Proposed Harewood Road Cycle Lane Extension,...

Proposed Harewood Road Cycle Lane Extension, Summary of Submissions

Section 1: Summary of Submissions received following the 28 August to 2 October 2009 Consultation Period No Submitter’s

Name/s Support for Project Yes (Y), No (N)

Heard (H) Not Heard (N)

Summary of Key Issues Staff Comments Panel Comments / Recommendations

HR001

K Fletcher (Y)

N The idea is a good idea to increase cycleways. However, are you aware of the terrible flooding that occurs each time there is rain. The worst place is on the corner of Breens Rd & Harewood where the water, currently extends out to the median line. This problem needs to be addressed before you send cyclists through it.

Staff advise that drainage improvements are proposed to be included as part of this project (funded separately) to address existing flooding issues and the effectiveness of these modifications will be monitored after construction.

HR002

Frank van Bruken (NI)

N Staff note that no comments were provided in this submission however the submitter will be kept informed.

HR003

Kerry Loper (N)

N There is nothing wrong with the way it is, leave as is, there is more important issues, cheers

Comments noted

HR004

John Milne (Y)

N I Support the proposal Support for the proposed scheme noted

HR005

Ganra+ Lanev (N)

N Existing stop signs on Breens Road & Gardner's Rd replaced with larger stop signs. I would like you to consider a roundabout of traffic lights at the intersection btw Breens & Harewood. This is a dangerous intersection, as there has been a numerous accidents. In the busy peak hours it take long time to cross the intersection.

Staff have verified that the existing STOP signs are 845mm x 845mm in size. The Manual Of Traffic Signs and Markings (MOTSAM), which is the recognised standard recommends these signs should be 675mm x 675mm for this environment, but larger signs (845mm x 845mm) can be installed when the approach speeds exceed 50km/h. As such staff now recommend that these signs should not be further enlarged, as was indicated in the publicity material. A roundabout generally requires even traffic flows on all approaches to be effective however these present other safety issues, particularly for cyclists. There may also be a requirement to purchase properties, which would significantly add to project costs. As such staff do not recommend a roundabout at this intersection.

1

No Submitter’s Name/s Support for Project Yes (Y), No (N)



Signalisation of intersection has been considered however the costs for this were assessed to be significantly higher (Approx $500k) and therefore cannot be accommodated within the funding allocated for this project. Furthermore the assessment of the returns on this investment concluded these were low and could therefore be unlikely to receive funding from NZTA. As such staff do not recommend signalisation of this intersection.

HR006

HR Shaw (N)

N On the scale A3 you have put a no stopping outside our unit 424A Harewood Rd which will make it very inconvenient to us, as we have a small driveway. If we have workmen (as we have had over the last few months, and they have to get in the manhole or there is no way to get through to the back). We have to park on the street with trucks or vans in the driveway. I can count on one hand how many bikes cross or go down Harewood Rd past is. Please look at our problem and I would like to know where the bus stop is going, Thank you.

Staff confirm that the proposed no-stopping lines could be shortened to provide parking outside 424A Harewood Rd. The bus stop to the east of Gardiners Road can be retained in its current position in front of the Orion substation. Staff also note that Contractors may apply to the Council for temporary traffic management measures to park their vehicles next to properties to facilitate construction work.

HR007

Hong Wei Rung (Y)

N This is a great plan Support for the proposed scheme is noted

HR008

David McDougall (Y)

N Brilliant! Go for it! As soon as Poss! I'm a cyclist heading up Harewood Rd lots of times, I also like the idea of Reduced vehicle speed - single lanes

Support for the proposed scheme is noted

HR009 Peter Strong (N)

N Re Proposed Harewood Road Cycle Lane This is a submission in regard to the proposed Harewood Road cycle lane.have owned and lived in my home at Kamahi Place for 22 years and prior to this for 5 years in a home in Oldwood Street, so I am very familiar with the intersection of Harewood/Breens/Gardiners Roads and have witnessed the increase in traffic volumes over this time.

Staff advise that transport planners have modelled the proposed scheme and advise that with the reduction in traffic lanes is not expected to make it any more difficult for motorists to turn into and out from side streets than the current configuration.

2




Each day for travel to and from work, I cross over Harewood Road at the Breens/Gardiners Roads intersection in my vehicle and as an active recreational cyclist, I also experience the difficulty of crossing the intersection both during the week days and at weekends. While especially as a cyclist for safety reasons I support in principle the introduction of cycle lanes, I strenuously object to the proposed changes to the layout of the Harewood/Breens/Gardiners Roads intersection for the following reasons: a) Given the high traffic flows on Harewood Road, it is impractical to reduce the current 2 traffic lanes to 1, b) The impact of the above is that it will be even more difficult in view of the high traffic flows on Harewood Road to cross the intersection safely and there will be significant traffic bottle necks and delays, c) The high traffic flows at the intersection indicate that traffic lights are required to better control traffic movements, as currently many drivers either display an ignorance of the traffic regulations in regard to giving way, or are moving due to impatience at the period of time that they have been held up and I have observed many “near misses”. Thank you for considering this submission. If you require any further information, or wish to discuss any aspect, please let me know.

Signalisation of this intersection has been considered however the costs for this were assessed to be significantly higher (Approx $500k) and therefore cannot be accommodated within the funding allocated for this project. Furthermore the assessment of the returns on this investment concluded these were low and would therefore be unlikely to receive funding from NZTA. As such staff do not recommend signalisation of this intersection.

HR010 P Laing (Y) N Thank you for the information It was good to get an understanding clearly presented for me to appraise. I may not entirely agree with it. But see it as a positive move to get more on bikes. Well done and thanks

Support for the proposed scheme is noted.

HR011 Richard Venderpyl (Y)

N I like all the proposals. A great idea. 100% support. Support for the proposed scheme is noted.

3




HR012 Phil Meredith (N)

N We need lights on Breens/Harewood & Gardeners Rd. Your proposal will not help us to get over that intersection which is a nightmare now.


HR013 Jeff Thackwell (N)

N No to road change. A set of traffic lights would be more appropriate both for pedestrians crossing and trying to get a vehicle across this stretch of Breens/Gardiners.


HR014 Robin Robins (Y)

N I support the proposed extension of cycle lane in Harewood Road, the increased safety for cyclists outweighs the loss of vehicle lane & parking spaces. Use email, not phone, I am deaf.

Support for the proposed scheme is noted.

HR015 Carina Duke (Y)

N Hi the comments I have on this proposal are: Support the installation of the cycle lane and reduction in traffic lanes. Could tactile tiles be included in all intersections of this project length? Are there plans to also improve the road crossing facilities at the roundabout for pedestrians? The current design still leaves pedestrians vulnerable within the medians and this is a wide road crossing used by older persons (and not used by those unable to cross).

As shown on the consultation plan, tactile pavers are proposed at Harewood / Breens / Gardiners Intersection and Harewood / Crofton Intersection where it is proposed to alter the alignment at these intersections. Due to funding constraints it is not possible to provide tactile pavers at the other intersections as part of this project.

4




HR016 Marg O’Connell (N)

Y I am a cyclist that cycles along this particular stretch of roadway at least ten times a week. Until car drivers learn to respect cycle ways they are dangerous. Cars drive in them anyway and dropping this road to one lane will mean they either drive in the cycleway anyway or drive faster as there would be only one lane and more congestion. Overall, it makes it more dangerous for the cyclist. As well, until something is done about keeping the cycleways free of gravel and junk, it means often riding right on the edge of the cycleway to avoid this. Unless you have some way of separating cycles from cars, it will always be dangerous to ride on the road. Making this stretch of road one lane will only make it more dangerous for cycles. Use the money to educate car drivers or make more cycleways like the one alongside the railway track. Cycling is dangerous now but this one laning will make it more so. In theory it sounds good; in practice it is worse than useless - it endangers the cyclists.

Staff advise that the proposed cycle lanes are generally not against the kerbs where gravel and litter often collect. There also exists a cleaning programme for cycle lanes to remove litter and other debris. Staff advise that a 0.6m wide median could be provided between the traffic lane and the cycle lane however this is not standard convention in New Zealand and would require further discussion with NZTA, who have been contacted and their response is pending.

HR017 Peter Fletcher (N)

N Harewood Road, in its 4-lane section, already has a reasonable space between the left of the 2 lanes and the gutter (and even parked cars allow for a small space).Thus there is no real necessity for a designated cycle lane. Further, the level of cycle traffic is small. Vehicular traffic, on the other hand, is pleasantly spaced and the road is thus pleasant to use with the current 2 lanes each way. The proposed changes will mean a slight convenience for the few cyclists, but considerable 'cramping' for drivers who outnumber cyclists 1000:1. The current spaciousness would be lost, and currently it is nice to have driving space on one of the few 4-laned roads in ChCh. Note: If there really must be a designated cycle lane, it should be to the LEFT of parked cars, as in Europe!

Staff note comments and advise that this project is primarily seeking to address pedestrian and cycle safety issues at the Breens / Harewood / Gardiners intersection, as well as promote / encourage other forms of sustainable transport (eg cycling / walking / public transport). Locating cycle lanes to the left of on-street parking would present other issues. In particular more space is required at intersections, which could result in further loss of parking as well as the possibility that some motorists may be inclined to park in the cycle lane towards the kerb.

5




HR018 Hilary Rose (N)

N As I bought my property based on the fact that Harewood Road was not particularly congested (within my direct area), I am against the proposed reduction of traffic lanes. In my opinion having only one lane for vehicles, will greatly increase traffic on the one proprosed lane and reduce easy access from private drive-ways onto the road. This can obviously cause additional related safety problems. Having lived previously on Wairakei Road, I well remember the continual traffic obstructions and the difficulty of safely exiting your own driveway. With the construction of the new terminal at the airport, along with the construction of the business park along John's Road, I envisage an increase of traffic in general. I would have thought to reduce the road to one lane at this very time of business expansion would not be particularly beneficial for anyone and possibly cause increased related problems. Even though I am not opting to attend a hearing, I do hope my submission will be taken into account.Thank you.

Transport planners have advised that single-laning will adequately cope with forecasted traffic flows for the next 20 years. Traffic flow will be further out from kerb and should make it easier for people to exit from driveways. Transport planners have modelled the proposed reduction in traffic lanes along this section of Harewood Road and advise that the reduction in traffic lanes is not expected to make it more difficult for motorists to turn into and out from side streets.

HR019 Kate Russell (NI)

N Please find below my concerns regarding the dangerous exit from Bishopdale Mall onto Harewood Rd. It is an accident waiting to happen. Can these changes be made when the Harewood road cycle lane changes are made? Please refer to the attached diagram. I frequently drive into the properties at 328/320 Harewood Rd where my parents live and whom also have to contend with the ignorant drivers on a daily basis. Drivers are ignoring the give way sign at the Bishopdale Mall exit onto Harewood road. They are driving out in front of vehicles heading west towards the airport or waiting at the island to do a u-turn They are not giving way to vehicles waiting at the the island to turn. They then drive out and hover in the middle of the road/intersection to drive into the far left hand lane to drive east towards Papanui. The vehicle doing the u turn could potentially drive into the offending vehicles drivers door. These incidents have happened to me several times because drivers aren't giving way at the give way sign. Drivers are also entering the far left hand land

Staff advise that addressing the issues associated with traffic exiting from the Bishopdale Mall is outside the scope of this project.

6




instead of driving into the middle lane, with a lot of people driving into hells pizza/caltex shops. The lane set up is dangerous and makes drivers erratic and unpredictable. Please work to rectify it. The new speed bump type islands aren't working either, they are a quick fix. My suggestions included: Can drivers be banned from turning right from the Bishopdale Mall exist onto Harewood Rd? Can the Bishopdale Mall exist be moved closer to Bishopdale Park? Can the 2 lanes at the roundabout heading towards Papanui be changed to 1 lane? Can the island, in front of the Bishopdale mall exit be extended (gap closed) to force drivers to u turn at Cotswold Ave? I would appreciate any feed back.

7




HR020 McCreanor Rob & Gail (Y)

Y This is a positive idea which will make crossing Harwood Rd safer, however in conjunction with this there needs to be an overall reduction in speed! 1) leave parking as is, outside 393 Harewood Rd 2) Larger and more predominant 'stop signs' as the present ones are ignored causing many crashes. 3) High visual Traffic speed indicators (similar to Gardeners Rd near Johns Rd) either side of the Breen & Gardeners Rd Crossing 4) Speed bumps on Breens & Gardeners Rd

Staff recommend that the proposed no-stopping lines be retained to provide sufficient turn-out space for the bus bay as new standards now apply. These also ensure good sightlines for the proposed new pedestrian crossing points and vehicles turning out of Breens Rd. Staff have verified that the existing STOP signs are 845mm x 845mm in size. The Manual Of Traffic Signs and Markings (MOTSAM), which is the recognised standard recommends these signs should be 675mm x 675mm for this environment, but larger signs (845mm x 845mm) can be installed when the approach speeds exceed 50km/h. As such staff now recommend that these signs should not be further enlarged, as was indicated in the publicity material. Staff advise that mobile speed indicators are available for use on a temporary basis. Unfortunately permanent systems cannot be accommodated with the allocated funding Staff advise that speed humps cannot be installed on Breens Road or Gardiners Road due to their place in the Road Hierarchy (Collector / Minor Arterial respectively).

HR021 A George Daly (NI)

Y Any improvement in road safety is accepted. However, making alterations to road etc is of no avail unless properly administered. Adjacent to this property the council ? a footpath is as narrow as one metre for the use of pedestrian, wheelchairs, mothers with prams and also skateboarders and cyclists. As an elderly person I have had bumps from cyclists using the footpath and personally I am more afraid of stepping onto the footpath than entering the road at least the road traffic adheres to rules.

Staff advise cycling on footpaths is illegal under present legislation and that the proposed cycle lanes will encourage cyclists to ride on road, rather than on the footpath. Residents are encouraged to note details of incidents for referring on to police and the Council for enforcement.

Submission comments noted.

8




HR022 Delwyn Harrison Rockgas (NI)

N Plans only details gas pipes connected to the network. Depths are indicative only. Do not scale form the plans. Contractors working within one metre of gas pipes must hand dig. Rockgas/Contact have live gas mains in this area. Plans BO56, BO57, BP57, BP58 & BQ58 are Plans attached.

Staff note comments from Rockgas and confirm that it is standard procedure for the Council’s Capital Delivery Team to notify all service providers at time of tender / construction.

HR023 Ron Floris (N)

N I drove several time down Harewood Road over the weekend to review your proposal and can't believe how foolish it is. I'm all for cycle lanes and am a keen cyclist, however to reduce a 30m stretch of land for only a 7m carriageway (3.5m each way) seems crazy. There is plenty of room to keep Harewood Rd 2 lanes in each direction. The population on that side of town is growing and we need more two lane roads, not less. Common sense needs to prevail and you need to look at the future and keep it two lanes. By all means put in a cycleway but use space from the footpath (a 2m footpath is adequate) and leave the 2nd lane as it is

Primarily project to improve safety issues at Harewood / Breens intersection, which requires reduction of traffic lanes to provide required facilities.

9




HR024 M Brerton & W Mundy (N)

N Where is the logic of one lane for traffic eg. Vehicles, & one for cyclists when vehicles outnumber bike 95 to one and provisions for pedestrians who hardly exist. Stop narrowing roads and spending money on beautifying and be practical. We live at 454 Harewood Rd and already have Major problems getting in and out of our driveway. The traffic is constant and the bus stop with buses picking people up is really dangerous, we have had quite a few near accidents as vision for us and the other traffic is very bad most days. Do you realise just how much traffic this road carries. To put in a cycle lane and take away a traffic lane is just ludicrous, try living at our place. Also, I would like to add although the mediums strip and all the daffodils and trees may look very pretty the damage that the roots of the trees growing under the road has caused to our house which is only 10 years old by heavy trucks bouncing over them is shocking. Our house shakes so much you would think it was an earthquake. We have just had to re-tile (eg Kitchen floor, entrance way, laundry, shower floors (2)) because the shaking of the house cracked a lot of the tiles. It has just cost us another substantial amount of money that should not have been necessary. Already one tile in the entrance way has cracked. Get rid of the medium strip & trees so we can still have 2 traffic lanes if you are worried about the cyclists which are few and far between on this road. Traffic from the airport & surrounding factories & business is a steady stream after work hours. I know if you lived here where we live you would not be putting in a single traffic lane. Spend the money you have been allocated wisely BUT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Transport planners have advised that single-laning will adequately cope with forecasted traffic flows for the next 20 years Staff advise that as the traffic flow will be further out from kerb it should be easier for people to exit from their driveways. Staff also note that the frequency of the No 14 bus service is typically half-hourly during weekdays. Staff confirm that RFS No 91030897 has been raised to investigate issue with tree roots and the Maintenance Dept are looking into this. Staff advise that residents should contact their insurance company regarding any property damage claims.

The panel is recommending that this project does not proceed.

HR025 Charles Miller (N)

N Rate payers money and labour costs would be better used in reducing the speed of vehicles on this road as it is very dangerous with vehicles travelling well in excess of the 50km/h restriction. Approx seven people who cycle in the area per day will be delighted with the Cycle Lane, three of them use the footpath. In my opinion it is an utter waste of time and money

Staff advise that the proposed reduction in traffic lanes is expected to reduce traffic speed along this stretch of Harewood Rd. Without the proposed cycle lane the traffic lanes would be wider which will encourage motorists to travel faster.

Comments in this submission noted.

10




HR026 Sandra Sanders (N)

N I feel this is a stupid idea as its hard to get out onto Harewood Rd which is really busy. What we need is lights instead of a stupid cycle lane. I oppose it very strongly and so does my husband. I think it would be better investing money into lights as not a cycle lane, as there are not that many bikes as to cars and trucks etc. Thank you.

Signalisation of intersection has been considered however the costs for this were assessed to be significantly higher (Approx $500k) and therefore cannot be accommodated within the funding allocated for this project. Furthermore the assessment of the returns on this investment concluded these were low and would therefore be unlikely to receive funding from NZTA. As such staff do not recommend signalisation of this intersection.

Comments noted. The panel’s preference is for signals at this intersection if funding were available.

HR027 John Skipper (N)

N Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission in regards to the proposed changes on Harewood Road. I wish to comment as follows: 1. I have no idea what clauses etc you refer to above and have put question marks in the boxes. I do not have time to work through the by-law and try to sort this out. I have before me the plan sent to households dated July 2009 and my submission is based on this. 2. I am strongly opposed to the proposed reduction in lanes from 2 to one in each direction. I would prefer that the main arterial routes into the city were all 2 lanes each way and this would apply to the rest of Harewood Road. (As an aside, I did enjoy travelling recently on Papanui Road, when there were no road markings for a time. Everyone coped and the cars still parked on the side. How pleasant and unclutterd. While I support the concept of the bus lanes there, what is being produced looks like a dogs breakfast.) Traffic is being over-managed for what I can see as no benefit to anyone. Christchurch will not turn into a village with no cars, just because the Council goes out of its way to annoy drivers. 3. The concept of everyone following in single file everywhere is stultifying. Driving at the speed of the slowest person everywhere is not enjoyable or satisfactory in any way. 4. The waste of paint, the cost of putting it on, including the vehicle and fuel cost to do so is extravagant. The worst is the paint work has to be re-done every year. This is not only a complete waste of ratepayers money, it

1. Staff advise that the Consultation Brochure issued advised that additional information pertaining to the proposed amendment to the Traffic and Parking Byelaw was available via the Council Website, Service Centres and Libraries, or by phoning the Council. 2. Transport planners have advised that single-laning will adequately cope with forecasted traffic flows for the next 20 years. 3. Staff note that some of the other submissions indicate concern with speed of traffic and advise that proposed scheme is expected to reduce traffic speeds. 4. Comment noted. Staff advise that paint has to be remarked for safety reasons.


11




is unsound environmentally as well. We are supposed to be taking steps to improve the environment, not cause more pollution. 5. As a cyclist I also use Harewood Road. By and large it is not very interesting as a place to ride. I would note though that the risk to cyclists is greater on the single lane parts. The cars are all in the lane nearest to the cyclists, unlike the 2 lane part where the cars are spread over 2 lanes and half are well away from the cyclists. 6. I support the development of cycleways. They need to be made of proper road material that is smooth and easy to ride on. In a sense the lanes on the side of the road are a cheap compromise. We don't get the nice surface to ride on. All the debris, including glass and stones the cars push aside end up on the cycle lane. I like the cycleways along the railway line, through Hagley Park and the like, not on the roads. 7. There are already too many obstacles built onto the road. We don't need any more targets and it amazes me there is not more damage than there is to the clutter on the roads already. 8. We don't need any more traffic lights. Indeed many should be ripped out. We have more than most cities in the world. More roundabouts. Harewood and Gardners may benefit from a roundabout. Why though put those useless things in Gardners Road as shown on the plan. What purpose do they serve? Again clutter and cost for no benefit. The ratepayers deserve better.

5. Comment noted. 6. Staff advise that the proposed cycle lanes are generally not against the kerbs where gravel and litter often collect. There also exists a cleaning programme for cycle lanes to remove litter and other debris. 7. Comment noted 8. Comment noted. Staff do not recommend traffic lights at this intersection due to costs and poor returns. Staff also not recommend a roundabout because the traffic flows need to be even from all approaches to be effective. Furthermore roundabouts create other safety issues for cyclists.

HR028 M L Reid (N) N A waste of money, for what? 1/2 hr am and 1/2 hr pm and most students I see go to the safety zone anyway. Very few cyclist during the day that I see

Comments noted. Staff advise that students have been observed crossing Harewood Rd in the middle of this intersection.


12




HR029 B Mary Thomas (N)

N In reply to your document on reducing Harewood Rd to one lane, I think this is ludicrous to say the least. Harewood Rd is as you know one of the main routes to the airport and is already a race track, hardly anybody keeps to the speed limit, except I'd say the people that live on it. And if you were to take it down to one lane it would be even more dangerous, maybe you'd be better considering taking out the medium strip and the trees which are ? anyway, the leaves are not biodegradable in the garden and they block up the gutters. Its hard enough getting out of ones drive as it is with two lanes just imagine what it would be like with one. In my opinion the whole thing is crazy.. You obviously don't live on Harewood Rd. And why on earth would you even consider constructing a built up kerb at the junction of Harewood & Crofton Rd its hard enough coming out of Crofton Rd onto Harewood Rd now with 2 lanes and that would make it almost impossible.

Transport planners have advised that single-laning will adequately cope with forecasted traffic flows for the next 20 years Staff also advise that the proposed scheme is expected to reduce traffic speed along this stretch of Harewood Road as well as providing other safety benefits for all road users. Also the main traffic flow will be further out from kerb and should therefore make it easier for people to exit from their driveways. Staff recommend that that proposed buildout at the Harewood Road / Crofton Road intersection be constructed as it will improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians crossing this intersection by slowing down the speed of turning traffic.


13




HR030 Hamish Frizzell (N)

Y I consider the whole proposal a backward move. I drive down Harewood Road both ways and several time per day. At very few times of the day (apart from Saturday Sport days) are there many cars parked in the already available car park lane. The road is used extensively by people going to and from the airport, and any number of cycle lanes is not going to encourage these people to deliver passengers to airport on cycles. I would be interested to know the vehicle count on Harewood Rd compared to the cycle count. This sector of road should remain 2 lane each way and have its speed limit lifted to 60km/h, as per Memorial Ave.

Staff advise that the primary purpose of this project is to address safety concerns at the Harewood Rd / Breens Rd / Gardiners Rd Intersection and this requires the reduction in the number of traffic lanes to be able to accomplish this. Staff advise that a cycle count has been undertaken recently and shows moderate to low usage, however it is hoped that the proposed cycle facilities will encourage more cyclists to use this route. Vehicle counts along this section range between approx 13,000 vpd and 16,000 vpd Staff recommend that the existing 50 km/h speed limit be retained as any increase is likely to increase likelihood and severity of accidents.


HR031 Maurice Wickes (N)

N Refer to P.2 of attachment 1 a) Reduction of traffic lanes from 2 to 1 in each direction will cause congestion at peak hour traffic flows and I consider it to be a backward step leave the 2 lanes in each direction. b) The markings of cycle lanes 1.8m wide of Harewood Rd between Highstead Rd and Nunweek Blvd; is this really necessary? Has a count of cyclists using the above section of Harewood Road been undertaken? Form the writers observation barely a cyclist can be seen using this section of road. g) Existing stops signs on Breens and Gardiners Raods has the installation of a Round-a-bout been considered to enhance the flow of traffic? i) Informail left turn slip from Corfton Road: I would prefer to have this slip turn left in place as it eases Crofton Road Traffic into the Harewood Rd Carriageway

Transport planners have modelled the proposed reduction in traffic lanes along this stretch of Harewood Road and have advised that it is not expected to make it more difficult for motorists to turn into and out from side streets. A cycle count has been undertaken recently and shows moderate to low usage, however it is hoped that the proposed cycle facilities will encourage more cyclists to use this route. Staff advise that without the proposed cycle lanes, the proposed 3.5m wide traffic lane would become much wider (ie 5.3m wide), which would encourage traffic to travel faster. The proposed cycle lane will also cater for future sustainable transport needs.


14




Staff advise that a roundabout would need equal traffic flow from all directions to be effective and would present other safety issues, particularly for cyclists. Property purchase may also be required, which would significantly affect project costs. As such Staff do not recommend a roundabout at this intersection. Staff recommend that that proposed buildout at the Harewood Road / Crofton Road intersection be constructed as it will improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians crossing this intersection by slowing down the speed of turning traffic.

HR032 Pauline & Bill Uhr (Y)

N Issue 2 Relocation of Bus Stop My husband and I fully endorse your proposed changes to Harewood Rd. Our only objection is to the proposed relocation of the bus stop outside our house. We had this as a terminal many years ago, having moved here 52yrs. Lack of privacy as we live on that side of the house, living vandalised with houses, cans the grafitti No parking for family on funds as on Sarchies Rd are portage is too close to Compulsary stop. We are only 6 feet from our kitchen, living room etc to Footpath. Too close to cause a traffic hazard. Avon kindly installed gates to stop vandals jumping our fence & present bus stop outside the Avon Church gates as no one is affected there. I can only urge further consultation on this proposed change. Thank you.

Staff confirm that this bus stop may be retained in its existing location (in front of the Orion substation) rather than be relocated as shown on the consultation plan.

The panel is recommending that this project does not proceed. As a result there will be no change to the present location of the bus stop.

HR033 Patricia Ann Lewis (Y)

N I strongly support option 1 for Harewood Rd. This option would certainly result in decreased speeds down Harewood Rd. At the moment, traffic travelling at 50km/h (the posted speed) is continuously overtaken by faster traffic making crossing or turning into Harewood Rd from side streets problematic, especially as it is often difficult to determine which lane traffic on Harewood Rd is using. As regards the cycle lane, I would ask that you consider placing the cycle lane on the outside. This would mean parking cars would not need to cross the cycle lane, and dorrs opened without due care would result in cyclists being pushed toward the berm, not into traffic. Please also consider a 'give way' sign for Trafford St. Many dirvers waiting

General support for the proposed scheme is noted. Staff advise that locating the cycle lanes to the left of on-street parking presents other issues. In particular more space is required at intersections, which could result in further loss of parking as well as the possibility that some motorists may be inclined to park in the cycle lane towards the kerb.

Comments on this submission noted.

15




to turn right form Harewood Rd into Trafford St do not understand that they have priority over traffic turning right from Trafford St into Harewood Rd.

Staff note concerns raised with turning at the Trafford St intersection and recommend a review of the controls after completion of the proposed project.

HR034 Russell & Mavis Claughton (N)

Y Width reduction of Harewood Rd will slow traffic flows to other feeder outlets. This will raise pollution levels, there is already cycle lanes being used by parked vehicles, which should be in off street house areas. Narrowing Harewood Rd, will increase danger to ALL user. Already pedestrian protectors have been damaged by heavy & light vehicles (ie driving blinded by bright sunshine. The proposed changes contradict E.Can Policies of clean air, a better plan for foot people would be pedestrian crossings (more flexible) and less expensive to RATE PAYERS. I am sending a photocopy of my submission to Rodney Hide & ECan, for consultation. Centre Road Protectors should be painted white and have reflectors for night time. Proposals point to short sightedness of CCC Engineers who will be held responsible for injuries or fatalities arising from the alterations.

Staff advise that the existing parking lane cannot be shared as a cycle lane under present legislation. The proposed scheme seeks to provide a number of safety benefits for all road users which includes improving pedestrian and cycling provisions, as well as reducing traffic speeds. The provision of better cycling facilities is in line with the Council’s strategy to provide sustainable transportation for the future. Staff request the Hearing Panel to clarify with submitted what is meant by the comment “Centre Road Protectors should be painted white and have reflectors for night time” The proposed scheme has been reviewed by an independent safety auditor and their comments have been incorporated into the scheme that has been circulated for feedback.


HR035 Janet Orchard (N)

N I am both a cyclist and motorist and my submission is based on years of travelling along these roads by both means. Re: Reduction of traffic lanes from two to one in each direction on Harewood Road The existing two lanes of traffic in each direction should not be reduced to one lane, but retained in their present form. Reducing the number of lanes would severely compromise access from side streets or driveways. People would take more risks to try and merge with moving traffic.

Transport planners have modelled the proposed scheme and have advised that the reduction in traffic lanes is not expected to make it more difficult for motorists to turn into and out from side streets.

The panel supports the retention of the existing number of traffic lanes in Harewood Road. Traffic issues associated with Bishopdale Mall referred to staff.

16




An example of this risky behaviour is evident in the traffic build-up and behaviour of traffic trying to turn right onto Harewood Road (one lane) from Woolridge Road, (especially at rush hour), or in trying to gain access to Harewood Road (either direction) from ‘The Greens Vegetable Shop’ opposite Nunweek Park. The narrowing of the road (Harewood) outside Bishopdale Mall by removal of the dividing centre line, and the inclusion of a plan (not coloured) cycle lane in the past, has made it more dangerous to turn onto Harewood Road from the ‘Mall Lane’. Traffic coming from around the roundabout had sped up and now crosses the lanes as it passes. Before, traffic coming around the roundabout stayed in the right hand lane enabling left turning traffic for the ‘Mall Lane’ to enter Harewood Rd. Cyclists continued to use the left hand lane as they always had, traffic giving way as necessary. This pattern would be repeated if the lanes are reduced down Harewood Rd. Harewood Rd works well as a major arterial route in its current form, (probably the only one in the city that does operate at its design parameters). Re: Widening of the central median at the intersection to improve pedestrian crossing and relocation of existing pedestrian refuges on Harewood Road closer to the Breens-Gardeners-Harewood intersection and new kerb build outs. Pedestrians should not be crossing the central median at the intersection. Crossing closer to the intersection would be dangerous. The should not be relocated. The existing crossing points are wide enough and are in the right place. There should be ‘no stopping’ chevrons, or a marked pedestrian crossing, or coloured road surface at the crossing points, as well as railings on the median strip, as at present, they are difficult to see from the motorists’ (and pedestrians’) point of view. Relocating the existing Bus Stop closer to the Gardiners Road Intersection would also be dangerous, as would putting new kerb build-outs on the

Staff advise that addressing turning issues associated with Bishopdale Mall is outside the scope of this project. Staff note comments and advise that the existing crossing points are not on a crossing desire line. Staff confirm that this bus stop may be retained in its existing location rather than be relocated

17




Breens, Gardiners and Harewood Road intersections. This would put people right out into the roadway. Harewood Rd is not a narrow suburban side street but a major arterial route. Any child (or adult) waiting here would be at more risk. Children especially, are prone to dash across roads and would be more likely to take, what would appear to them, to be a lesser risk due to the narrowing of the distance to cross. They would be wrong. Re: The marking of cycle lane, 1.8m wide, on both sides of Harewood Road Cycle traffic is not so high on the existing road so narrow that dedicated lanes are required. The existing parking lanes are usually relatively empty, and available for cycling. Re: Existing stop signs on Breens and Gardiners Roads Probably useful. The entire Harewood Rd intersection at Breens-Gardiners should be painted with yellow, no stopping hatching, judging from existing traffic behaviours Re: Installation of tactile pavers in the median and pedestrian crossing points at the Breens-Gardiners-Harewood intersection This would help reinforce the use of current crossing points for pedestrians. A different colour to the road surface (or pedestrian markings) across the road would assist the motorists. Re: Construction of a kerb build-out at the junction of Harewood Road and Crofton Rd to remove the informal left turn slip from Crofton Rd. No kerb build-out. It should be left as it is. The informal left turn slip only occurs because the stopping line from Crofton Road was pushed forward into Harewood Road.

as shown on the consultation plan. Staff advise that road controlling authorities are not allowed to provide shared cycle / parking lanes under present legislation. Staff do not recommend painting the entire intersection in yellow hatching as this would distract motorists from other line markings. Staff do not recommend painting coloured surface across the carriageway at crossing points as this may give pedestrian the impression they have priority over motorists. Staff recommend that that proposed buildout at the Harewood Road / Crofton Road intersection be constructed as it will improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians crossing this intersection by slowing down the speed of turning traffic. Staff confirm that the proposed scheme does not change the existing central grass median. Staff advise that changing the speed restrictions has been reviewed and a report being submitted to Board / Council recommends to retain existing

18




Other Points: The current grass centre median should not be reduced in size. The signs reducing speed from 70kph to 50kph on the north lane of Harewood Rd should be moved further west to the curve in Harewood Road at the side opposite the Nunweek Park Boundary, near Kilmuir Lane. This would mean that traffic approaching the Crofton Road intersection would be travelling much slower, before that reach the intersection. To increase the safety of school children at the Breens, Gardiners and Harewood Road intersection, the installation of flashing speed reduction signs, such as are used outside the Harewood Primary School, could be deployed on Harewood Rd (and Breens-Gardiners Roads if necessary). Used at the beginning and end of the school day, this General submission - I object to the Proposal

posted speed limits. Staff advise that the existing grass median will not be reduced in size as part of the proposed scheme. Staff advise that the issues associated with the 70km/h speed limit zone is outside the scope of this project and is being considered separately. Staff advise that a 40 km/h school zone is not justified at this location and is therefore not recommended.

HR036 Brian Le Fevre (N)

N General submission - I object to the Proposal 1. Cost at $240,000 - poor value - very low cycle use. 2. Perceived safety solution - better options possible. 3. Objective to decrease vehicle speeds - 70kph zone West ignored - very dangerous at Nunweek park. 4. Proposal isolation solution only - risk remains to all 'feeder' routes including schools (2 No) 5. Money would provide 24,000 safety vests at $10 each 6. Main risk is visibility to motorists - safety vests would achieve this on ALL roads 7. Schools were (and still should be) main cycle users 8. Until comprehensive data is available on vehicle journeys - work commuting by cycle versus public transport versus provate cars is totally subjective. Present evidence is visual - cycling is very low use.

Staff note comments raised. Staff advise that a cycle count has been undertaken recently and shows moderate to low usage, however it is hoped that the proposed cycle facilities will encourage more cyclists to use this route. Staff advise that the issues associated with the 70 km/h speed limit zone is outside the scope of this project and is being considered separately. The reduction in the number of traffic lanes is expected to reduce vehicle speeds and improve compliance with the posted speed limit of 50km/h. Staff understand that Harewood Road is perceived as a major obstacle for many school

19




children cycling and walking to schools in the area. Whilst providing safety vests makes cyclists more visible, the proposed scheme is expected to produce a safer environment for this group of road users. Visibility of cyclists improved by having dedicated cycle lanes and a single traffic lane makes easier for other road users to understand the position of vehicles on the road.

HR037 Michael Orchard (N)

Y Please acknowledge by return, receipt of this submission. I will also post a printed copy. Formal Submission on proposed Harewood Road Cycle Lane MICHAEL ORCHARD Hearing Note: I wish to discuss the main points in my written submission at the hearings to be held during week of Monday 2 November (but not sure if able to get over then -will be over at Labour Weekend and probably also the week following the above- please schedule me in and I will then advise). This is a personal submission. 1.0 CREDENTIALS My name is Michael Orchard. I was born at our Reference Property - 386 Harewood Road and have lived there or regularly used transport there for most of my 60 years of life. I have walked, biked, motor biked, motored, and am still regularly using the family property (now owned by my sister Janet Orchard) for making motor and trailer journeys out of and back in to that entrance. We have taken a strong interest in the many changes over the years and accommodated these. My wife and I use regularly all of the road parts and public shops mentioned, including having friends and relatives in both Gardeners Road and Breens Road requiring vehicle use.

Detailed comments noted. The panel is recommending that this project does not proceed.

20




2.0 BASIC CONCERNS Whilst I could comment on many aspects: My main concern is the Harewood/Breens/Gardeners Road intersection, which is highly dangerous for crossover traffic from the side roads (left turning traffic is easy, and right turning traffic is partly better off because of the double lanes), Plus equally the proposal to single lane this busy main road, which seems like madness, and which I therefore strongly oppose! The only Credible Solution here for both (and also the only one that will be really safe for cyclists) is Traffic Lights! 3.0 WHAT CURRENTLY WORKS WELL Also I will comment that other than the aforementioned crossing, all of the rest of the road components along the entire length work really well and should not be changed! Examples Highsted Road corner’s twin lanes separated going to town are good (going east) Cotswold Avenue junction works well (both ways) - but only because double lane allows space for west tuning traffic (main Harewood west moving users keep in left lane) New World turn in at Bishopdale works Ok - again only because single lane expands into two here and fast traffic coming out of the roundabout, veers to centre fast lane, allowing slower west turning traffic out from car parks (from a standing start) to stay left and safely gather speed. - Leacroft Street same as Cotswold but in other direction (again works well because double lanes work well thinning out the traffic and main road travellers can see others turning on to it and shift lanes to accommodate them!) - Crofton Road and Trafford St intersections work well as is, again

Signalisation of this intersection has been considered however the costs for this were assessed to be significantly higher (Approx $500k) and therefore cannot be accommodated within the funding allocated for this project. Furthermore the assessment of the returns on this investment concluded these were low and would therefore be unlikely to receive funding from NZTA. As such staff do not recommend signalisation of this intersection. Staff advise that no changes are proposed to the Highsted Rd Roundabout, and issues associated with turning out from Bishopdale Mall is outside the scope of this project. No changes are being proposed to intersection controls at Cotswold Ave.

21




because there is plenty of space from double lanes thinning out arriving traffic from the west, with slower or turning traffic going east keeping left and faster traffic wanting to move on to their destination staying in the faster central lane. - This natural separation by having 2 lane roads makes for easy safe driving behaviour, which drivers generally maintain along this whole road length. (Same happens to drivers attitudes coming out of the Bishopdale Junction going west) - My submission is ALL ROUND apart from the above mentioned intersection of Breens/ Gardiners Road HAREWOOD ROAD IS GENERALLY A VERY SAFE AND HIGHLY FUNCTIONAL ROAD AS IT IS AND THIS SHOULD NOT BE MUCKED AROUND WITH! (If there is a specific problem then fix that, and not get it illogically intertwined with some grandiose idea of national cycleways, which this short stretch of road surely cannot be a key part!) It will likely be a cheaper option in the long run anyway! 4.0 COUNCIL’S PRESENTATION OF PROPOSAL INFORMATION I congratulate the Council on its comprehensive information that is available on -line! But many people including my sister at 386 Harewood Road cannot access this as they do not have computers and work out in country and cannot get to Council Offices in Working Hours to get all the necessary information. Now I may be wrong (only brief glance of my sisters posted copy) but my concern is that the local residents would appear not to have been delivered the more detailed Section 155 options, so they could realize that there really were a lot of choices to be properly considered, that would have allowed the excellence traffic functionality of Harewood Road to be maintained as it is, as well as looking at options for improving cycle safety additionally. I refer specifically to traffic light possibilities. Council therefore must be castigated for not presenting in its formal information summary the fact that traffic light options are on the line for possible installation if support was shown (I can see no reference to it).

Staff recommend that that proposed buildout at the Harewood Road / Crofton Road intersection be constructed as it will improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians crossing this intersection by slowing down the speed of turning traffic. Staff advise that the last page of the Consultation Brochure mentions that further info pertaining to the proposed byelaw amendment

22




There should have been a genuine choice option which could have include retention of the double lanes plus installation of traffic lights! All 4 options for this busy main road change should have been presented fully to the people (astoundingly Council seems to have decided that there other 3 options would be too expensive, yet no costing information is given whatsoever, and they have only presented one that favoured their presumably internal staff only cycle way concept!) 5.0 PRINCIPLE PURPOSE OF THESE ROADS MUST BE MAINTAINED Council by its own summary in the documents recognizes Harewood Road as a busy “Main Arterial Road” and it has always been planned this way over a long period of time! Accordingly it has been designed this way and works very functionally for this purpose. My submission is therefore that nothing should be changed that detracts from this purpose. No information is given as to the motorized traffic density in relation to cycle numbers, but it must be 100’s of times that of any perceived cycle use, and is thus much more important for full motorised traffic use to be an efficient economically functioning city asset. This high density traffic very efficiently uses this presently twin laned road in a pretty safe and quick manner ( a function of its wide road, long views and ability to change lanes in or out for the traffic to turn and flow with ease). My submission is that it is inconceivable that Council seeks to decrease vehicle speeds and as a consequence highway efficiency) and I am, and I am sure other using motorists would be totally opposed to this. Notes;- The efficiency of traffic movement in Christchurch of recent years is becoming appalling, not just at rush hours now but virtually throughout all the day! Papanui Road, Main North Road. Johns Road near The Groynes are all hopeless for driving and engine efficiency, causing lots of pollution and time loss affecting the economy, plus increasing frustrations of motorists, and increasing their chance of risk taking causing accidents). My submission again is that it is inconceivable that Council (for whatever reason it is putting forward) would seek to put all that two lane traffic

was available upon request online via the Council’s website, at libraries and service centres, or by phoning the Council (to have this info sent by mail). Staff advise that the purpose of the consultation was on the preferred option only, as presented. Whilst several options involving traffic signals were previously considered, Staff decided not to pursue these options on the grounds of the significant additional costs involved and that it was assessed that it would be unlikely to get funding from NZTA.. Transport planners have advised that single-laning will adequately cope with forecasted traffic flows for the next 20 years. A cycle count has recently been undertaken and show moderate to low usage, however it is hoped that the proposed cycle facilities will encourage more cyclists to use this route. Transport planners have modelled the proposed scheme and have advised that the reduction in traffic lanes is not expected to make it more difficult for motorists to turn into and out from side streets.

23




especially on the many busy periods during the day, onto one lane, really slowing down the whole flow of traffic enormously, which I am totally opposed too and as a consequence traffic density problems of the type mentioned in my note will occur here as well). 6.0 IMPORTANT FUNCTIONING PROCESS OF TWIN LANE ROADS SHOULD BE RETAINED Council has given no evidential understanding of why its original engineers and planners designed Harewood Road and others to be twin lane roads in the first place. Nor of the huge sunk cost of asset value that this represents. To change this twin lane plan now will devalue the purpose for which this road was created and therefore its economic return paybacks! My submission notes the following positive behaviours on Harewood Road (from over the last 20 years of driving observations there) that support reasons for my submission points and the retention of the status quo! - Drivers appreciate and are sensibly using safely the twin lanes safely at present. - Faster drivers tend to drive in the centre lanes, and slower ones in outer lanes. - This allows for sensible and easy passing behaviour of slower cars, and equally slower cars to pull in to a drive or slow down for left corners safely. - It conversely provides easy access out of driveways or from side roads into the nearest lane, without interfering with total traffic flow. - Because of long sight distances a great many regular considerate drivers especially pull over to the centre lane when they see a car wanting to access on to the main road (into the side lane), thus allowing one out quickly. [Unfortunately there are still a few with their brains in neutral, who have no idea how or why to pull over and allow even better optimal use of the roads).

Staff advise that Council seeks to ensure motorists travel within posted speed limits. Staff advise that this section of Harewood Rd was 4 laned around 1965 based on the understanding on future transportation needs at that time. Due to issues such as climate change, supply of oil etc, present understanding of future transportation needs have now changed and it can be expected there will be a shift to more sustainable modes of transport in the future including cycling, walking and public transport. The proposed scheme will facilitate some of these requirements. It should also be noted that the proposed scheme predominantly comprises of new line markings.

24




- When exiting from 386 Harewood Road we have to back out with the cars or come out forward with the trailer (both actions take time) meaning you are stationary for a period in a lane when backing; or going out with a full trailer can only be done more slowly so the rubbish laden trailer does not bounce on curb edges! Entry into a single lane would make this much more difficult and slow process all round! My submission is that also that because of the greater density of cars in a single lane, there will also be greater difficulty and greatly increased time for traffic turning from side roads, which is an her negative effect of this Council proposal for a single lane, and so I am further opposed to it! It should be abundantly clear to planners and staff that mathematically if there is one lane, traffic will be twice as dense along it instead of being spread over two lanes. That will much more than halve the opportunity for a car to turn from a side road to the main road (compared with present “lane floating possible” now). Further with the opposing lanes travelling along the main road in both directions twice as dense and going much slower (as a consequence of higher density travel giving more nose to tail travel), then crossing a road to turn into the opposite lane will be much more difficult because there will be fewer gap opportunities. This effect will be maximized at the critical Breens /Gardeners Road junction where with only one lane, each way, with the increased traffic density in these lanes it will be no easier to make a full side road to side road crossing than at present (I believe it will actually make it more difficult to find a gap = longer waiting time). Hence real overall improvements in safety and vehicle crossing efficiency (including of cyclists) can only be achieved with traffic lights. 7.0 CYCLE WAYS I have no objection in principle to cycleways, and generally think they are a good idea (I used to ride my own bike to Harewood School and back). [I will note general points on this proposed cycleway along Harewood Road later near the end of my submission.]

Staff advise that as the traffic flow will be further out from kerb it should be easier for people to exit from their driveways.

25




However Council in its general Brochure and project information sheet gives only a general reasons for a cycle strategy for the area and my submission is that these are not sufficiently important to justify the loss of the twin laned function of the major arterial link of Harewood Road. It is only in Attachment 1, possibly not circulated to residents in their envelopes (see my earlier notes on this) that would purport to give the real reason for this being a proposal by Breens Intermediate School, to its perceived pupil pedestrian and cycle crossings problem at the Breens/Harewood Road corner. My submission is that I object to this proposal on this basis and that Council has provided no evidence that gives a detailed breakdown of how many school pupils bike or walk across this area daily (needs to be a proper survey with complete diagram and summary details plus maps and numbers of all the arrival/departure types and specific routes taken, plus other options available to them to avoid or minimise any danger points) It is essential that Council have such a chart to present to answer questions at any hearing ‘would you please send me these details now if you have them already please. My submission is there would have to be a very high individual and collective school pupil safety gain, to overcome the threshold of disruption that this proposal will cause to the current efficient movement of 12,000 vehicles along this main arterial route there! I cannot see how it could be justified on these grounds. l personally have not seen any cyclists (nor school pupils) crossing that road recently or really using Harewood Road either! By Council’s own report there has only been one cycle accident reported there in 10 years (and it does not say if that was caused by a third party vehicle.) I had two cycle accidents almost on that spot there myself when I was young and it was a 2 lane sealed road (one a bike malfunction when the mudguard wrapped around the front wheel collapsing it and quite badly hurting me, and the other when an overtaking car hit me and my bike head

Staff advise that a cycle bubble survey undertaken in 2005 at Breen Intermediate School showed that the Breens / Harewood / Gardiners intersection was the biggest safety concern to pupils. Cycle and pedestrian counts have recently been undertaken and shows moderate to low usage, however it is hoped that the proposed facilities will encourage more cyclists and pedestrians to use this route.

26




on sending me over his bonnet into the side of the road -no helmets in those days either.) In the latter the offending motorist was breaking the rules (Council should publish the full details of their one r recorded accident, plus any annotated actual incident concerns that the school may have to help our understanding of where any real problems might lie, and thus check out real solutions!) 7.1 Other Cycling Options From a quick look at the map, while I am not familiar with the overall Christchurch Cycle plan proposals at this moment. for the Breen s Intermediate School situation at the moment. it would appear that:- lsleworth Road provides a safe, straight attractive route to Farrington Avenue (and pedestrians or cyclists can cross at the pedestrian crossing to get to Highsed Road). Joining walkways (or use for cycleways) appear going in the other direction on my map from Hockey Street to Skyedale, or Charnwood Street to Harewood Road (on footpath to slip into Trafford St). Yes if you want to get across Harewood Road it is always difficult but Traffic Lights are the only answer here (needed for vehicles too). Once across this junction then Gardeners Road provides a safe cycling access to Fairford and Cardrome streets which access on to the apparently desired Highset Road again. My submission is that there are plenty of walk! cycle options around, without having to take out two whole vehicle lanes (presently carrying 6,000 vehicles or 3,000 each on average per day), so I am opposed to it on this basis. By contrast there is so little use of the footpath along Harewood Road that school pupils especially could use these for quite cycling on (and this would be much safer). They already ride down lanes like the one that goes past our place at 386 Harewood Rd to Kingrove St. And in many areas now ‘Walking Buses’ are a new concept many pupils with parent helpers use. Breens Intermediate could easily develop a code for pupils on bikes

Staff agree that this may be suitable for students living to the south of Harewood Rd however Breens Intermediate catchment area also extends to the north of Harewood Rd as far as Northwood. Staff advise that under current legislation it is illegal to cycle on a footpath.

27




who lived along Harewood Road, to safely ride on the footpath for short distances (but how many of these pupils are there?) In respect to general cycle ways I have yet to be shown an overall map and rationale that justifies good reasons for part of Harewood Road being an essential part of a Bigger Plan (can you post this information to me please!) 8.0 VEHICLE INTERSECTION SAFETY By Councils own figures in Attachment 1 there have been 37 reported vehicle crashes in 4 years, with 8 being at the Breens/Harewood/Gardeners intersection and my submission is this is a much more important aspect to concentrate on. With Gardeners and Breens also carrying more sub arterial traffic (with increasing housing construction in the locality and people looking for faster through bypass routes), this pressure will only increase. My submission here is that the inadequate budget for this project must be increased and traffic lights installed. One should add up the costs of those accidents already gone (and without change likely to occur again event 4 years in the future on average) and be proactive and justifiably add this monies justification to a traffic lights budget! This will also automatically solve the schools main concerns!! Whilst Council’s reports for options 2 or 3 relating to Traffic Light possibilities note “that nose-to-tail crashes are likely to increase’ this may be true, but is not quantified (could be very few) and would not likely be any different or worse than say Greer’s Road /Harewood Road intersection or any other one on a main road like Blenheim road, etc. My submission therefore is that this is not a logically valid reason for not implementing a traffic light option. Neither is the consideration of increased noise (Harewood Road already very noisy at peak periods if you live nearby as we do) from take off or stopping at lights (how is this different from any other set of lights?) Ideally these lights can be set on long Hare wood

Staff confirm that a copy of overall cycle network has been sent to this submitter as requested. Staff advise that the NZTA Crash Database shows an additional 13 recorded accidents from Dec 2007 to date on this section of Harewood Rd. Three of these were at the Breens / Gardiners intersection and three were at the Highsted Rd roundabout. It is understood that all these accidents were due to driver error and not factors associated with the design of the road. Presently there is no funding allocated to provide traffic lights and priority has to be given to other intersections in the city with more serious safety issues. Assessment for installing traffic signals takes into consideration accident history.

28




Road green runs, with more occasional car triggered (or pedestrian/cycle push buttons) green light periods on side streets. Restriction of Parking should not be considered an issue as their is miles of road for this, even if they need another minutes walk, and there are parks on the side roads around the corner and they all have their own driveways (it is not Wellington windy street hill country!) Increasing Safety at the site, whilst keeping current two lane flow capability must be the main objective! 9.0 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OPTIONS FOR HAREWOOD ROAD This is an important topic as part of these general proposals. I support anything done to make this safer, except single laning of the main road, here at the Breens/Gardeners Road Junction. Existing use by the few (I have never seen anyone else cross road much) is when coming back from shops or bus, too cross to north side by judging traffic easily to cross between, first to the big wide safe tree lined avenue, then the same again to the far side. Traffic lights are the only real answer at the junction if overall use and problems seem to be so high (and users would then have three main places to decide to cross Hare wood Road, with this point then being the most safe (also have special places at Bishopdale and Trafford Street where shops). Failing that my submission is I support any pedestrian improvements here (that do not reduce lane numbers). My submission further is that if it is this point is regarded so important to the school for pedestrian and possibly walked school bike crossing, then a proper PEDESTRIAN CROSSING should be additionally installed. Also traffic police could more. regularly do speed enforcement here (recently they regularly used to hide on our property behind the hedge of 386 Harewood Road, with their hand held speed guns and teams of 3 with one measuring, one waving down offenders and a car down the road to

Staff advise that the current low pedestrian usage, does not achieve warrant for a formal pedestrian crossing at this location. Staff advise that residents are encouraged to notify the Police regarding concerns with speeding motorists and request enforcement. Council has a speed trailer available, which can be used throughout the city on a temporary /

29




ticket them - I think they set it at a 60 kph trigger -about average for good traffic flows around town now!) [I remember ridiculous early days in my youth when traffic officers would give older car drivers tickets for a leisurely 33 mph Saturday afternoon drive down Papanui Road] My submission is regularly parked “show your speed” trailers could be placed on the road edges again or at School time it could become a Special 40KPH Flashing Light School Zone like at Hare wood School and on the West Coast. Surely this is the best way for the traffic to be slowed and take note when needed. **In deciding this pedestrian option Council must first evaluate how well the similar Highsted Junction /Bishopdale one works. It would appear to me that this would have a higher person and bike crossing density, and while working well for the divided twin lane on the Service Station Side, I fail to see how people cross safely from the New world Side, even though it is single lane (as lines of sight are short, cars race around here, and the view with trees on the Roundabout is distracting!) My formal submission here additionally for maximum safety is that, in a retained twin lane option (if no traffic lights), there be no cycleway on Harewood Road, but that all spare space be used to put a fully engineered divided twin lane option (mimicking Bishopdale one on Service Station side). This to be on both sides of Harewood Road, as well as a centre crossing point as shown on your plan (and this be supported by the devices mentioned above) This needs to be built on only one side for efficiency and cost minimization and best lines of sight, being EAST side of Breens/Gardeners Junction on Harewood Road. Cont'.... .. 10.0 PROPOSED OPTION COSTING In undertaking costing of these options Council .m .t. not regard them in isolation, nor previous costs as sunk costs (presumably they are being depreciated, and still justifying the efficient and safe traffic flow reasons for which they have been put in!) My submission is that the cost of a traffic light option must be regarded only as the final construction safety chapter

rotation basis. School Zone is not warranted at this location. Staff advise that addressing the turning issues at Bishopdale Mall is outside the scope of this project.

30




for this road, and the % of this in the overall Hare wood Road Construction Major Construction Project, including the Roundabout at Bishopdale, and the Twin Laned Harewood Road with median strip and plantings etc, which must be all CPI adjusted to today’s prices, and considered against this overall background. This will show that the Traffic Light option is relatively cheap, and if not able to be afforded now, the project should be postponed till money from an annual rates pool builds up (how many Flower Shows and Developer land purchases could we have forgone if Council is genuine about safety concerns at this key intersection?) Additional Annual Plan Supplementary Expenditure must be considered if required and important! Further no proper costed options for any are given by Council (and appallingly the public are not even given any physical options to consider, but just asked to comment on one proposed option). This is appalling disregard of due democratic process and more importantly common sense! My. first submission here is that options retaining Two Lanes each side only be considered with crossing safety and traffic efficiency fully overriding any suggestions of “nice to have cycle ways”. (generally with the space available these are mutually incompatible and with traffic lights installed other cycle routes have been identified). My further economic submission is that costing cannot be made on the costs of traffic lights alone, but take account of the following correct long term items: (I) Existing road structure will be generating an efficiency of economic effort, which must be costed and given a value. Safety deficiencies (cost of accidents can be deducted from this value.) (II) The Single proposal put forward in the Brochure must be costed, but the increased cost of extra works plus economic value lost because of the slowing and inefficiency of traffic movement must be added. There are still safety deficiencies in this proposal to be deducted, (despite all the too be costed items of expenditure). (III) Item (I) existing road structure benefits with addition of a traffic light

31




option only should be costed as the preferred option on my submission recommendation (all cycle way preparation costs to be excluded - these should separated out for noting in a stand alone capacity only). No safety deductions have to be costed here, except for a small nose and tail crash component.) (IX) Then the full cost of (III) can be bought to the table and the necessary marginal extra cost (if any) calculated and the full Council Support sought for the additional funds sought for Traffic Lights, (or monies saved, and existing funds banked, with the proposal deferred until the necessary full amount was available) 11.0 COUNCIL SUBMITTED OPTION MODIFICATION NEEDED Although I am totally opposed to this Single Lane Option Proposal, if it (unfortunately) went ahead. there are some key points of modification in relation to best space use and safety that need to be made! 11.1 Car parking lanes are too narrow for safety (here and on other new roads). Just look at the from behind view - right wheels are virtually on the painted white lines - when you open your car door you have to open it wide into the traffic lane -very dangerous, and then you have to step out into this traffic and sidle along your car to the end, all actually on the busy road way. At least double lanes allow driver to see you and react by moving over further to their right!) 11.2 Bike lanes if added would be just as dangerous to both motorist and cyclist for it is very hard to detect a fast moving cyclist in the rear vision mirror especially as they get close. It is the classic quick open of the door and catch them on it! Cars are much easier to see in the mirror, and they can move over easier whereas most cyclists don’t and they are often wanting to keep close to the line away from the traffic. Bike lanes should be further moved out from the carpark lane! 11.3 If cars had a single lane it must be moved further away from the road edge towards the median strip, to leave more room for car parking and cycle lanes, plus left turning lanes.

Staff advise that 2m parking lane is standard across the city and 1.8m cycle lane is proposed against parking lanes. This is consistent with national standards (AUSTROADS). Staff also note that parking demand is generally light on Harewood Road.

32




11.4 Valuable space must not be wasted adjacent the medium strips (no chevron markings should be painted there). The middle lane adjacent these is currently the faster traffic lane, and works fine with cars driving close to the medium strip -they should continue here! All spare space should be used to provide wider car parks on the road side (with safe door opening widths), and have the cycle lane be pushed further out, with a double or wider line separating this from the car lane, to focus the attention of motorists to its purpose! 11.5 Traffic Lights are an essential extra item for vehicle and person SAFETY at the Breens/ Gardeners Road corner!! Traffic Lights here will additionally give better time gaps at all other intersections mentioned, making the whole Harewood Road area safer. 12.0 MY SUMMARY (detailed line by line “Submission Statements” still uplifted from each Topic Statement please) 12.1 Totally Opposed to Loss of Current Twin Laned Harewood Road. 12.2 Therefore Cannot Support Council’s Current Proposal. 12.3 Efficient Current Use of Harewood Road Cannot Be Compromised By a Cycleway Proposal. (No Room!) 12.4 Breens Road School Issues are Entirely Unrelated And Must Not Be Considered For Decision Making In The Same Context. 12.5 Breens I Gardeners Road Junction Is An Unsafe Area and Traffic Lights should Be Installed Without Delay (Solves All Problems). 12.6 Plenty of Other Routes in the Area Would Make Good Cycleways (without losing 3,000 vehicle movements per lane day, over 2 lanes). 12.7 Chevrons Must Be Deleted from the Plan (and Carparking and Cycle Ways Widened Accordingly). Only if this option which I oppose went ahead! FOOTNOTE

Staff advise that a 0.6m wide median could be provided between the traffic lane and the cycle lane however this is not standard convention in New Zealand and needs to be agreed with NZTA, who have been contacted in this regard and their response is pending.

33




[Of historic interest Harewood Road was once the dray road to bring logs across the plains (went through Eyrewell Forest) from Harewood Forest (now Oxford Forest) at Oxford. In later years 349 Harewood Road on our opposite corner (previously Davidson’s), was once an Ostrich Farm 1900’s for ladies fashion feather trade, then NZ’s first Experimental Fruit Research Site, then a Fruit and Poultry farm (once with a large historic monkey puzzle outside until Council with its lack of tree management ability, sealed over the roots, and it died I still hold the large tree discs here to polish up for a District timeline history one day), then a Rest Home, and now NZ’s first Charity Hospital, so it is all important, including the median strip with its attractive oaks and daffodils. Future change, if needed and justified must be really functional and in keeping with the District’s Special Character!]

HR038 Sandra Robertson (Y)

N Great idea - dangerous at present for cyclist. Please advise where pedestrian crossing points will be. They need to be away from intersections and with some barrier protection, in particular the one closest to Highsted Rd round-a-bout between lanes which currently has no protection and leaves pedestrians very vulnerable. A number of students use Harewood Rd to bike to the YMCA which unfortunately is very dangerous for cyclist and pedestrians as no footpath or direct access (small area of footpath blocked by plants, shop, rubbish bins / cylinders etc - and an eyesore & disgrace for reasonably new buildings). Another issue may be, but please pass on. Making no parking along this side road, painted strip for cycling and clearing footpath may assist. (Plan attached)

Staff note support for the proposed scheme. Staff apologise for omitting the existing pedestrian crossings on the consultation plan, which will be amended accordingly. Staff note comments relating to Bishopdale Court however this is outside the scope of this project. Request for service lodged on behalf of submitter.

Submission comments noted.

HR039 Herb Familton (Y)

N This is fully supported. the current cycleway by the railway line should be extended to Northlands/Papanui High School as well.

Staff note support for the proposed scheme however extending scope to Northlands is excluded. Staff advise that the Cycling Strategy seeks to extend the cycle lanes along Harewood Rd towards the City however there is no funding allocated within the current LTCCP to do so.

Comments noted.

HR040 Dr Jeff Smith (Y)

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the consultation process for the proposed Harewood Road Cycle Lane. I moved my family to

Staff note support for the proposed scheme however extending scope to Northlands is

Comments noted.

34




Christchurch two years ago and cycle to work in ChCh city most days of the week. During my second cycle commute after moving here, I was struck by a careless motorist on Harewood Road but managed to maintain control. However, recently I was completely run down by a motorist who failed to give way at the southern end of Papanui Road. A week later, my wife was also run down by a car at the northern end of Papanui Road. We were both extremely fortunate to avoid serious injury. Both of us regard the Christchurch cycling experience as dangerous and risky, so any initiative to improve cyclist safety is applauded. To avoid Papanui Road, I now take a longer but safer route using the cycle way parallel to the railway lines. However, entering Harewood Road feels like running the gauntlet and I never feel safe. Therefore I support the proposed cycleway. My only request would be to please consider extending the cycleway to the intersection of the Main North Railway Line and Harewood Road, or at least to the Greers Road intersection. I regard the double lane section between Highsted Road and Greers Road as entirely dangerous, because the presence of parked cars requires cycling in the left hand motor vehicle lane; often while both lanes are full of traffic. Cars in the left hand lane are unable to enter the right hand lane and often refuse to slow while the cyclist is in the same lane. There is simply nowhere safe for the cyclist to go. Therefore, while I fully support the proposed cycle lanes between Nunweek and Highsted Road, I request consideration to extend the proposed cycle lane to the intersection of the Main North Railway Line, or at least to the Greers Road intersection. Thank you once again for considering my submission.

excluded. Staff advise that the Cycling Strategy seeks to extend the cycle lanes along Harewood Rd towards the City however there is no funding allocated within the current LTCCP to do so.

35




HR041 Kim Swarbrick (Y)

N I fully support the proposed plan to change Harewood Road down to one vehicle lane and add a minimum 1.8 cycle lane. Excellent idea. Within two years electric vehicles will be loose on our streets and silent motors will be silent killers of cyclists!! I fully applaud Council to take early action and provide safer cycling routes across the city that prepare for tomorrow's cars (and issues) not the problems of yesteryear. What about the current cycle campaign to change NZ law in regards to vehicles passing cyclists at a minimum of 1.5m distance. Does your new road plan allow for this safe passing distance with a wide enough road carriage way?

Staff note support for the proposed scheme. Staff advise that 1.5m clearance distance for passing cyclists is a requirement of current traffic regulations, regardless of whether or not there is acycle lane. The proposed cycle lane is 1.8m wide, which is in accordance with national standards.

36

37




HR042 Martin Carrell (N)

N I am opposed to the proposal as presented to change the Harewood Road layout between Highstead Road and Nunweek Boulevard for the following reasons. The plan: â?¢ will increase levels of motorist frustrations. â?¢ will reduce gaps in traffic lines diminishing opportunities for cross or merging traffic coming from side streets or individual houses. â?¢ does not show cost benefits outweighing the alternatives or even a status quo I support the proposal to introduce lights at the Breens/Gardeners Road intersection. I and my family use Harewood Road every day. Comments: As stated this is a major arterial route â?"so it should be kept this way enabling the flow of traffic. Most other cities around the country (and world) are finding additional space to increase lane capacity on arterial routes â?" so why give up something that is in place at the moment? This proposal has been promoted around improving â?~Cycle Safetyâ?T yet the records show there has been only 1 recorded cycle accident in the past 10 years. What research has gone into the reasons behind each of the motor vehicle accidents and effective remedial options to help address those issues? I believe the plan as proposed will only cause to create greater traffic woes that will lead to more frustrations and potentially to increased levels of poor driving and decision making. This has the potential to create greater levels of risks than this proposal seeks to elevate. Let me explain. At the moment cars travel along Harewood road often side by side. By forcing motorists into single lane this will create longer lines of traffic and reduce the gaps (both frequency and duration) that currently enable motorist, pedestrians and cycles to either cross Harewood Road or enter Harewood Road from side streets or individual properties. Added to this the plan includes proposals to add in other traffic management functions that further reduce the ability to enable traffic to move smoothly and without delay or frustration. An example of this is that the current road layout enables motor vehicles arriving at Harewood Road from Breens Road to pause side but side with one queue heading directly across into Gardeners Road (or turn right) with a second line of cars able

Transport planners have modelled the proposed scheme and have advised that the reduction in traffic lanes is not expected to make it more difficult for motorists to turn into and out from side streets. Signalisation of this intersection has been considered however the costs for this were assessed to be significantly higher (Approx $500k) and therefore cannot be accommodated within the funding allocated for this project. Furthermore the assessment of the returns on this investment concluded these were low and would therefore be unlikely to receive funding from NZTA. As such staff do not recommend signalisation of this intersection.




HR043 Georgina Hodges (N)

H My submission is on behalf of my family of four who have been residents of Clotilda Place Bishopdale for the past 8 years. We are opposed to the current proposal because of the following concerns/reasons: -We see that Harewood Road is deemed a main arterial road, carrying major sources of traffic to and from the airport and city and to the northern motorway. With the increased expansion of Christchurch Airport it would seem obscure to me that we would decrease the current Harewood Road to two lanes only. My concern is that cutting Hareword Road to two lanes would make it far more difficult for me to get from Leacroft Street onto Harewood Road. I would also propose for a give way sign to the installed on the Leacroft Harewood Road intersection (as often confusion comes from traffic turning right from Harewood Road into Leacroft Street as issues surrounding who gives way occurs frequently). -I see a better solution is option 2 the installation of traffic signals at the Breens Road Gardeners Road, Harewood Road intersection as this would allow students and others in the community to cross Harewood Road safety and would make it easier vehicle traffic to negotiate the intersection as well

Transport planners have modelled the proposed scheme and have advised that the reduction in traffic lanes is not expected to make it more difficult for motorists to turn into and out from side streets. Signalisation of this intersection has been considered however the costs for this were assessed to be significantly higher (Approx $500k) and therefore cannot be accommodated within the funding allocated for this project. Furthermore the assessment of the returns on this investment concluded these were low and would therefore be unlikely to receive funding from NZTA. As such staff do not recommend signalisation of this intersection.

The panel’s preference is for signals at this intersection if funding were available.

HR044 Janet Bayliss (N)

As a concerned rate payer, we have a wide welcoming road to and from the city which is to be narrowed down for some few people. If Breens school requested this in 2004, their school roll is 180 pupils most days here is 20 cycle in the stand, even on the side streets children are on the footpaths. We have a popular park Bishopdale Park and childrens play ground, which will lose their parking if this proposal goes ahead. Footpath between Nunweek and Bishopdale shops has always been dual Pedestrian and Cyclists until contractors have sealed over signage. Harewood Road traffic has increased, but flows during peak times and will increase once the airport extension are completed, we now have the press and Mail Centre out here. SUGGESTIONS: widen footpath by removing unkept weedy berms, use money for traffic lights at Harewood, Breens, Gardiners Rd. PLEASE LEAVE HAREWOOD ROAD AS IS.

Staff advise that only a few parking spaces will be removed at the intersection of Harewood Rd and Leacroft St. This is because of proximity to the intersection to provide good sightlines and the turn-out required from bus stop to comply with new standards for bus stops to accommodate longer vehicles. Signalisation of the Breens / Harewood / Gardiners intersection has been considered however the costs for this were assessed to be significantly higher (Approx $500k) and therefore cannot be accommodated within the funding allocated for this project. Furthermore the assessment of the returns on this investment concluded these were low and would therefore be unlikely to receive funding from NZTA. As


38




such staff do not recommend signalisation of this intersection. Staff recommend that the berms be retained as they provide segregation for pedestrians from the carriageway.

HR045 Robin Delamore (Y)

Y Thanks for the opportunity to make a submission on this special consultative procedure. Spokes strongly supports the provision of cycle lanes along Harewood Road between Highsted Road and Nunweek Boulevard. The project will assist local cyclists and school children, particularly those using the Breen's/ Gardiners Rd intersection. It is disappointing that cycle lanes are not being provided between the Highsted Road intersection roundabout and Greer's Road, as parking along on this dual carriageway section makes it extremely cycle unfriendly, particularly during periods of busy traffic. As such, it tends to create a barrier for cyclists wishing to travel between this part of Bishopdale to Papanui and beyond. Cycle lanes are also required on the section of Highsted Road from the roundabout to Sawyers Arms Rd as this section is narrow, and also carries busy fast traffic during peak periods. Spokes considers that there are several areas where the proposed cycle lane project could be improved. An issue with cycle lanes throughout the city is that often fail (at least in the minds of those using them) to provide sufficient separation between cyclists and passing cars, particularly when cars are parked on the inside of the lanes. This situation can cause discomfit, and put off less experienced riders. With the single lane-ing of Harewood Road, the road is being narrowed by the provision of a flush median adjacent to the raised central median. There is an opportunity to shift this median space away from the centre of the road and use it to provide additional separation between the cycle lane and other traffic. This approach has been used for cycle lanes in both Australia and the USA, and we would urge its consideration for this project. There is currently no provision in the design for cyclists heading SE who wish to access Bishopdale Mall (and facilities such as the supermarket

Staff advise the extending the cycling route is excluded from the scope of this project due to funding constraints. Staff advise that the Cycling Strategy seeks to extend the cycle lanes along Harewood Rd towards the City however there is no funding allocated within the current LTCCP to do so. Staff advise that a 0.6m wide median could be provided between the traffic lane and the cycle lane however this is not standard convention in New Zealand and needs to be agreed with NZTA, who have been contacted in this regard and their response is pending. Staff advise that addressing the turning issues at Bishopdale Mall is outside scope of this project.

Comments by Spokes noted. The panel is recommending that the proposed cycle way extension does not proceed but is interested in Spokes’ comments on how cyclists can be separated from motor vehicles to improve the safety of cyclists.

39




and the gym) at the Mall vehicular entrance and exist just before the roundabout (opposite No 330). The design of this intersection does not appear to have been developed with cyclists in mind and would be unfriendly and possibly dangerous, particularly with three lanes to cross. The intersection design needs to be re-thought with cyclists in mind. Traffic around the intersection of Harewood and Highsted Roads can be busy and fast, and the crossing and refuges on Harewood Road on the NW side of the Bishopdale roundabout are the only means by which less confident cyclists can gain access to Bishopdale Mall from Highsted Road and vice versa. The alternative is an intimidating trip around the multi-laned roundabout (particularly when traffic is heavy), or a difficult crossing of Harewood Road at the Mall vehicle entrance and exit discussed above. The profile of this crossing needs to be raised for cyclists. Cycle symbols should be provided on both sides. A section of red marking should be provided on the pavement on the north side of Harewood Rd to alert cyclists travelling SE to the presence of the crossing, and a hold rail provided at the crossing cutdown. A short section of cycle lane should also be provided on the wide section of footpath on the corner of Harewood and Highsted Roads to provide safe access back on to Highsted Road at the Caltex back entrance. The bus shelter on Harewood Road outside the Caltex Station also needs to be moved as this currently blocks sightlines for pedestrians and cyclists using this crossing. We would like to be heard in support of our submission. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any queries or require further information.

HR046 Stuart Mackintosh (N)

N Submission regarding the proposed Harewood Road Cycle Lane, on behalf of myself only. I do not wish to discuss my submission at the hearing. 1. Safety I recognise that the proposal improves safety for those cyclists who already use this section of road, however I am concerned that the overall

1. Staff advise that without the proposed cycle lanes, the proposed 3.5m wide traffic lane would become much wider (ie 5.3m wide), which would


40




impact on cyclist safety may be negative. This is because the installation of the cycle lane is likely to encourage additional cyclists to use a busy road. As a cyclist myself I am well aware that an on-road cycle lane provides no protection from errant motorists. I believe it would be safer to install cycle lanes on quieter streets or, preferably, off-road cycle lanes. 2. Traffic flow I'm concerned that reducing Harewood to a single lane in each direction will increase traffic congestion at peak times. Barely 20 years ago the road was widened to 4 lanes, presumably at substantial cost and because 4 lanes were necessary at the time. Since that time there have been many houses built in the Nunweek Park area and at the end of Harewood Road the land around the airport continues to be developed. Given these factors it is hard to see how traffic demand on Harewood Road could have decreased. I am worried that in the not too distant future rate payers will be faced with further costs to return Harewood Road to 4 lanes or widen other roads to cope with traffic demand that could have been accommodated by leaving Harewood Road as it is today

encourage traffic to travel faster and consequently increase the risk of accidents occurring. The proposed cycle lane will also cater for future sustainable transport needs. Current Council policy is that cycle lanes are not marked on Local roads and off-road cycle lanes are generally more expensive to construct. 2. Staff advise that this section of Harewood Rd was 4 laned around 1965 based on the understanding on future transportation needs at that time. Due to issues such as climate change, supply of oil etc, present understanding of future transportation needs have now changed and it can be expected there will be a shift to more sustainable modes of transport in the future including cycling, walking and public transport. The proposed scheme will facilitate some of these requirements. It should also be noted that the proposed scheme predominantly comprises of new line markings.

HR047 Thomas & Justine Frey (NI)

N Intersection: Breens, Gardeners & Harewood Rd My husband and I feel very strongly that lights need to be erected at this intersection. As it exists it can be extremely frustrating trying to cross 4 lanes of traffic and can often sit there for 5 minuted and waiting for a safe time to cross. Condensing traffic down to 2 lanes will create a more steady stream of traffic in both directions, leading to increasing frustration levels poor judgement calls and a dangerous environment for cyclists.


The panel’s preference is for signals at this intersection if funding were available.

41




Late submission

Brian Price Breens Intermediate School

N Our submission refers to the intersection of Harewood Road and Breens Road/Gardiners Road. We agree with the proposed changes as indicated on the plan and confirmed at the consultation meeting. We believe the changes will make crossing Harewood Road considerably safer for our students. The crossings are logical and meet the shortest possible route for our students to follow. Well done.

Staff note support for proposed scheme. Comments noted. The panel’s preference is for signals at this intersection if funding were available to improve the safety of pupils crossing the busy breens-Harewood-Gardiners intersection to and from school.

Late submission

Alex Drysdale

NA I am making this late submission because I did not realize that submissions were being called for on Harewood Road as I was primarily interested in the proposed cycle lanes in Madras and Barbadoes Street. I understand that you are not required to give consideration to late submissions but ask that you at least look at is it may be helpful in some respects. I would like to discuss my submission at the hearings if there is a space available. I am making the submission on my own behalf. My submission refers to the Cross Section A on Drawing Issue 2, 29/04/09 TP311401 MJR 500941 which refers to the general layout of parts of the road that have parking. It is not my intention to redesign the whole road but to suggest in general the cycle lane should be next to the existing curb and car parking be next to the carriage way. By doing this the parked cars become the barrier between the fast moving vehicles and the bicycles, the existing curb becomes the barrier between the cycles and the pedestrians. The remaining issue is how to address the car door opening zone. It could be argued that we now have two dangerous door opening zones - one on each side of the car. By parking the cars at an angle of 20 degrees to the roadway a "safe door opening zone" is created on each side of the car without sacrificing too much road width.

This submission was not received until 30 November. The submitter used an incorrect email address on 5 October 2009.

42




Meeting NZ Transport Agency

Paul Roberts (CCC Network Planning) mentioned that CCC will be looking to review the road hierarchy in the City Plan and as part of this Harewood Rd would likely become a Primary Distributer, which is in between the present Minor Arterial and Major Arterial status. Even with future planning projections it is expected that traffic volumes on Harewood Rd would remain below 20,000 vpd. Paul added that Sawyers Arms Rd currently carries more traffic than Harewood Rd and would likely become an Urban Arterial (equivalent to Major Arterial). Traffic signals are also being considered for the Northcote / Sawyers Arms intersection. Tony Spowat (NZTA) commented that his main concern was with the status of Harewood Rd in the City Plan, but if CCC was seeking to revise the status then he was reasonably comfortable with the proposed scheme. Tony added that he would like to be involved in CCC’s Hierarchy Review He also mentioned the possibility of a link road being a built to Macleans Island Rd from the new NZ Post Mail Centre at the Airport as NZTA is proposing to make the SH1 / Macleans Island Rd intersection left-in-left-out.

Views of NZTA noted.

Meeting Christchurch International Airport Ltd

I have had Traffic Design Group carry out a review of the proposal for Harewood Road and I am assured that the proposal will not have a notable impact on accessibility to the Airport and that likely traffic volumes can be accommodated within the two lane road as proposed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment . Ken McAnergney Manager Airport Planning CIAL.

Views of CIAL noted.

43




44

Joint seminar – Fendalton/ Waimairi & Shirley/ Papanui Community Boards 14 Dec 2009 at Fendalton Service Centre

Yvonne Palmer noted that the staff presentation claimed that predicted traffic growth on this section of Harewood Road would be marginal . She disagreed with this, pointing out she has observed growth in 60+ units and highlighted future plans for a retirement home. In addition to this she has observed growth associated new NZ Post and DX Mail postal facilities at the airport as well as a camper van servicing company on Gardiners Rd and a new winery development at Watsons Rd. Yvonne was also concerned that the reduction in car parks resulting from extending no-stopping restrictions may have an effect on sports activities at Bishopdale Park. Staff replied that the loss of parking is at the intersections. and the purpose of this is to ensure good sightlines to improve safety. Yvonne commented that she considers traffic volumes on weekends to be higher than weekdays. Staff replied that the 4 day average daily counts (Mon to Thu) indicated in the presentation were consistent with the 7 day average daily count. Staff further discussed the predicted growth in traffic volumes and advised that it was not likely to exceed 20,000 vpd for the foreseeable future and that modelling has indicated that a single traffic lane in each direction would adequately cater for this volume of traffic. Staff also discussed the issues presented by installation of traffic signals at the Harewood / Breens / Gardiners intersection. One of the main issues is that signals will introduce a delay on an arterial road and which presents a disadvantage to traffic and are currently unlikely to attract a New Zealand Transport Agency subsidy. . Furthermore the improvements to accident rate with traffic signals is only expected to be marginal. The proposed scheme is expected to reduce delays on side roads by one third and queues by one half as motorists require less time to cross one traffic lane rather than two. Staff confirmed that the airport (CIAL) had been consulted. The airport planners have now completed their assessment of the proposed scheme and while they expressed concern at the initial meeting with staff they

Mixed views of Community Board members noted. Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board members do not support proposal.




45

have since confirmed to staff that they now have no concerns with the proposal being put forward. Staff also confirmed that they have met with NZTA, who also indicated that they had no concerns with the proposed scheme. It was noted that NZTA intend to widen Russley Road to four lanes and it is understood that the Wairakei Road intersection under consideration to become a left in, left out arrangement. Staff confirmed that the Spokes organisation had also suggested a small median between the proposed cycle lane and the traffic lane and this was met with favour by the project team.. Pauline Cotter was concerned about the Bishopdale Mall roundabout and noted difficulties with some aspects of exit and egress. Staff replied that these issues have been noted and are presently being investigated separate to this project. Members noted that Raeward and the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Harewood Road had produced increased traffic. Val Carter noted that the Breens /Gardiners Road intersection was of major concern to her Board. Staff explained that the proposed features of the scheme primarily sought to address the pedestrian / cyclist issues at this intersection. In particular new crossing refuges closer to the intersection would be fenced (similar to the one on Langdons Rd outside Northlands Mall) and need to be large enough to accommodate cyclists.

Yvonne Palmer suggested paper cut-out figures on poles on Harewood Road to increase driver awareness of pedestrians as she was aware of a similar initiative in Auckland, which was very successful. Yvonne Palmer commented that larger numbers of cyclists were now using Harewood Road. Kathy Condon said she was a cyclist and supported the proposal.

Proposed Harewood Road Cycle Lane Extension,...

Documents

Transcript of Proposed Harewood Road Cycle Lane Extension,...