REPORT TO: Council
MEETING DATE: Thursday 15
August 2019
FROM: Traffic Engineering Officer
Lachlan Crawford
Acting Transportation Engineer
Gavin
O'Connor
SUBJECT: Speed
Bylaw Review
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 On 2
May 2019, Council accepted the recommendation to adopt the proposed speed limit
changes and Statement of Proposal to go out to public consultation.
1.2 The
proposal was to bring forward the development related speed limit changes from
the wider speed limit review. The wider speed limit review, which consists of
public requests, NZTA high priority sites, CBD review and consistency with
neighbouring councils, is scheduled to progress in early 2020 as planned.
1.3 Subsequently
council officers progressed a period of extensive consultation with key stakeholders
and affected parties (residents and road users) in relation to the proposed
speed limit changes.
1.4 This
report summarises the submissions received in relation to the Proposed
Amendments to the Council’s Speed Limits Bylaw 2012. This report summarises
both the submissions of the key stakeholders and the general public specific to
each of the 6 proposals.
1.5 The
purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council to adopt the
proposed amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2012.
1.6 This proposal
arises from the need to progress a number of speed limit changes due to changes
in the road and land usage caused by growth activities.
1.7 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local
government as set out in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That
purpose is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by (and on
behalf of) communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and
cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.
1.8 The
objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to support
good quality infrastructure by the creation of speed limits that are
appropriate to the road and roadside environment.
1.9 It
is the responsibility of Hastings District Council as the Road Controlling
Authority to implement safe and appropriate speeds across the road network.
1.10 This report concludes
by recommending that:
· That
the written submissions as circulated and summarised be received and considered.
· That
the Council resolves, in terms of Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002,
that the principles set out in that section have been observed in such a manner
that the Hastings District Council considers, in its discretion, is appropriate
for the decisions made during the course of this meeting.
· That
the amendments decided at this Council meeting be incorporated in the Speed
Limits Bylaw and brought back to Council for ratification.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 In
2003 the Government delegated responsibility for setting speed limits on local
roads to road controlling authorities (“RCAs”). For the
purposes of this report the RCA is Hastings District Council (“the
Council”). This delegation was originally contained in the Land
Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003. This rule was replaced with
the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 (“the Rule”)
and has been amended in Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits Amendment
2019 (the amendment Rule).
2.2 The
Rule specifies the legal procedure for establishing speed limits on public
roads. That procedure includes that an RCA must set speed limits (other than
temporary speed limits) by way of a bylaw under the relevant enactment,
currently the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA). The Rule sets out the
approach for evaluating and determining speed limits within the Speed
Management Guide.
2.3 The
Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw was first established in 2005 and
has been reviewed on several occasions. There have been
a number of speed limit changes made since the original bylaw, including its
replacement by the Speed Limits Bylaw 2012.
2.4 The
Council can change existing speed limits by making a new bylaw, or amending an
existing Speed Limits Bylaw. This requires following the special
consultative procedure under the LGA. The Rule also provides its own
consultation requirements for setting speed limits.
2.5 In
summary, the process for reviewing and setting a new speed limit is generally
as follows:
· Council is required by the Rule to, or decides, of its own volition
or on written request, to review a speed limit;
· Technical work is undertaken to establish the safe and appropriate
speed limit for the road in accordance with the Rule, New Zealand Transport
Agency (NZTA) Information and Speed Management Guide;
· Council resolves to amend the schedules of the Speed Limits Bylaw to
set the speed limits it proposes. The usual process for amending a bylaw
under the LGA is followed;
· A Statement of Proposal is prepared which includes a draft of
the bylaw to be made or amended, the reasons for the proposal and a report
under s 155, and a summary of the Statement of Proposal;
· The proposal is publicly notified with a reasonable period being
provided for submissions (not less than 1 month);
· In addition to the LGA public notification requirements, the Rule
requires that certain people, organisations and communities affected by the
proposed speed limits are consulted;
· All submissions are received and acknowledged, and submitters are
given a reasonable opportunity to be heard;
· The Council is required to take account of submissions received
during consultation on the proposed speed limit;
· After considering submissions and other relevant material, the
Council sets a speed limit it considers is a safe and appropriate speed limit
for the particular road by making any amendments to the Bylaw that are
necessary;
· The updated Speed Limits Bylaw is made available to the public
through Councils website.
· The
Director of NZTA and the Commissioner of Police are notified;
· Details
of the speed limits are recorded in a register;
· Any
required speed limit signs are erected.
2.6 Officers have identified that the most appropriate method for
administering these changes is for Council to propose to “set”
those speed limits under the Rule and to undertake consultation on that
proposal as required by the Rule and the LGA.
2.7 Section 155 of the LGA applies when a Council commences the process
of making a bylaw. In this case, it is proposed that an existing bylaw be
amended, so s155 is not directly applicable, however officers have nevertheless
considered the requirements of that section.
2.8 Section 155(1) requires the Council, before undertaking the process
to make a bylaw, to determine that a bylaw is the best way of addressing the
perceived problem. In this case, the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed
Limits 2017 mandates that a bylaw is the process that must be used for an RCA
to set speed limits, and is the only realistic process available to govern
speed limits in the District. A bylaw is therefore considered to be the
most appropriate way of addressing the issue.
2.9 Section 155(2)(a) requires Council to determine whether the proposed
bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw. Council officers have
considered the current form of the Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw
and determined that the Bylaw is the most appropriate form.
2.10 Section 155(2)(b) requires the Council to determine that the
proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implication under the New Zealand Bill
of Rights Act 1990 (“BORA”). Council officers have considered the
provisions of the BORA and identified the only related right which is that of
freedom of movement. While speed limits do place limits on that right, the
right for RCAs to control speed limits on their roads is granted by Parliament,
and it is the view of officers that the limitations are reasonable limits
prescribed by law that are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic
society as provided for by section 5 of BORA and that they do not accordingly
breach that Act.
2.11 The Rule sets out a number of obligations that the Council must meet
with respect to determining the safe and appropriate speed limit to be applied
to roads within the district. These have been summarized above, and include the
consultation requirements in Section 2.5 above and the overarching obligation
to set limits that are safe and appropriate for the circumstances.
3.0 CURRENT
SITUATION
3.1 On 2
May 2019, Council accepted the recommendation to adopt the proposed speed limit
changes and Statement of Proposal to go out to public consultation.
3.2 In total, 363 formal submissions were
received in relation to the Proposed Amendments to the Council’s Speed
Limits Bylaw 2012. The proposed amendments relate to the 6 separate proposals
for speed limit changes throughout the district.
3.3 The consultation undertaken was
extensive and included letters to all properties (and registered owners) of
affected roads and adjoining side roads, letters to key stakeholders, radio and
written publications advertisements and signage on the affected routes
highlighting the proposed consultation.
3.4 The consultation period opened on
23 May 2019 and ended on 27 June 2019.
3.5 This approach has resulted in a
good response and some detailed commentary, all of which is attached. This
report specifically addresses the formal submissions received.
3.6 All submissions received either
demonstrate support or opposition to one, some or all of the proposals.
3.7 However when viewing this
feedback, it should be noted that many submitters sometimes reference all roads
in the district or alternatively discuss only a specific proposal, and many
copy their general comments into the comment field for each proposal.
3.8 For the purposes of this
assessment, each proposal is assessed individually. For example, if a
submitter supports 2 of the 6 proposals but objects to the remainder, they
register 6 separate responses in the summary below (1 for each proposal).
3.9 A breakdown of the key stakeholder
submissions and comments received in relation to the proposed changes is
summarised in each of the following sections.
3.10 Each proposal (proposal 1 through to 6) is
summarised individually below and the summary for each includes an overview of
the following:
· Summary of proposal
· Key Stakeholder Responses
· Affected party submissions (residents and road users)
· Officer comments
3.11 It is worth noting
that Key Stakeholder submissions are considered to hold no more weighting than
the affected party submissions.
4.0 PROPOSAL
1: IRONGATE ROAD EAST
4.1 The
speed limit change proposal on Irongate Road East was to reduce the 100km/h
speed limit to 50km/h from the intersection of Maraekakaho Road to the end of
the cul-de-sac.
4.2 This
is due to the recent re-zoning of the land to industrial, and the increased
traffic movements associated with level of industrial development that has
taken place.
4.3 Key
Stakeholder Responses
NZTA
“Agree with
the 50km/h limit proposed, but if it is being urbanised (kerb and channel and
footpaths) Council should consider if 40km/h is more appropriate as a safe and
appropriate speed limit.”
NZ Police
No objections to
the proposal.
Automobile
Association of New Zealand Incorporated (AA)
“We support
the reduction in speed limit to 50 km/hr.”
4.4 Affected
Parties Responses
4.5 The
submissions for Irongate Road East are summarised below showing 144 (51.1%) of
the 282 responses for Proposal 1 were in favour the proposed changes.
4.6 Of
the submissions which included reasons for their response, 17 of the 44
responses were not in support of the proposed change.
4.7 Those
in favour generally referenced an increase in heavy vehicle movements, urban
growth, as well as the safety benefits of a reduced speed limit in the area.
4.8 Those
opposing the change generally suggested that poor drivers are to blame for
crashes rather than speed or that the current 100km/hr speed limit is fine on
this road.
4.9 It
was observed that the majority of the written opposing submissions on this
proposal contained general comments that were copied for each of the proposals
in this review, i.e. poor drivers are to blame for crashes and current speed
limits are fine.
Officer
Comments
4.10 Irongate Road East has
undergone significant urbanisation following the recent re-zoning to general
industrial.
4.11 The Rule requires that
any new speed limit must achieve a mean operating speed of not more the 10%
above the posted speed limit. The most recent traffic survey on this road
recorded an 85th Percentile Speed of 50km/hr. This suggests that the
proposed speed limit change is appropriate.
4.12 In response to the
NZTA submission, this would be out of context with the speed limit on similar
urban industrial roads on our network.
Options
A) Adopt 50km/hr speed limit as per the Draft Statement of
Proposal.
B) Retain current 100km/hr speed limit and review as
development proceeds along this road.
5.0 PROPOSAL
2: MARAEKAKAHO ROAD
5.1 The speed
limit change proposal on Maraekakaho Road was to reduce the speed limit from 100km/hr to 80km/hr from the existing 70/100 km/hr signs to a
point approximately 150m north of the intersection with State Highway 50A (see
item 5.2) as shown, a total length of approximately 2km.
5.2 It should be noted that on August 1 2019, NZTA re-numbered State
Highway 50A to State Highway 2. Any updates to the bylaw will reflect this
change.
5.3 This
is due to the recent re-zoning of the land to industrial, and the increased
traffic movements associated with level of industrial development that has
taken place.
5.4 Key
Stakeholder Responses
NZTA
“Agree with
80km/h limit proposed.”
NZ Police
No objections to
the proposal.
Automobile
Association of New Zealand Incorporated (AA)
“We support
the reduction in speed limit to 80km/hr. However we do not support where the
proposed 80km/hr ends 150m north of the intersection with State Highway 50A (see item 5.2). The 80km/hr speed limit
should be taken to the intersection to remove any potential confusion.”
5.5 Affected
Parties Responses
5.6 The
submissions for Maraekakaho Road are summarised below showing 127 (42%) of the
301 responses were against the proposed changes.
5.7 Of
the submissions which included reasons for their response, 28 of the 71
responses were in support of the proposed change.
5.8 Those
in favour generally referenced the safety benefits that the proposed 80km/hr
speed limit would provide, especially with the high volume of heavy vehicle
traffic on this road, and that 100km/hr felt unsafe.
5.9 Those
opposing the change generally suggested that the current speed limit of
100km/hr is appropriate, and that a reduced speed limit would hinder traffic
flow and significantly increase travel time.
5.10 It was observed that
many of the written opposing submissions on this proposal contained general
comments that were copied for each of the proposals in this review, i.e. poor
drivers are to blame for crashes and current speed limits are fine.
Officer
Comments
5.11 It is expected that
the re-zoning of Maraekakaho Road to general industrial will see a significant
increase in turning traffic movements to and from driveways along the route.
5.12 The Rule requires that
any new speed limit must achieve a mean operating speed of not more the 10% above
the posted speed limit. The most recent traffic survey on this road recorded an
85th Percentile Speed of 81km/hr. This suggests that the proposed
speed limit change is appropriate.
5.13 While the majority of
traffic is travelling at or near the proposed limit, a concern of some was the
increase in travel time this change will generate. Whilst the reduction in
speed limit will increase travel times, the overall travel time increase for a
reduction from 100km/hr to 80km/hr through this section is minor and equates to
less than 18 seconds.
5.14 In response to the
submission from AA, the speed limit change location for the proposal was
selected to satisfy the criteria set out in the Manual of Traffic Signs and
Markings (MOTSAM), which states that a speed limit sign must be located such
that an approaching driver has an uninterrupted view for at least 120m in a
rural area.
Options
A) Adopt 80km/hr speed limit as per the Draft Statement of
Proposal.
B) Retain current 100km/hr speed limit and review as development
proceeds along this road.
6.0 PROPOSAL
3: EAST ROAD
6.1 The speed
limit change proposal on East Road was to extend the 50km/hr speed limit zone from the existing 50/100 km/hr signs to a point approximately 260m
west of the intersection with Rockwood Place.
6.2 This is to account for the expansion of the urban area due to recent
residential development.
6.3 Key
Stakeholder Responses
NZTA
“Agree with
extension of 50km/h limit proposed.”
NZ Police
No objections to
the proposal.
Automobile
Association of New Zealand Incorporated (AA)
“We support
the extension of the 50km/hr speed limit zone to 260m west of the intersection
with Rockwood Place.”
6.4 Affected
Parties Responses
6.5 The
submissions for East Road are summarised below showing 133 (50%) of the 266
responses were in favour of the proposed changes.
6.6 Of
the submissions which included reasons for their response, 29 of the 52
responses were in favour of the proposal.
6.7 Those
in favour generally referenced the safety benefits of a lower speed limit on
this section of road, specifically citing pedestrian and cycle safety as a key
issue especially for school children, as well as the increase in residential
driveways and side roads. A number suggested that the proposed 50km/hr zone
does not extend far enough.
6.8 Those
opposing the change generally suggested the current 100km/hr zone is
appropriate and that the proposal will increase driver frustration. It was also
suggested that an interim speed limit may be more suitable.
6.9 It
was observed that the majority of the written opposing submissions on this
proposal contained general comments that were copied for each of the proposals
in this review, i.e. poor drivers are to blame for crashes and current speed
limits are fine.
Officer
Comments
6.10 East Road is becoming
more urbanised as Haumoana extends inland with residential development.
Residents have previously raised safety concerns regarding the safety of
pedestrians and cyclists on the shared path next to the 100km/hr road.
6.11 The Rule requires that
any new speed limit must achieve a mean operating speed of not more the 10%
above the posted speed limit. The current operating speed in this section is
between 50 and 54 km/hr. This suggests that the proposed speed limit change is
appropriate.
6.12 The remaining length
of this road is to be included in the next tranche of speed limit review next
year.
Options
A) Adopt 50km/hr speed limit zone extension as per the Draft
Statement of Proposal.
B) Retain current 100km/hr speed limit and review as development
proceeds along this road.
Options for
future
A) Review further extension of the urban 50km/hr zone as part
of future speed limit review.
7.0 PROPOSAL
4: TE AUTE ROAD
7.1 The speed
limit change proposal on Te Aute Road was to extend the 50km/hr speed limit
zone from the existing 50/100 km/hr signs to a point approximately
230m north of the intersection with Gilpin Road, a total extension of 500m.
7.2 This is to account for the increased traffic and pedestrian
movements associated with the proposed retirement village on the western side
and the Village Baptist Church on the eastern side.
7.3 Key
Stakeholder Responses
NZTA
“Agree with
extension of 50km/h limit proposed”
NZ Police
No objections to
the proposal.
Automobile
Association of New Zealand Incorporated (AA)
“The
proposed 50kph speed limit is un-realistic considering the final configuration.
Even a 60kph speed limit would result in very low compliance. Recommend an
80kph speed limit and it be extended around the Gilpin Road Intersection curve.
A separate entrance way at north eastern corner of the Ryman development be put
in for vulnerable road users (Pedestrians/Cyclist/Mobility Scooters) so that
main entrance is only for vehicles.”
7.4 Affected
Parties Responses
7.5 The
submissions for Te Aute Road are summarised below showing 113 (37%) of the 306
responses were in favour of the proposed changes.
7.6 Of
the submissions which included reasons for their response, 36 of the 85
responses were in favour of the proposal.
7.7 Those
in favour generally referenced that a reduced speed limit would be noticeably
safer and that the proposed 50km/hr zone does not extend far enough and should
include the Gilpin Lane intersection.
7.8 Those
opposing the change generally suggested that a reduced speed limit will
increase driver frustration and suggested that an intermediate speed limit of
60km/hr or 80km/hr would be better.
7.9 It
was observed that many of the written opposing submissions on this proposal
contained general comments that were copied for each of the proposals in this
review, i.e. poor drivers are to blame for crashes and current speed limits are
fine.
Officer
Comments
7.10 The proposed
retirement village and associated roading improvements on the outskirts of
Havelock North will create more of an urban feel to this section of road.
7.11 Te Aute Road is
identified as a high risk road in Hastings District Councils’ Safety
Strategy due to significant crash history and it is on the list of New
Zealand’sTop 10% DSi (Death and Serious Injury) Saving Network Sections.
The remainder of Te Aute Road will be reviewed as part of the next tranche of
speed limit reviews.
7.12 Council have received
numerous requests from Police and residents of Te Aute Road to extend the
50km/hr zone on Te Aute Road. The main concern has been vehicles not slowing
down when entering the urban section of Te Aute Road, which creates issues for
school children who use the kea-crossing near Upham Street.
7.13 Members of the Village
Baptist Church have also raised concerns about the safety of their entranceway,
which has seen multiple crashes involving turning vehicles, as well as
pedestrian safety while walking from Havelock North.
7.14 The Rule requires that
any new speed limit must achieve a mean operating speed of not more the 10%
above the posted speed limit. The most recent traffic survey on this road
recorded an 85th Percentile Speed of 93km/hr. This suggests that the
proposed speed limit change will require a threshold treatment to encourage
vehicles to slow down when entering the 50km/hr zone. Note that the
urbanisation of this section will likely cause a decrease in operating speed
once the retirement village development begins. A threshold treatment has been
included in the proposed development improvements.
7.15 The overall time
travel increase for a reduction from 100km/hr to 50km/hr through this section
is less than 18 seconds.
7.16 In response to the
submission from AA, it is expected that the threshold treatment and
urbanisation of the road through the development will have a significant effect
on the operating speed of the road and compliance with the 50km/hr speed limit.
7.17 The remaining length
of this road is to be included in the next tranche of speed limit review next
year.
Options
A) Adopt 50km/hr speed limit zone extension as per the Draft
Statement of Proposal.
B) Retain current 100km/hr speed limit and review as
development proceeds along this road.
Options for
future
A) Review the remainder of Te Aute Road, including further
extension of the urban 50km/hr zone as part of future speed limit review.
8.0 PROPOSAL
5: TE ARA KAHIKATEA
8.1 The speed
limit proposal on Te Ara Kahikatea is to adopt the currently sign-posted speed limit of 80km/h along the entire length, as was previously
consulted on through the Notice of Requirement Process.
8.2 Key
Stakeholder Responses
NZTA
Agree with 80km/h
speed limit proposed.
NZ Police
No objections to
the proposal.
Automobile
Association of New Zealand Incorporated (AA)
“We support
the speed limit of 80km/hr for Te Ara Kahikatea. We would like to see an off
road cyclist and pedestrian pathway be created. The existing pathway for
pedestrians and cyclists is less than desirable and requires the user to ride
on the road shoulder, sometimes in the path of opposing traffic.”
8.3 Affected
Parties Responses
8.4 The
submissions for Te Ara Kahikatea are summarised below showing 114 (45%) of the
258 responses were in favour of the proposed changes.
8.5 Of
the submissions which included reasons for their response, 15 of the 74
responses were in favour of the proposal.
8.6 Those
in favour generally suggested that it was a good speed and that the road was
noticeably safer because of it.
8.7 Those
opposing the change generally suggested that the road should have been designed
to handle 100km/hr speeds, and that it hinders traffic flow.
8.8 It
was observed that many of the written opposing submissions on this proposal
contained general comments that were copied for each of the proposals in this
review, i.e. poor drivers are to blame for crashes and current speed limits are
fine.
Officer
Comments
8.9 Te
Ara Kahikatea is a recently constructed road serving the Whakatu Industrial
Area and connecting Hastings and Havelock North to the Expressway and on to
Napier. The Notice of Requirement for the new road construction detailed
a proposed operating speed of 80km/h and the road was designed based on this
operating speed.
8.10 Given the design is
based on a speed limit of 80km/h and this has previously been consulted upon
through the Notice of Requirement process it is deemed appropriate to implement
this speed limit through a bylaw process.
8.11 The proposed operating
speed was selected due to the alignment of the road alongside the stream, which
was chosen so that the road had minimal impact on the productive land in the
area, and also to achieve consistency with the surrounding network; Napier
Road, Pakowhai Road and State Highway 2 (re-numbered to State Highway 51 on
August 1st 2019) are all 80km/hr roads.
8.12 In response to the
submission from AA, an off-road cyclepath between Pakowhai Road and the Whakatu
Road roundabout is currently being designed, with an expected construction date
of March 2020. Additional cyclepaths alongside the route are also being
investigated.
Options
A) Retain on-site signage and adopt currently sign-posted
80km/hr speed limit into the bylaw.
B) Do not adopt currently sign-posted speed limit and default
to the 100km/hr national speed limit, remove signage and replace with speed
derestriction signs.
9.0 PROPOSAL
6: KERERU ROAD
9.1 The speed
limit change proposal on Kereru Road was to extend the 50km/hr speed limit zone
from the existing 50/100 km/hr signs to a point
approximately 580m west of the intersection with Bellerby Lane
9.2 This is to account for the recent development on Bellerby lane and
the upcoming residential development and expansion of the Maraekakaho
settlement along Kereru Road.
9.3 Key
Stakeholder Responses
NZTA
“Setting
speed limits in anticipation of development is unlikely to be self-explaining to
road users – current mean speeds along proposed length are 65-69km/h so Council’s
compliance with clause 4.4(2)(c) of the Rule if a 50km/h speed limit is
implemented, before development changes the nature of the road, is unlikely
without additional speed management infrastructure.”
NZ Police
No objections to
the proposal.
Automobile
Association of New Zealand Incorporated (AA)
“We support
the reduction in speed limit to 50km/hr to the recommended point 580m west of
the intersection with Bellerby Lane.”
9.4 Affected
Parties Responses
9.5 The
submissions for Kereru Road summarised below showing 100 (40%) of the 249 responses
were in favour the proposed changes.
9.6 Of
the submissions which included reasons for their response, 16 of the 47
responses were in favour of the proposal.
9.7 Those
in favour generally referenced the local residential zone growth and pedestrian
safety, especially children walking to and from school.
9.8 Those
opposing the change generally suggested that the current speed limit is good,
poor drivers are a safety issue and slowing traffic will reduce the flow of
vehicles. Others suggested that an interim speed limit of 60km/hr or 80km/hr
may be more suitable.
9.9 It
was observed that the majority of the written opposing submissions on this
proposal contained general comments that were copied for each of the proposals
in this review, i.e. poor drivers are to blame for crashes and current speed
limits are fine.
Officer
Comments
9.10 The consented
residential development on both sides of Kereru Road will add traffic movements
from driveways and will see increased pedestrian activity along the route, especially
children travelling to and from school.
9.11 Since its
construction, Council have previously received requests to extend the 50km/hr
zone past Bellerby Lane, and to consider options to slow vehicles down before
entering Maraekakaho.
9.12 The Rule requires that
any new speed limit must achieve a mean operating speed of not more the 10%
above the posted speed limit. The current operating speed for vehicles prior to
entering the existing 50km/hr section is 65-69km/hr. As suggested by NZTA, the
proposed speed limit change will require a threshold treatment to encourage
vehicles to slow down when entering the 50km/hr zone. Note that the
urbanisation of this section will likely cause a decrease in operating speed
once development begins.
9.13 The overall time
travel change for a reduction from 100km/hr to 50km/hr through this section
equates to less than 21 seconds.
9.14 An interim speed limit
was considered, however the Rule requires a minimum length for an 80km/hr zone
of 800m. This would further extend the proposed speed limit zone and without a
change in adjacent land use, the speed limit would not be
“self-explaining’.
Options
A) Adopt 50km/hr speed limit zone extension as per the Draft
Statement of Proposal.
B) Retain current 100km/hr speed limit and review as
development proceeds along this road.
10.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
10.1 All Submitters were
invited to provide written commentary alongside their acceptance/objection to
each of the 6 proposals. Whilst a lot of this commentary related
specifically to one or more of the proposals, a large proportion of the
commentary related to the proposals as a whole, requested additional routes be
considered or provided other comments not specifically related to the
proposals.
10.2 It should be noted
that in general, the submissions in support of a specific proposal would only
respond to that proposal on the submission form, whereas the majority of
submissions opposing speed limit changes would respond to all of the proposals.
For this reason, it is advised that Council consider the commentary for each
proposal, rather than simply the proportion of submitters in favour or against
the proposal.
10.3 Approximately half of
the written submissions could be classified as general and are summarised
below.
10.4 The written comments
from submissions in general support of the proposals can be summarised as
follows:
· Reduced speed is key to reduced accidents
· Whatever makes the road safer
· The roads have too many intersections and driveways to operate
safely at 100km/h
· Speeds need to be reduced due to urbanisation
· Speeds need to be reduced due to increased cyclists on our roads
· The safety of drivers and passengers should be the overriding factor
in setting the speed limits
· Reducing speed limits will reduce the risk of serious injury or
fatality
· With increased population and increased traffic volumes we need
reduced speeds to manage conflicts
· It will make it safer for pedestrians
10.5 The written comments
from submissions who object to the proposals in general can be summarised as
follows:
· The current speed limits are working fine
· 50km/h is too slow given the improvements in modern vehicles
· We need to ensure our roads remain efficient
· People already drive below the speed limits
· Slower limits reduce fuel economy
· Slower limits increase travel time
· Improve road quality instead of reducing speeds
· It’s not the speed limit, it’s the drivers
· It’s not the speed it’s the road surface
· We need to educate people to the road rules
· This is only a revenue gathering exercise
· No one will comply with the limits anyway
· Council should be concentrating on other priorities rather than this
· Slower speeds reduces productivity of Hawkes Bay industry
10.6 Key Stakeholder
Responses - General
NZTA
We draw
Council’s attention to the Government Policy Statement encouraging all
road controlling authorities to accelerate the implementation of the new Speed
Management Guide, focusing on treating the top 10 percent of the network which
will result in the greatest reduction in death and serious injury as quickly as
possible. The Transport Agency is keen to work collaboratively with the
Council, together with the Police, AA, RTF and your local communities, to
accelerate addressing the top 10%, both local roads and state highways.
NZ Police
Whilst Police
understand that Hastings District Council propose to further review speed
limits with regards to “public requests” following this
consultation, it is disappointing that only following that will the Speed
Management Guide principle be addressed.
Police are
therefore disappointed that the Hastings District Council have prioritised
growth over safety and whilst having no objections to the proposals submitted
for consultation, lament an opportunity lost to better protect our community
now.
Automobile
Association of New Zealand (AA)
At the recent Regional
Transport Committee meeting our chairman has noted that the district councils
in our region will be reviewing speed limits next year. It was very encouraging
to hear that all councils will work together and look at this from a region
wide perspective rather than each district council looking at their patch only.
We fully endorse this approach. As part of this review our preference is that
engineering improvements and the quality of the pavement are looked at before
speed reductions. Improving these will most likely have a greater impact than
reducing speeds. Recent AA studies have highlighted that accidents are
generally the result of good people making mistakes.
Central Hawkes
Bay District Council
Central Hawkes
Bay District Council sees no issue with any of the proposals and will support
the proposed changes to create a safer travelling environment on the roads
within the Hastings District.
Taupo District
Council
The Taupo
District Council have no cross boundary local roads adjoining with Hastings District
and therefore have no contribution or comment to make with the proposed speed
limit changes.
Officer Comments
10.7 It is the responsibility of Hastings
District Council as the Road Controlling Authority to implement safe and
appropriate speeds across the road network. Each proposal has been
considered on an individual basis as detailed within this report and the
feedback from the consulted parties is discussed as it relates to each specific
proposal.
10.8 Council officers are currently undertaking
crash reduction studies on all of the NZTA top 10% DSi routes in order to
increase safety on these routes prior to reviewing the speed limit.
11.0 SPEED LIMIT REVIEW
REQUESTS
11.1 Through the consultation process a number of
additional speed limit review requests were received. These are
summarised below for completeness and have been added to the list of previous
public requests to be included in the next tranche of speed limit reviews.
|
Road
|
Request
|
|
Tollemache Road
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Heathcote Road
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Wellwood Road
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Iona Road
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Middle Road
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Pakowhai Road
|
Increase speed limit
|
|
Pakowhai Road
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Te Aute Road (entire
route)
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Various outside all Marae
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Nottingley Road
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Southland Road
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Waipunga Road
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Ellis Wallace Road
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
All country roads
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Longlands Road West
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Longlands Road East
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Omahu Road
|
Increase speed limit
|
|
Ngatarawa Road
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Clifton Road
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Riverslea Road South
|
Reduce speed limit
|
|
Various outside schools
|
Reduce speed limit
(variable limits)
|
12.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT
12.1 The Setting of Speed
Limits Rule includes the
consultation requirements as listed in Section 2.5 above and the overarching
obligation to set limits that are safe and appropriate for the circumstances.
12.2 Council has fulfilled its legal obligations for consultation.
12.3 The consultation
period opened on 23 May 2019 and ended on 27 June 2019.
12.4 The consultation
involved multiple methods of communication prior to and during the consultation
period. These methods were:
· Information session held with Key Stakeholders prior to consultation
period, followed by consultation letter
· Letters sent to residents and home-owners within approximately 200m
of the proposed speed limit zone prior to consultation period.
· Advertising signs erected along the proposed speed limit zone.
· Radio, newspaper and digital advertisements through MediaWorks and
NZME throughout the consultation period.
· Social media advertising through Councils website and Facebook site.
12.5 Electronic submissions
were gathered through myvoicemychoice.co.nz and hardcopy forms were available
at Council reception and at Flaxmere, Havelock North and Hastings public
libraries.
|
13.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS
A) That
the report of the Traffic Engineering Officer titled “Speed
Bylaw Review” dated 15/08/2019 be received.
B) That
the written submissions (CG-14-10-01345 and CG-14-10-01354), as circulated
and summarised (PRJ19-140-0463) be received and considered.
C) That
the Council resolves, in terms of Section 155 of the Local Government Act
2002, that the principles set out in that section have been observed in such
a manner that the Hastings District Council considers, in its discretion, is
appropriate for the decisions made during the course of this meeting.
D) That
the amendments decided at this Council meeting be incorporated in the Speed
Limits Bylaw and brought back to Council for ratification.
With the reasons for this decision
being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the
current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure
in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:
i) Implementing safe and appropriate speeds across the road network
as is the responsibility of Hastings District Council as the Road Controlling
Authority.
|
Attachments:
|
1
|
Summary of Speed Bylaw Submissions
|
PRJ19-140-0463
|
|
|
2
|
Speed Bylaw Submissions for speaking at Council 15
August 2019
|
CG-14-1-01447
|
|
|
3
|
Support Letter from Ryman Healthcare Ltd (#329)
|
PRJ19-140-0460
|
|
|
4
|
Support Letter Christine Cheyne (#350)
|
PRJ19-140-0461
|
|
|
5
|
Support Letter - George MacMillan (#346)
|
PRJ19-140-0462
|
|
|
6
|
List of Speed Bylaw submitters
|
CG-14-1-01444
|
|
Hastings District
Council
