includes the replacement of existing deep dish kerb and channel and road width narrowed.

8.2       Option Description The attached scheme plans (Appendix B) set out the following design and brief descriptions of the key features;

8.3       A neighbourhood Greenway will be provided along Buccleugh Street, Olliviers Road, Wellington Street and Clive Street between Cashel Street and Aldwins Road where people on bikes share the road corridor with vehicles.

8.4       The existing deep dish kerb and channel will be replaced and road width reduced. Indented car parking bays will be provided on both sides of the street.

8.5       Traffic calming measures are introduced, in particular, raised platforms with cycle by-passes to restrict the speed of vehicles along the route. 

8.6       New priority intersection layouts will be implemented at England/Cashel intersection, restricting movements at England Street to left-in left-out only, and providing a midblock crossing refuge for separated facilities for people on bike and foot.

8.7       At the intersections of Olliviers/Wellington the give way control will be changed from Wellington Street where it is currently located, to Olliviers Road.

8.8       At the intersections of Wellington/Clive the give way control will be changed from Wellington Street where it is currently located, to Clive Street.

8.9       At the intersection of Worcester and England Street, priority is given to left and right hand movements between Worcester and England Streets.

8.10    New trees are proposed at the intersections

Significance

8.11    The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.

 

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.12    This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

8.13    The wider community are not specifically affected by this option due to improved service provision of the cycleway.  However, businesses and residents living directly on or near the route are affected by this option, specifically in regards to some reduced on street parking and restricted turning movements.

8.14    Consultation on the proposed route was carried out between 4th February - 24th February 2016. During this period one drop in session was held at the Hagley and Ferrymead Community meeting room

8.15    980 consultation booklets were hand delivered to properties along the route, 475 flyers also delivered to wider community and 17 written responses received.

8.16    Of the 17 responses received 3 were on the support of the option 2 (replacement of the deep dish kerb and channel).

8.17    Full results summary, including this breakdown of categories, can be viewed as Appendix A: MCR Rapanui Consultation Submission Table with Project Team responses.

8.18    Stakeholder submissions and team responses, developed during the process of analysing the submissions and working through the design review can be viewed as Appendix A.

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.19    This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, as the funding for the replacement kerb and channel is current not funded.


 

Financial Implications

8.20    Cost of Implementation for this option over and above option 1 above, is an additional $1.2 million for the replacement of the deep dish kerb and channel. This channel replacement is currently unfunded in the kerb renewal maintenance budget within the next three years. As it is possible to deliver a safe cycleway solution without replacing the deep dish kerb channel is unlikely to be entitled to NZTA funding assistance. Therefore all of the additional costs would have to be met by Council.

8.21    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - projected additional costs of $1,800 per year. These have been taken account of in Councils asset management plan.

8.22    Funding source - Line item in Council's Long Term Plan (2015 – 2025) for Major Cycleways: Rapanui-Shag Rock route but the additional costs to replace the deep dish kerb and channel $1.2 Million is currently unfunded.

Legal Implications

8.23    There are no legal implications, all work is on CCC land and existing road reserves

Risks and Mitigations

8.24    Resource consents where necessary will be lodged in parallel with detail design process and received prior to construction works starting.

8.25    Clashes with underground services have been identified and would require relocation and or underground services require renewal.

Implementation

8.26    Implementation dependencies  -  Resource Consent approval

8.27    Implementation timeframe - completed FY 2016/17

9.   Option 3 - Scheme Proposal – Separated cycleway from England Cashel Street intersection to Clive Street.

Option Description

9.1       The main difference between this option (3) and the preferred option 1 is that, this includes a separated cycleway along Cashel Street

9.2       Option Description The design and brief descriptions of the key features;

9.3       Cashel Street will have a one-way cycle paths separated from traffic by a physical barrier

9.4       On street car parking will be restricted on both sides and between England and Clive street

9.5       Refuge Island will be installed at the intersection of Clive and Cashel Streets, with vehicle traffic will only be able to turn left from Clive into Cashel Street.

9.6       New trees are proposed at the intersections

Significance

9.7       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.

 

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.8       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

9.9       The wider community are not specifically affected by this option due to improved service provision of the cycleway.  However, businesses and residents living directly on or near the route are affected by this option, specifically in regards to some reduced on street parking and restricted turning movements.

9.10    Consultation on the proposed route was carried out between 30th October - 25th November 2015. During this period three drop in sessions was held at the Hagley and Ferrymead Community meeting room, Eastgate Mall and Botanical Garden meeting room.

9.11    Full results summary, including this breakdown of categories, stakeholder submission and team responses, as per the initial to IT&E report of 16th February 2016.  In summary however, this option was not fully supported as the loss of 'on street' car parking was a major disadvantage.

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

9.12    This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, as the funding for the replacement kerb and channel is current not funded.

Financial Implications

9.13    Cost of Implementation for this option is $1.6M.

9.14    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - projected additional costs of $2,200 per year. These have been taken account of in Councils asset management plan.

9.15    Funding source - Line item in Council's Long Term Plan (2015 – 2025) for Major Cycleways: Rapanui-Shag Rock route.

Legal Implications

9.16    There are no legal implications, all work is on CCC land and existing road reserves

Risks and Mitigations

9.17    Resource consents where necessary will be lodged in parallel with detail design process and received prior to construction works starting.

9.18    Clashes with underground services have been identified and would require relocation and or underground services require renewal.

Implementation

9.19    Implementation dependencies  -  Resource Consent approval

9.20    Implementation timeframe - completed FY 2016/17

10. Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.1    The advantages of the recommended option 1 include:

·    Provides a safe, comfortable and consistent cycleway for people on bicycles that is in line with the objectives of the Major Cycleways and also in line with design guidance provided in the Christchurch Cycle Design Guide.

·    This route

         Does not have any concerns relating to issues associated with social safety, ground slumping, flooding, geotech, property purchase or traffic operational.

         Supports the Council road hierarchy with no conflict with bus routes or over dimension routes.

         Provides a direct connection to the cycle route proposed to extend into the city centre to Cathedral Square, which provides connection to other Major Cycleway routes.

·    Neighbourhood Greenway - Due to the lower traffic volumes the route enables a Neighbourhood Greenway to be implemented whereby people on bikes and vehicles share the carriageway space. This type of facility 

         Has a much lesser effect on the reduction of on-street parking compared to the previous option (option 3) which fully separated Cycleways and significant loss of on street parking.

         Maximises landscaping opportunities by maintaining berms and landscape areas, and incorporating more trees, which enhances the street appeal along the route for properties and all users, including pedestrians.

         Provides a low volume, slow speed street which is more pleasant for neighbouring properties.

·    Intersection Improvements - Improves the crossings at all intersections along the route for people on foot or on bikes.

·    This option reduces the potential risk of uncovering unknown buried services and or replacement of buried services that may escalate construction costs.

·    Crashes - Reduce the potential for cycling crashes along the route. In particular, reducing the following typical crashes recorded along the route:

         moving people on bikes into the centre of the shared carriageway, with adequate clearance space for parked cars, will reduce the potential for conflict with parked car doors being opened

         Providing a safe shared space will encourage people on bikes to use the road rather than the footpath, eliminating the potential for people on bikes to be hit on the footpath by cars undertaking driveways manoeuvres.

Significance

10.2    The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

10.3    This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

Consultation on this scheme was carried out between 4th February to 24th February 2016 with majority of the submission received supported option 1 and through the previous consultation there was strong community opposition to option 3.


 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Appendix A; MCR Rapanui Consultation Submission

34

b  

Appendix B; Prefered scheme option 1

35

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Authors

Adrian Thein

Kim Swarbrick

John Hannah

Lynette Ellis

Clarrie Pearce

Project Manager

Consultation Leader

Project Manager

Manager Planning & Delivery

Team Leader Project Manager Transport

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

 

8.        Warning lights on the back of traffic lights on one-way streets

Reference:

16/228759

Contact:

Steve Parry

steve.parry@ccc.govt.nz

9418999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to consider the petition and this staff report and endorse the staff recommendation not to install warning lights on the back of traffic signals on the one-way streets.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report being provided to fulfil the Council resolution of 29 October 2015 for the John Lawrence petition on warning lights on the back traffic lights on one-way streets and a staff report to be referred to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Councils Significance an Engagement Policy.

2.1.2   The background details on the assessment of the magnitude of the problem outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the report and recommend to Council:

1.         That warning lights are not installed on the back of traffic signals on one way streets.

2.         Note that staff will audit all one way street intersections and consider the use of additional signage and markings that comply with traffic regulations to enhance driver awareness where required.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6 Improve Road Safety: Reduce the number of reported crashes on the network

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Do not install warning lights on the back of traffic signals (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Install No Entry signs (RG-9) on the back of traffic signals

·     Option 3 - Install warning lights on the back of traffic signals

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It is the option that staff consider will best help to reduce the likelihood of crashes involving vehicles travelling the wrong way on one way streets

·     It includes ongoing changes to the one way system through An Accessible City (AAC) projects and speed limit changes to reduce speeds in the inner zone.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     It does not address the petition request to put flashing lights on the back of traffic signals on the one way streets.

 

5.   Context/Background

Petition

5.1       On 3 October 2015 a fatal crash occurred at the intersection of Salisbury and Durham Streets, both being one way streets.  This involved a vehicle travelling the wrong way on Salisbury Street colliding with a vehicle travelling south on Durham Street. The crash was the result of a vehicle travelling the wrong way on a one way street.  It is understood from discussions that the fatal crash on 3 October 2015 may have involved a driver who was under the influence of alcohol driving at excessive speed, and who had driven through several intersections the wrong way. 

5.2       On 29 October John Lawrence presented the following petition to Council with over 1,000 supporting signatures / names.

·   "Too many people go the wrong way down the one way streets. We need to put warning lights warning lights i.e. red flashing lights, on the back of the intersection lights warning people they are going the wrong way. Too many people have had near misses or been killed because of people doing this. I have just been sitting in hospital with the two family's that had two amazing people hit by a car going the wrong way. No one else should ever have to go through what they have had to deal with. Unfortunately one of the most amazing people in the world was killed because of this."

Traffic Regulations - Signs and traffic control devices

5.3       Standard signs to deter drivers from travelling the wrong way in one way streets are:

·   One Way (R3-12), No Left Turn (R3-1) or No Right Turn (R3-2) signs installed close to the intersection on side roads approaching a one way street.

·   Turn Left (R3-8) or Turn Right (R3-10) signs may be used where the side road forms a T intersections with a one way street.

·   No Entry (R3-4) signs may be installed at intersections to prevent drivers turning into a one way street in the wrong direction.

·   There are also the Wrong Way (R3-7) or Wrong Way Go Back (R3-7.1) signs which may be installed facing traffic travelling in the wrong direction on a one way street.

5.4       There is no standard sign or traffic control device that includes warning lights on the back of traffic signals.  The New Zealand Transport Agency have advised that the traffic signals expert on the Traffic Control Devices Steering Group does not recall requests for such a device.

5.5       Auckland have experienced issues with wrong way drivers on the motorway system and a report "The Right Way for Wrong Way Drivers - Guidance for Design & Treatment of Divided Roads" (30 April 2015) has been prepared. This report is focused on divided roads and motorways but is intended to be a practical guide for the implementation of measures to reduce the risk of wrong way driving. 

5.6       The report includes a tool box of measures to reduce the risk of wrong way driving with measures ranging from good use of no entry , turning restriction and wrong way signs to very high cost variable message (wrong way) signs suitable for motorways and motorway ramps. The report does not include any options of warning lights on the back of traffic signals on urban one way streets. 

The crash problem

5.7       Attachment 1 is a detailed analysis of crashes at intersections in Christchurch for the 2010 to 2014 five year period and wrong way in one way street crashes for 2015. In summary:

·   The New Zealand Transport Agency Community at Risk Register 2015 ranks Christchurch City as high personal risk for crashes at intersections compared with other territorial authorities.  This is in part due to the grid layout of the network and the high number of intersections in Christchurch.

·   In total there were 2183 injury crashes and 3409 non-injury crashes at intersections in Christchurch in the 2010 to 2014 five year period.

·     40% of the intersection crashes were at signalised intersections with 175 people killed or seriously injured at traffic signal controlled intersections.

·     Only two of the crashes (one minor and one serious injury crash) involved vehicles travelling the wrong way down a one way street and entering an intersection from the wrong direction. Both involved drivers under the influence of alcohol.

·     Four crashes involved vehicles crashing when travelling from a two way road to travel the wrong way on a one way street (two minor and one non-injury crashes).

·   In 2015 there were a further two reported crashes involving vehicles travelling the wrong way on one way streets. The crash on 3 October plus one non-injury crash in February. In both these crashes it is understood the drivers travelling the wrong way were under the influence of alcohol.

5.8       It is understood from discussions that the fatal crash on 3 October 2015 may have involved a driver who was under the influence of alcohol driving at excessive speed, and who had driven through several intersections the wrong way.

5.9       Crashes involving vehicles travelling the wrong way in one way streets are only a very small proportion of the crashes at signalised intersections in Christchurch.

Warning lights on back of traffic signals

5.10    As noted in 5.4 above there is no standard sign or traffic control device including warning lights on the back of traffic signals. 

5.11    A technically correct solution would be to use No Entry signs (RG-9) as pictured below. They are reflectorised, and automatically illuminate at night. They could be mounted on the rear of the signal lanterns, at the entrance to the ‘upstream’ side of the intersection. From a distance these may look like red signals, giving the impression that there is a red light and stop line there, thereby encouraging traffic towards them.

5.12    International research supports concerns that any such warning lights must be designed so as not to encourage drivers to continue travelling the wrong way in a one way street. Drivers seeing lights ahead may assume they are travelling to correct way.

5.13    As a rough order estimate approximately 75 sites at $3,500 per site would be needed to include "No Entry" treatments at all the one way street traffic signals. This gives a total cost estimate of $262,500.

5.14    Flashing traffic signal type signs have not been considered as they would not be a suitable technical solution and would also require resource consent.  More detailed consideration would be needed to consider cost implications but they could cost three to four times as much as the no entry signs noted above (Total cost of say $1.0m)

5.15    The crash data shows crashes involving wrong way travel are rare and do not identify a prioritised list of intersections or one way streets to be treated.

Other considerations - speed limit, audit of existing signs and markings

5.16    A 30km/h inner zone speed limit is proposed for the central city and would include some of the one way streets and most of the intersecting two way roads.

5.17    Reduced speeds would result in reduced crash severity.

5.18    The existing signs at the entry points and along one way streets will be audited to confirm if additional signs and markings are required. This will include consideration of adding additional arrows to clearly show the one way direction of travel for vehicles turning onto one way streets from significant drive ways.

The audit will also consider if there is a need for use of Wrong Way (R3-7) or Wrong Way Go Back (R3-7.1) signs.

Staff report conclusion

5.19    Only four reported crashes since 2010 involved vehicles travelling the wrong way in a one way street and in all of these the drivers were under the influence of alcohol. Three happened at intersections (one fatal, one serious and one minor injury crash).

5.20    Crashes involving vehicles travelling the wrong way in one way streets are only a very small proportion of the crashes at signalised intersections in Christchurch.


 

 

5.21    Costs to install illuminated No Entry warning signs on all traffic signals on the one way streets would be about $262,500. The crash data does not support justification of this cost especially as all the crashes have involved alcohol impaired drivers who may or may not have been influenced by warning signs or lights. Illuminated No Entry signs can actually influence drivers to believe they are travelling the correct way from a distance.  Costs for flashing lights could be around $1.0m.

5.22    It is considered the change in speed limit plus an audit of the existing signs and markings would provide a better value action to improve the safety on the one way street system.


 

 

6.   Option 1 - Do not install warning lights on the back of traffic signals (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option is to maintain the existing traffic controls on the one way system and will include any improvements to the signs and markings to deter drivers from entering and travelling the wrong way in one way streets.

6.2       An audit of the existing signs and markings is being undertaken and recommendations for any improvements will be implemented under standard operating budgets.

6.3       This option also includes the proposed implementation of a 30km/h inner zone speed limit that will reduce the speeds on some of the one way streets and most of the intersecting two way roads.

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.5       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       Staff have not undertaken any consultation to seek community views as the recommended option is considered standard business for Council in terms of managing the network.

6.7       The petition did show community concern about the safety of the one way streets and the tragic results of people travelling the wrong way with over 1,000 supporting the petition.

6.8       Staff share these concerns but do not agree that flashing lights on the back of signals will address the problem.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.9       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation - $10,000 (but dependent on result of audit of exiting signs)

6.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - there will be no significant additional maintenance costs

6.12    Funding source - normal operating budgets

Legal Implications

6.13    There are no legal implications as this recommended option is complying with the appropriate Land Transport Rules.

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    There is a risk of dissatisfaction for the public and the petition supporters that would need to be balanced by the value for money explanation that higher costs solutions are not justified.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

6.16    Implementation timeframe - not applicable


 

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   It is the value for money option that staff consider will best help to reduce the likelihood of crashes involving vehicles travelling the wrong way on one way streets.

·   It includes ongoing changes to the one way system through An Accessible City (AAC) projects and speed limit changes to reduce speeds in the inner zone.

·   It complies with the Traffic Regulations for traffic control devices.

·   It addresses the likelihood of drivers entering one way streets to travel in the wrong direction rather than erecting non-standard signs or flashing lights that may signify drivers are travelling to correct way.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the petition request to put flashing lights on the back of traffic signals on the one way streets.

7.   Option 2 - Install No Entry signs (RG-9) on the back of traffic signals

Option Description

7.1       Install No Entry signs (RG-9) on the back of traffic signals at all the intersections.

7.2       The No Entry signs are reflectorised and automatically illuminate at night. They could be mounted on the rear of the signal lanterns, at the entrance to the ‘upstream’ side of the intersection.

Significance

7.3       The level of significance of this option is consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       See 7.6 to 7.8 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation -  $262,500

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - there will be no significant additional maintenance costs

7.9       Funding source - this could be funded exiting budgets for regulatory signs

Legal Implications

7.10    There are no legal implications as this recommended option is complying with the appropriate Land Transport Rules.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    There is a risk of dissatisfaction for the public and the petition supporters that would need to be balanced by the value for money explanation that higher costs solutions are not justified.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.13    Implementation timeframe - not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   It is a technically correct solution and the signs could be mounted on the rear of the signal lanterns, at the entrance to the ‘upstream’ side of the intersection.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   From a distance these may look like red signals, giving the impression that there is a red light and stop line there, thereby encouraging traffic towards them.

·   International research supports concerns that any such warning lights must be designed so as not to encourage drivers to continue travelling the wrong way in a one way street. Drivers seeing lights ahead may assume they are travelling to correct way.

·   There is currently no funding allocated for this work and therefore this project would need to come from existing road safety budgets and be prioritised against other road safety projects.

8.   Option 3 - Install warning lights on the back of traffic signals

Option Description

8.1       Install flashing warning lights on the back of traffic signals

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

8.4       This option is that requested by the petition to Council.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.5       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

8.5.1   Inconsistency - it is not a technically correct solution.

8.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - the installation of flashing lights on the back of traffic signals is not an approved traffic control device and would require specific approval from NZTA. A resource consent may also be required.

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation - $1.0m

8.7       Funding source - there is currently no funding allocated for this work and therefore this project would need to gain funding through the annual plan process.

Legal Implications

8.8       The installation of flashing lights on the back of traffic signals is not an approved traffic control device and would require specific approval from NZTA. A resource consent may also be required.

Risks and Mitigations

8.9       Not applicable

Implementation

8.10    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

8.11    Implementation timeframe - not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   It provides the solution requested in the petition to Council

8.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It may encourage drivers to continue to travel the wrong way though intersections.

·   The crash data indicates drivers travelling the wrong way are unlikely to comply with the flashing lights due to being intoxicated or deliberately driving the wrong way.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

One -way streets crash analysis

50

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Authors

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

 

9.        Annual Report Water Management Zone Committees

Reference:

16/302173

Contact:

Diane Shelander

Diane.shelander@ccc.govt.nz

941 8304

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report to provide the ITE Committee with an update report from the Christchurch-West Melton, Banks Peninsula and Selwyn-Waihora water management zone committees.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the zone committees' update report.

 

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       There are three zone committees whose zones include portions of Christchurch: Christchurch-West Melton, Banks Peninsula and Selwyn-Waihora.

3.2       The attached report summarises the activities of the three committees during 2015.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

update report zone committee - March 2016

54

 

 

Signatories

Author

Diane Shelander

Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Strategic Policy

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator