This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
23. 10. 96
CITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
8 & 17 OCTOBER 1996
A meeting of the City Services Committee
was held on Tuesday 8 and Friday 17 October 1996 at 4.00 pm
PRESENT: Councillor Denis O'Rourke (Chairman), The Mayor, Ms Vicki Buck (17 October),
Councillors Carole Anderton (8 October), David Buist, David Close, Graham Condon, Gordon Freeman
(8 October), Ian Howell (17 October), Garry Moore and Ron Wright.
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence was received and accepted from the Mayor, Ms Vicki Buck (8 October) and Councillor Carole Anderton (17 October), Ian Howell (8 October) and Gordon Freeman (17 October).
The Mayor left the meeting at 4.40 and was present for clause 10.3.
Councillor David Close left the meeting at 6.35 pm and was present for clauses 10.3, 11, 12 and 13.
Councillor Garry Moore left the meeting at 6.50 pm and was present for clause 10.3, 11, 12, 13 and 19.3.
Councillor Ron Wright left the meeting at 7.10 pm and was present for clauses 1, 10.3, 11, 12, 13 and 19.3.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. KERBSIDE PARKING LIMIT LINES RR 3805
| Officer responsible | Author |
| City Streets Manager | Brian Neill, Traffic Operations Engineer |
| Corporate Plan Output: Street Markings and Signs p 9.5 text 38 |
The purpose of this report is to acquaint the Council with the guidelines used to assess the need for marking kerbside parking limit lines in the city and to consider adopting these guidelines as a matter of policy.
INTRODUCTION
Prior to amalgamation it was common practice by some amalgamating Councils to place kerbside parking limit lines in areas where there was a high parking turnover. In the former City Council's area they were also painted where parking meters were operating. Exceptions to this practice was in the former Riccarton Borough where some driveways had been defined with parking limit lines covering areas where all day parking was causing some problems for residents. In the former Waimairi District Council's area a few driveways in the Creyke Road area opposite the University of Canterbury were treated with broken yellow "no stopping" and parking limit lines where the distance between the driveways was too small to park a vehicle.
One of the reasons for the placing of markings in residential areas in the Riccarton area was due to the problems associated with covered dish channels with low kerbs and ill-defined driveways. This problem has all but disappeared from critical areas in the city with better definition of driveways now being afforded by new kerb and flat channels.
In recent times, Community Boards have asked that consideration be given to introducing kerbside limit lines to "solve" problems associated with drivers parking their vehicles close to or, encroaching on, vehicle crossings. The problem areas are usually adjacent to high traffic generators such as the University of Canterbury and the Riccarton Mall.
There is a need to clarify the situation and, if necessary, amend the current guidelines to ensure that a consistent policy is used in all areas of the city.
BACKGROUND
Where parking is controlled by meters or coupons a requirement is that the space occupied by a vehicle must be marked out. This is to avoid the situation where drivers, having paid for the privilege of parking in the area, cannot readily identify the space to which the parking meter or coupon park applies. If the lines were not painted Parking Wardens would have difficulty in citing a motorist for not paying for the space occupied and, in terms of overstaying the time limit, would not be able to readily identify whether the vehicle was in fact parked in a certain space for a period exceeding the known time limit.
It is quite common to mark kerbside spaces with limit lines on busy arterial roads where time limit restrictions (P30, P60 etc) have been placed to encourage a turnover of parking in the area. Shopping streets such as Riccarton Road, parts of Papanui Road, Ferry Road and Lincoln Road have been marked out in this way. Occasionally, parking spaces abutting time limit restricted areas are also marked to ensure that access to kerbside space
is readily available for those seeking to park in the area. Under these circumstances, if space is tight and drivers have difficulty in manoeuvring their vehicles, disruption to through traffic results, lowering the level of service along the arterial road and adding to the hazards faced by cyclists and others travelling through the area.
In other situations (in business, residential zones etc) where parking is generally longer term it is not necessary to mark individual spaces unless angle parking areas have been set aside and drivers required to park other than parallel to the kerb face.
The only other situation where parking limit lines are suggested is to define driveways where overparking and regular use is made of the kerbside area for long term parking. This is the area where Council Officers are often asked to advise business operators and residents asking for kerbside parking to be controlled to improve visibility into a driveway and/or control parking by inconsiderate motorists.
DISCUSSION
Allocating kerbside space by marking individual parks within shopping centres located on arterial roads benefits traffic management and provides motorists with the opportunity to select a park that he/she can use no matter what sized car they are driving. Painted side lines along arterial roads are also useful in confining kerbside parking to an area separated from the traffic lane(s) or a cycle lane. Although these lines do not define individual spaces they do assist traffic management and in the future will feature on more arterial roads in the city.
Controlling parking around driveways is a problem that regularly confronts people owning properties where regular use is made of the kerbside for the parking of vehicles. This is most noticeable on roads in areas adjacent to high generators of traffic, alongside commercial and business zones and adjacent to schools, churches, parks and other areas where parking demand peaks for short periods of the day or during the weekend.
The Traffic Regulations 1976 require that:
"No person, being the driver or in charge of any vehicles, shall stop, stand or park their vehicle so as to obstruct entry to or exit from any place used or appearing to be used as a vehicle entrance to or exit from land fronting a roadway; and for the purposes of this paragraph a vehicle parked alongside any part of a kerb crossing provided for a vehicle entrance or exit or within 1 m of the prolongation of the side of a vehicle entrance or exit shall be deemed to be obstructing entry or exit:
Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall apply with respect to any omnibus that is stopped at an authorised bus stop for the purpose of embarking or disembarking passengers."
Clearly motorists are not permitted to obstruct entry into a driveway or within 1 metre of the vehicle entrance or any part of a vehicle crossing. The only exception to this rule is that a bus may stop over a driveway to embark or disembark passengers. The former Christchurch City Council sponsored the "1 metre rule" amendment to the traffic regulations in 1976 in an attempt to control overparking by enforcement means. Council Parking Wardens and Police Officers are often called upon to deal with overparking and obstruction of driveways in the city; the above traffic regulation (35/f) is used if an offence has been committed.
In the central city and busy suburban shopping centres motorists often park over driveways completely obstructing them. This is a constant source of frustration to people wishing to enter or exit the driveway and is very difficult to counter unless there is an Enforcement Officer/Parking Warden in attendance. As more and more school children are being taken to and collected from school this type of complaint has increased
Parking limit lines on either side of driveways would not help in this situation as overparking will continue in areas where drivers consider they are only obstructing for very short periods of time. Situations occur where people are visiting an area, are late for an appointment or take a risk and park informally anyway. Once again parking limit lines are not the answer as people do not always take care to park short of the white line if it is inconvenient to do so.
Painting broken yellow "no stopping" lines across driveways is not recommended as this form of parking control is normally used for traffic management purposes and applies in laned situations, on bends or in other areas where it would be hazardous for vehicles to be parked. However, in combination with other controls such as time limit restrictions, loading zones etc they may be of value particularly if they are linked with visibility improvements at intersections and on the bends of some roads in the city.
Community Board/Council resolutions are required for the placement of, or adjustments to, broken yellow "no stopping" lines on roads where the length of the parking ban is greater than 20 m.
At present we do not carry out enforcement of driveways except when requested. This is because many people park in their own driveways and feel unjustly penalised if they are cited for this office. However the Council does take strong action when requested, including towing vehicles away.
COSTS
There are in excess of 107,000 residential and more than 16,000 business driveways in Christchurch. The annual cost to maintain markings on all crossings would be in the order of $200,000 per year. This compares with the $5,000 to maintain 2,300 metered spaces at present. This seems to be an inappropriate expenditure to reinforce a rule already in the traffic regulations.
GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are being used by City Streets staff involved in the decision making process relating to the placement of parking limit lines on roads in the city:
CONCLUSION
The above guidelines have been used successfully over the years ensuring consistency in our approach to matters relating to kerbside parking control and management. Relaxing the "rules" would lead to inconsistencies and, in the long term would not, on past experience, solve the problem of overparking driveways in the city.
There is limited application for marking individual kerbside parking spaces on certain roads in the city. However, the defining of driveways by the use of parking limit lines is not recommended as this practice can lead to inconsistencies, unnecessary costs and has been found to not be successful in achieving the objectives which people anticipate.
Where broken yellow "no stopping" lines are already painted on the roadway then these could, under certain circumstances, be extended to include a vehicle entrance if the restriction is part of a measure to satisfy a statutory or safety requirement. In other areas enforcement action can be taken to control parking near vehicle entrances and the blocking of driveways. A large number of vehicles are towed away each year regardless of whether lines are painted or not.
Community Boards persuaded to recommend the placement of parking limit lines adjacent to driveways on roads in the city near high traffic generators should be advised on the guidelines used by the Council to control the marking of parking limit lines on roads in the city.
Recommendation:
1. That:
(a) The above guidelines be adopted as Council policy.
(b) Community Boards be advised that this policy must be adhered to.
(c) Community Boards may make a recommendation to the City Services Committee for the installation or maintenance of parking limit lines for private driveways.
2. That resolutions made by Community Boards for the installation of parking limit lines which have not yet been implemented be deferred pending the adoption of the above policy.
3. That the Parking Operations Manager report on policy and practice relating to enforcement of vehicles parked over driveways.
2. SPEED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY RR 3745
| Officer responsible | Author |
| City Streets Manager | Brian Neill, Traffic Operations Engineer |
| Corporate Plan Output: Street Markings and Signs p 9.5 text 38 |
The purpose of this report is to introduce the speed management strategy and review progress on the implementation of the new speed limits proposed in the speed limit review which was adopted by the Council in August.
INTRODUCTION
Councillors will be aware of the need to make progress on the introduction of new 60 and 80 km/h speed limits in the city. The proposed speed management strategy appended to this report backgrounds the issues and describes seven strategies that will be used to promote a speed culture for motorists using roads and highways in the city. It is essential that the speed management strategy coincides with the proposed changes to speed limits in the city to ensure that actual speeds do not increase as a result of the speed limit changes.
THE STRATEGIES
With the recent speed limit review, speed profiles, character of traffic flow and the nature of the roads in the city were analysed. Systems have been set up to regularly monitor actual speeds on roads and quality systems complying with the appropriate standards set up to enable regular reviews of speed limits to be undertaken.
In the engineering area the city is well served by its policies on traffic calming and the introduction of local area traffic management schemes and neighbourhood improvement plans in residential areas. Much progress has also been made on traffic calming along arterial roads with the introduction of flush (painted) medians, the painting of cycle lanes (where appropriate) and the use of pedestrian refuge islands.
As the network is being improved, opportunities are taken to improve the traffic service, convenience and safety along all arterial and collector roads. Threshold treatments and other traffic calming measures are being introduced on local roads providing a sound base for changing the speed culture in our city.
We propose to evaluate the effect of vehicle speeds of roads with changed limits and, later, survey attitude changes, enforcement tolerances and driving speeds.
This leaves the Council with a need to coordinate education, publicity and enforcement of existing and proposed speed limits in the city.
EDUCATION AND PUBLICITY
It is essential that the strategies for education and publicity be put into place over the next few months. People are to be informed about the recent speed limit review and the introduction of more 60 and 80 km/h limits in the city. People will also need to be informed that speed limits will be enforced especially on the roads where the speed limit is to be raised.
Every encouragement needs to be given to motorists to drive within the speed limit and to travel at an appropriate speed especially near schools and through shopping centres. Information about speed limits and the reasons for the changes will need to be distributed to the community.
To achieve these objectives the following initiatives are proposed:
There is a considerable amount of work to be done before the February introduction of the new speed limits on roads and highways in the city. Although a limited amount of work can be progressed within the existing budgets there is an urgent need to confirm the availability of funding for television, radio and other resources needed to implement the education, publicity and enforcement strategies.
SPEED MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
There is a serious commitment by the Police to enforce the Council's new speed regime. Speed zone (60 km/h) increases will be targeted as a priority with the implementation of a consistent and regular enforcement strategy.
The deployment of patrols at peak periods for maximum visibility is needed in the initial period to reinforce to all concerned that 60 km/h means 60 km/h.
The New Zealand Police are supportive of the changes being made to speed limits on arterial roads in the city and are preparing a business plan to address the Council's offer of $100,000 to provide increased enforcement of speed limits in the city.
A meeting between the City Services Sub-committee of Councillors Denis O'Rourke and Ron Wright was held with New Zealand Police representatives on the speed management strategy. The minutes of this meeting are appended to this report.
On 24 September 1996 Councillors Denis O'Rourke and Ron Wright met with Superintendent Laurie Dalziel and Inspector Garth Hames to discuss a Police proposal for equipping 20 Police cars with new Hawke speed detection devices. Also to purchase three additional laser detection units for use in the Christchurch area. The concept appealed to the Councillors as a positive move towards the speed management strategy for the city. Also as a means of furthering the co-operation between the Council and NZ Police to effect a change in culture amongst motorists travelling on city roads and highways.
A copy of the proposal dated 30 September 1996 from the Police is appended to this report.
CONCLUSION
Now that the speed limit review has been adopted by the Council the above strategies dealing with education, publicity and enforcement will need to be implemented prior to the introduction of new speed limits on roads and highways in the city in February 1997. The speed management strategy will need to be adopted and a budget set for carrying out the proposed publicity and education programmes.
Recommendation: 1. That the speed management strategy appended to this report be adopted.
2. That a budget of $30,000 be set for the initial education and publicity strategies leading to the introduction of the new speed limits in February 1997.
3. That funding for the education and publicity strategies be sought through the 6 month review.
4. That additional funding and/or other support be sought from Transit New Zealand, New Zealand Automobile Association, Land Transport Safety Authority and the New Zealand Police.
5. That the Council accept the Police offer as set out in their letter dated 1 October 1995 for the Council to use its $100,000 budget provision for the Police to purchase 20 Hawke and 3 Laser speed detector devices on the basis that the Police will co-operate with speed enforcement initiatives requested from time to time by the Council, including the enforcement of the new speed limit regime.
6. That the Police agree to make available one of the Laser devices to Council officers on request, for use in relation to speed monitoring and research.
3. CYCLISTS ON FOOTPATHS IN THE LINCOLN ROAD RR 3796
| Officer responsible | Author |
| City Streets Manager | Susan Cambridge |
| Corporate Plan Output: Road Safety Output pg 9.6 text 8 |
The purpose of this report is to raise the issue of cyclists on footpaths endangering pedestrians.
Concern has been expressed by the Secretary of the Addington Village Business Association about cyclists using the footpath in the area of the Lincoln Road shopping centre. His report says that the local constable is unable to give an answer to the problem as it is classed low priority.
Cyclists on footpaths are a problem in many parts of the city. Older pedestrians in particular are concerned about their safety. The injuries inflicted on them if they are run into by a cyclist may have a major impact on their lifestyle and long term health.
The issue appears in the recent strategy for older road users where it is suggested that awareness should be raised about the problem with the Police.
There may be an opportunity to encourage schools to educate students on the degree of injury they can inflict on older pedestrians when riding on footpaths.
Recommendation: That the Council write to the Police to request an enforcement blitz in Lincoln Road to discourage cycling on the footpath.
4. INNES ROAD/QUEEN ELIZABETH II DRIVE INTERSECTION RR 3813
| Officer responsible | Author |
| City Streets Manager | Dave Armstrong, Signals Design Engineer |
| Corporate Plan Output: Infrastructural Assets - New p 9.5.64 |
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the progress of the proposed installation of a roundabout at the Innes Road/Queen Elizabeth II Drive intersection. Other accident reducing options are also reviewed.
BACKGROUND
Queen Elizabeth II Drive was extended in August 1991 from Innes Road to Winters Road. At this time two extra lanes were constructed between Marshland Road and Innes Road and the intersection of Innes Road with the new expressway was reconstructed as a `seagull' intersection.
In the first few months after opening there were a series of accidents which prompted some minor modifications to attempt to mitigate the problem. This included the installation of stop signs, warning signs, extra road markings and some kerb alignment changes. The collision rate declined slightly but was still high.
A full accident investigation was carried out in July 1993 in which several accident reducing options were evaluated. These options with their costs are:
These options were discussed at the Traffic Management workshop held in Christchurch in late 1993. Participants were generally in favour of installing a roundabout as opposed to signals, even though the latter was a cheaper option. Subsequent discussions with Transit NZ and LTSA have also indicated a preference for a roundabout because it will reduce the number and severity of accidents and will maintain the consistency of environment on the outer ring route.
After a detailed analysis of each option had been undertaken a proposal to install the roundabout option was recommended to the Operations Committee in December 1994. The Committee deferred the proposal to February 1995 when further work was to be undertaken on the effects of the opening of the Northcote Expressway and the changes proposed to speed limits. In December 1994 the Expressway was opened and the speed limit was altered to 80 km/hr from the existing 100 km/hr.
At the February 1995 Operations Committee meeting the Committee resolved:
"That given the concern about safety at this intersection and the success of the 80 km/hr limit on Johns Road , that a six month trial be undertaken and that provision be made pro forma in the 1995/96 Budget."
The intersection has been monitored for accidents since February 1995. Further design on a small roundabout option has also been undertaken including a safety audit on the final scheme by a Consultant.
TRAFFIC NETWORK
The Innes Road/QEII intersection was designed and built with a `seagull' layout. The design was to the AUSTROADS standard titled "Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5: Intersections at Grade" which has been adopted by NZ practitioners. There is a stop sign on the Innes Road approach.
QEII Drive is classified as a major arterial and currently carries approx. 13,700 (1995 figure) vehicles per day. Before the Northcote Expressway opened it carried approx. 7000 vehicles per day. It is part of the Ring Road route around the northern edge of the city. The speed limit is 80 km/hr.
Innes Road is also classified as a minor arterial which carries about 11,400 (1995 figure) vehicles per day. The speed limit approaching the intersection is 80 km/hr.
ACCIDENTS
a) Existing Layout
The attached graph shows the incidence of accidents at the intersection since it was opened in August 1991. It also shows when various changes were made to the intersection to reduce the accidents.
Of the total accidents occurring at the intersection 90% are with vehicles turning right out of Innes Road failing to give way to the QEII Drive west bound vehicles going straight through. Contributing factors appear to be the complexity of the intersection and misreading the speed of traffic on the expressway.
In the 3 year and 4 month period before the Northcote Expressway opened there had been 15 (7 serious and 8 minor) reported injury accidents and 13 reported non-injury accidents. This equates to a rate of 4.5 injury accidents per year.
Since the Expressway opened there has been seven (all minor) reported injury accidents and four non-injury accidents. This equates to a rate of 4.4 injury accidents per year which is similar to before the opening. However with a 30% increase in traffic now using the intersection the rate has not increased.
The severity of accidents seems to have diminished after the opening as all the injury accidents are now minor. But it is difficult to predict a trend with less than two years of data.
From LTSA records this intersection has the highest number of accidents per year compared to any other intersection in Christchurch.
b) Traffic Signals Option
The number of accidents with traffic signals at this intersection is predicted to be 2.0 injury accidents per year (a 55% saving over the existing layout). This number is based on data from three of the four signalised seagull intersections in New Zealand including Curletts Road/Parkhouse Road intersection.
The installation of signals will decrease the number of accidents but not the severity of them.
c) Roundabout Option
With the installation of a roundabout the predicted number of accidents is 1.5 injury accidents per year (approx. 65% saving over the existing layout). This number is based on accidents at other similarly situated `high' speed roundabouts in Christchurch.
Crashes occurring at intersections controlled by roundabouts are likely to be less severe than at semi rural locations where traffic signals or stop signs are installed.
d) Flyover Option
In this option there would be approximately 85% saving in accidents from the existing layout.
All existing conflicts between Innes Road right turning traffic and QEII Drive west bound traffic would be eliminated.
DELAYS
Average delays in seconds per vehicle for the existing layout and the options are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
| OVERALL INTERSECTION DELAY (seconds per vehicle) |
|||
| AM Peak | OFF Peak | PM Peak | |
| Existing Layout | 10.8 | 12.9 | 21.0 |
| Traffic Signals | 11.1 | 12.1 | 17.8 |
| Roundabout | 10.8 | 11.7 | 12.3 |
| Flyover | 6.4 | 5.0 | 3.0 |
a) Existing Layout
As shown in Table 1 overall intersection delays to vehicles are not high although during the evening peak period there can be 60 seconds delay to each vehicle on the Innes Road approach. The QEII Drive straight through vehicles are not delayed at all.
b) Traffic Signals Option
Expected overall intersection delays are shown in Table 1.
With traffic signals the delays in both the morning and off peak periods are similar to the existing layout while in the evening peak they are less. Therefore over the whole day there would be a saving in delays with the signals option
c) Roundabout Option
Expected overall intersection delays are shown in Table 1.
The roundabout option is more efficient in delay savings than the traffic signal option and the existing layout.
d) Flyover Option
Expected overall intersection delays are shown in Table 1.
This option has the greatest saving in delays over all the other options and the existing layout.
BENEFIT/COST (B/C) ANALYSIS
A benefit/cost analysis was completed on all three options. Only accident data since the opening of the Northcote expressway has been used to evaluate the accident savings. The B/C ratios and costings for each option are:
To receive financial assistance from Transfund an analysis of incremental B/C ratios is required when two or more mutually exclusive project options exist. The cut-off value for this incremental B/C is currently 3.0. These new ratios are:
The roundabout option over the signals option Inc. B/C = 6.5
The flyover option over the roundabout option Inc. B/C = 2.8
Therefore the roundabout - small option with a ratio of 6.5 (which is greater than the cut-off value of 3.0) will receive financial assistance.
CONCLUSION
Further studies have been carried out at the Innes Road/QEII Drive intersection in response to the Committee's recommendation that the intersection be monitored for a period of six to eight months. A reassessment of the roundabout option has also been undertaken.
The study confirmed the initial assessment that the existing intersection has a high incidence of accidents especially with traffic failing to give way. The opening of the Northcote Expressway in December 1994 has not altered the accident rate of approximately 4.5 reported injury accidents per year although the severity seems to have decreased. From LTSA records this intersection has the highest number of reported injury accidents in Christchurch.
A number of options were evaluated to reduce the accidents occurring at the intersection. These options are:
All three options also decrease the overall delays to vehicles using the intersection.
From a benefit/cost analysis and Transfund funding criteria the roundabout option is the best solution for reducing the number and severity of accidents. This option will also maintain the consistency of environment of the outer ring route.
Recommendation: That approval be given to the construction of a roundabout at a cost of $250,000 at the Innes Road/Queen Elizabeth Drive intersection.
5. CAPACITY OF CHRISTCHURCH WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT AND OPTIONS FOR UPGRADING 1996-2026 RR 3613
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Waste Manager | Mike Stockwell Waste Manager |
| Corporate Plan Output: | Liquid Waste |
The purpose of this report is to inform Councillors about the results of the consultants' study into the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity and the options for upgrading, the expected budget impacts and possible financing options.
BACKGROUND
In the 1994-95 and 1995/96 years the biological oxygen demand (BOD) loading on the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWTP) reached 95% of the plants capacity. In early 1996 requests were received from Belfast industry to consider the possibility of directing their waste to CWTP. A similar request was received from Selwyn District Council concerning the addition of Lincoln township's sewage to the Christchurch system.
These factors led to the realisation that the time was right to critically examine the capacity of the CWTP not only to deal with the above requests but also to plan for future city growth. A period of 30 years was chosen for a capacity and option upgrading study.
In addition to plant capacity the report was to address matters relating to the upcoming Resource Consent renewal process for the Treatment Plant's discharge. Timing for the Resource Consent application will be in late 1998 and this has already been the subject of a report to August City Services and Environmental Committees in August 1996.
TENDERS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR STUDY AND REPORT
Tenders were invited from three consulting companies to carry out the study and report. The firms tendering their services were Beca Steven, Woodward Clyde and Royds Consulting.
These companies are all very experienced in the sewage treatment business and well known to the Council having successfully completed other professional work for us in the past. The brief for the work called for one of the consultants to peer review the study and the results of this peer review to be included in the final report.
A weighted attribute evaluation for the tenders was carried out and Beca Steven Consultants was chosen to do the work. (Contract Price $25,000) Note that the Team Leader for the work was Mr Humphrey Archer who is extremely familiar with CWTP being an ex-Christchurch Drainage Board employee. The study was peer reviewed by Woodward Clyde Consultants. (Contract Price $5,000).
KEY FINDINGS
The report proposes that upgrading of the CWTP is carried out in two stages as follows.
Stage 1
Key Factors for Stage 1 are as follows:
Stage 2
Key factors for Stage 2 are as follows
Note that if more detail is required it can be found in the Executive Summary already circulated to Councillors.
KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Some key questions and answers relating to the upgrade summarised below:
| 1. Could the CWTP upgrade be reduced in size and cost? | The size of the upgrade is driven by population
growth of 1.0% over the next 30 years. The cost is driven by necessary physical work to cater for increased biological loading from this growth. |
| 2. Could the start be delayed? | The start is gradual with $0.4m in the first year 1996/97. The plant was almost at its B.0.D. treatment capacity in 1994/95 and 1995/96. Significant delay is likely to lead to biological overload, odour complaints and a possible crisis situation. Also the Resource Consent issues will almost certainly not allow the upgrading start to be delayed significantly. |
| 3. What are the Resource Consent issues? | Odour, water quality , and discharge type and
location will be key issues. Standards will become clear over the next 2 years as the Regional Air Quality Plan and Coastal Plan are finalised and the Public Consultation process takes place. |
| 4. Could the cost be spread over a longer period? | The consultant proposed $30m spread over 5 years. This has been spread further to over 8 years. At the Asset Management Workshop, Councillors decided that this was the correct balance of expenditure against risk of BOD overload, increased odours and effluent deterioration. Also the Resource Consent would almost certainly not allow upgrading to be prolonged. |
| 5. Could satellite treatment plants be built. | Yes but they would cost a lot more than extensions at Bromley. |
| 6. What effect does the inclusion of satellite areas such as Prebbleton Lincoln, Belfast and Lyttelton have? | These satellites represent only a small proportion of the total flow. Their inclusion would not measurably increase the cost of the expansion options. |
| 7. What effect does the inclusion of Belfast Industries have. | Substantial contribution to BOD load - this would be compensated by extra revenue received. |
| 8. Why has the need for expansion not arisen earlier. | It is necessary to look at the BOD loading. The maximum capacity was approached (93%) in 1988/89 and dropped away again for the next five years. In 1994/95 and 1995/96 it rose again to 95% capacity. This together with the expected population growth signals the need to plan for expansion starting very soon. |
SEMINAR OF CITY SERVICES/ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEES
The capacity and upgrading option study was presented to elected members at a joint seminar of City Services and Environmental Committees on Thursday 22 August 1996. All Councillors were invited. The presentation was done by Beca Consultants with an overview by Waste Management Staff. Key findings, proposals and costs are outlined in the Executive Summary. The options report was favourably received by the eleven Councillors present who indicated that the initial stages of the work should be proceeded with to assist with the Resource Consent Application - refer minutes of seminar ? pages.
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN WORKSHOP
Completion of the Capacity and Upgrading Options Study proved extremely timely as the results were able to be incorporated into the Asset Management Plan material for the September workshop. The fifteen Councillors present at the workshop made a clear choice for the proceeding with the CWTP expansion programme over an eight year period from 1996/97 to 2003/04. There was also a very clear choice made for completion of the first two out of the four clarifiers in 1999/2000 so as to reduce the risk of BOD overload and Resource Consent problems relating to odour and effluent quality - these choices are represented on the attachments.
REQUIRED CASHFLOW AND POSSIBLE SOURCE OF FUNDING
1. Required cashflow is tabulated below
| Years | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9-30 |
| 1996/97 | 1997/98 | 1998/99 | 1999/00 | 2000/01 | 2001 /02 |
2000 /03 |
2003 /04 |
2004/05-25/26 | |
| Required Funding ($m) |
0.4 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 5.5 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | Possible 10 (UV) Possible 30 (N&P) |
| Totals ($m) |
30 | Possible 40 | |||||||
| Stages | Stage 1 : 8 Years | Stage 2: 22 Years | |||||||
2. Possible sources of funds are
(a) unspecified capital from the Annual Plan and Budget possibly up to $2.0m per year
(b) revenue from Belfast Industry possibly up to $1.00m per year
(c) increased Trade Waste revenue possibly around $0.10m per year
(d) loan
The funding of this project will be dealt with as part of the Council's Asset Management Plan Budgeting Process. A more detailed report on source of funding will be submitted to a later Council meeting when this process is completed.
Recommendation: 1. That funds for Stage 1 upgrading of the CWTP be included in the Council's next ten year plan.
2. That the Director of Finance report to the Strategy & Resources Committee on a proposed method of funding as part of the 1997/98 Annual Plan process.
3. That if the Council approves expansion funding, the Waste Manager report back to the City Services Committee concerning the Belfast and Lincoln requests after these have been examined in more detail.
6. GLASS RECYCLING/REUSE UPDATE REPORT RR:3811
| Officer responsible Mike Stockwell | Author Mike Stockwell |
| Waste Manager | Waste Manager |
| Corporate Plan Output: Glass Reuse / Recycling |
The purpose of this report is to update Councillors about the Glass Reuse/Recycling study undertaken for the Council by Sustainable Cities Trust Limited and the proposed way forward.
BACKGROUND
Councillors will recall that Sustainable Cities Trust have been undertaking a two stage study into the glass reuse/recycling industry for Christchurch. The Stage 1 report was presented to a joint seminar of City Services/Environmental Committees in May 1996 followed by a report to June Committees - refer attachment for copy of report.
STAGE 2 REPORT
Sustainable Cities have now finished their Stage 2 report which had the following objective - to advance the identification, of and procedures for setting up a waste glass reuse/recycling industry in Christchurch.
In summary the recommendations of the report (copy tabled) with respect to glass and other recyclables are:
(a) That a Recovered Materials Foundation (RMF) Trust be set up and developed to oversee the establishment of a Glass Processing System (GPS) for Christchurch and to become the vehicle for promoting the development of a local recycling industry dealing with a wide range of recovered materials in Canterbury.
(b) The GPS run at least initially under the auspices of the RMF would establish a bottle washing/reuse plant which would source bottles from local industry and Council kerbside recycling collection contracts later in 1997. It would also establish a glass crusher to process glass cullet for reuse in existing and new industries which would be fostered by the RMF - refer attachments for GPS & RMF models.
(c) The new kerbside collection/recycling contracts should be set up to handle bottles (and other recycled materials) which would be streamed to the RMF when it is in a position to handle these materials.
DISCUSSION
(a) As noted in another report to October City Services Committee proposals for the new 1997 Kerbside Collection/Recycling Contracts will be presented to a City Services Seminar later in October. The tender documents for this contract will provide the ability for recycled materials including bottles and cullet glass to be streamed to the GPS when it is set up. Prior to that the existing Christchurch infrastructure will take these materials.
(b) The Stage 2 report proposes that the RMF be set up as a charitable trust funded initially by the interim Board stakeholders being the CDC. (Chris Pickrill), CECC. (Peter Townsend), CMA. (Mike Hanna) and CCC. Later, funding is envisaged by profits from sale of recyclables and industry on a more sustainable basis. It is proposed that funding for the GPS would be similar.
(c) In the meantime prior to the establishment of the RMF Trust, GPS and new collection/recycling contracts the Waste Management Unit is paying a grant of $26.70 per tonne (to a maximum of around $5,000 per month) to NZ Express to continue shipping glass cullet up to Auckland to NZI Glass Manufacturers. This should be regarded strictly as an interim measure undertaken to prevent the collapse of the cullet collection systems in Christchurch. The source of funding is Waste Management Unit Recycling Fund.
THE WAY FORWARD
The way forward is proposed as follows:
Recommendation: 1. That the Council approve in principle the establishment of an RMF Trust & GPS for the purpose outlined in this report.
2. That further details including costs and source of funds for the RMF & GPS development and operating costs are reported back to the Council in due course by the Waste Manager.
3. That before any trust is established a report be brought back to the Council advising on the legal and accounting issues associated with the proposed structure.
7. SOLID WASTE FUTURE LANDFILL INVESTIGATION RR 3810
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Mike Stockwell, Waste Manager | Eric Park, Solid Waste Engineer |
| Corporate Plan Output: Solid Waste. |
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to:
summarise the results of recent investigations into a joint regional landfill; and
gain approval for the Christchurch City Council to take an appropriate part in the establishment of the Canterbury Waste Joint-Standing Committee (currently the Canterbury Regional Waste Working Party ) to facilitate further investigations.
This report does not discuss hazardous waste issues which are the subject of a report being prepared by Royds Consulting for the Canterbury Regional Waste Working Party.
BACKGROUND
The following issues were reported at recent meetings of the City Services Committee and form a background to this report:
Preliminary discussions on the potential for a joint regional approach to waste management and disposal, 12 March 1996.
Options to provide the Canterbury Regional Waste Working Party with a suitable legal structure, such as a constitution, 13 August 1996.
Potential legal structures, such as a joint venture with a private company, to establish and operate any regional landfill facility. A draft discussion document on this issue was prepared by Coopers & Lybrand and tabled on 13 August 1996.
TASKS IN PROGRESS
The following tasks are currently being undertaken by the Canterbury Regional Waste Working Party:
Development of an initial public consultation strategy to assess community response to a joint regional approach, options for a joint venture or other entity and site selection criteria, refer attached draft.
Assessment of options for a legal structure, such as a joint venture with a private company, to establish and operate a regional landfill facility. This issue is the subject of a report being prepared by Coopers & Lybrand for the Canterbury Regional Waste Working Party.
Development of a request for proposals from private companies to establish and operate a regional landfill on a joint venture or other basis.
Development of evaluation criteria for joint venture or other proposals from private companies.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
Draft Constitution
In order to enter into legally defensible contracts with consultants, the Legal Services Manager recommended that the Canterbury Regional Waste Working Party should be replaced by a standing committee. A draft constitution was prepared by the Legal Services Manager and amended by the Canterbury Regional Waste Working Party on 9 September 1996 for adoption by the Council, refer attachment. All other district councils referred to in the constitution have also been asked to adopt the constitution.
The constitution was drafted on the basis that it would endure only for preliminary investigations into a regional landfill, likely to be completed by June 1997. On completion of the preliminary investigations it is anticipated that the Canterbury Waste Joint-Standing Committee would be replaced by another legal entity, such as another joint-standing committee, a joint venture or a Local Authority Trading Enterprise (LATE), to establish and operate any regional landfill, if required.
Timetable
Three meetings of the Canterbury Waste Joint-Standing Committee are proposed to undertake the following tasks:
11 November 1996
Formally constitute the Canterbury Waste Joint-Standing Committee to conduct preliminary investigations.
Select the preferred legal structure, such as a joint venture or some other entity, to establish and operate any regional landfill facility.
Commence public consultation on the principles of a regional landfill.
March 1997
Assess the results of public consultation.
Request proposals from private companies for a joint venture or other entity to establish and operate a regional landfill, if appropriate.
June 1997
Evaluate proposals for a joint venture or other entity to establish and operate a landfill, if any.
Either:
- select the preferred option and commence planning work to establish a regional landfill; OR
- agree that each Council should work independently to establish its own landfill.
Replace the Canterbury Waste Joint-Standing Committee with a more suitable body, if necessary.
2001 -2002
Open a new landfill facility, expected to require approximately five years to establish.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Cost sharing
The following cost sharing method for work by the Canterbury Waste Joint-Standing Committee, based on four population bands, was considered both equitable and easy to calculate:
| Council | Share of Regional Costs For Solid Waste Work |
| Christchurch City Council | 66.5% |
| Canterbury Regional Council | 0% |
| Other Councils | 33.5% |
| 100% |
Budget
The following draft budget is proposed for preliminary investigations and reports by the Canterbury Waste Joint-Standing Committee up to June 1997, as outlined in the above timetable:
| Item | CCC share | Other Councils share | Total cost | |
| (@ 66.5%) | (@ 33.5%) | |||
| 1. | Report on legal structures to establish and operate any regional landfill facility. | $10,000 | $5,000 | $15,000 |
| 2. | Development of a Request for Proposals and evaluation criteria for a joint venture or other entity. | $3,300 | $1,700 | $5,000 |
| 3. | Public consultation process. | $10,000 | $5,000 | $15,000 |
| 4. | Evaluation of proposals to establish and operate a landfill with a joint venture or other entity. | $10,000 | $5,000 | $15,000 |
| Total | $33,300 | $16,700 | $50,000 |
Source of finance
It is proposed that the Christchurch City Council would finance all above costs until the end of each financial year when it would invoice individual Councils in accordance with the above proportions. An expenditure limit of $66,000 is proposed for the Christchurch City Council's contribution and $6,600 for any other Council's contribution to the Canterbury Waste Joint-Standing Committee. These limits provide a contingency increase over the above budget. The source of finance for the Christchurch City Council's contribution is provided for in the 1996/1997 Waste Management Unit budget under New Landfill Investigation and Development.
Recommendation: 1. That this information be received.
2. That the Council takes the following actions in order to advance regional landfill investigations according to the timetable outlined above:
(a) Pass any resolutions necessary to form the Canterbury Waste Joint-Standing Committee (currently the Canterbury Regional Waste Working Party) in accordance with the attached constitution.
(b) Modify and/or confirm the terms of reference for the Canterbury Waste Joint-Standing Committee, refer attached draft constitution.
(c) Appoint four members from the Christchurch City Council to sit on the Canterbury Waste Joint-Standing Committee.
(d) Approve the cost sharing method outlined above.
The City Services Committee when discussing the issue resolved that:
1. The attached constitution be approved.
2. The terms of reference referred to in the constitution be adopted.
3. Councillors Close, Evans, O'Rourke and Wright be the Council's representatives on the Joint Committee and that Councillor O'Rourke chair it.
4. The cost sharing method reported above be approved.
8. STATE HIGHWAY REVIEW: (SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT)
SUBMISSION OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL RR 3877
| Officer Responsible | Author |
| City Streets Manager | Paul Roberts, Transport Planning Engineer |
| Corporate Plan Output: Advanced Transport Planning |
The purpose of this report is to request that the Council ratify the proposed submission on the State Highway review.
BACKGROUND
The Council made a submission in December 1995 on the 1995 State Highway Review
Transit New Zealand (TNZ) considered these submissions then published their evaluation and interim conclusions in a document entitled "Evaluation of Submissions and Proposed Changes". Further submissions were invited on this document before a final decision is made by Transit NZ to the Minister of Transport on changes to the State Highway network.
In summary Transit New Zealand proposed:
(i) to relocate SH74 to the east side of Christchurch from Chaneys via Marshland Road, QEII Drive, Travis Road, the proposed Woolston/Burwood Expressway, Bexley Road, Dyers Road and Tunnel Road (once the Expressway is constructed)
(ii) to revoke the current status of Main North Road south of Johns Road, Cranford Street and Madras/Barbadoes Streets to Moorhouse Avenue as SH74 (once the Woolston/Burwood Expressway is constructed)
(iii) to extend SH73 via Brougham Street, Opawa Road and Port Hills Road to link with the proposed route of SH74 at Tunnel Road (ie a numbering change only)
(iv) not to declare Gasson Street as a State Highway
(v) not to declare the Summit Road as a Special Purpose Road.
At the meeting of Council on 24 July 1996 it was resolved:
"1. That the Council accept the Transit New Zealand proposals (i) to (iv) listed above.
2. That the Council resubmit with more information the proposal that the Summit Road be designated a Special Purpose Road between Gebbies Pass and Evans Pass.
3. That the Council negotiate with Transit New Zealand the extent of works required on the current SH74 before its relocation.
4. That the Funding issues1 be addressed in a submission to be prepared by the City Streets Manager for approval at the September Committee meeting."
The Council has recently commissioned a report from consultants to ascertain the deficiencies on both the current and proposed SH74 routes which it is anticipated will assist with the negotiations proposed with TNZ. The Council is also actively exploring funding options with Transfund to allow construction of the Woolston-Burwood Expressway to proceed as soon as possible.
THE SUMMIT ROAD
With respect to (2) above, further information with respect to use and maintenance of the Summit Road has been gathered through a series of surveys and a full report made to Transit NZ. Banks Peninsula District Council and Selwyn District Council contributed to the cost of this study.
The results and conclusions of the study may be summarised as follows:
The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of the Summit Road is currently approximately 323vehicles per day (vpd) west of the Sign of The Kiwi and 382vpd east of the Sign of the Kiwi, inclusive of cyclists.
Less than 0.8% of users live along the Summit Road, and less than 1.4% of users work at properties with access from the road.
Tour services carry about 16% of annual users (counting all vehicle occupants), and 78% of these are `tourists' living either outside the 3 local districts (7%) or overseas (71%).
Including users of all types of vehicles, the proportion of NZ domestic tourists is approximately 7-10%, whilst the proportion of overseas tourists lies between 15-17% west and east of the Kiwi respectively.
The total annual number of `tourists' using the Summit Road is conservatively estimated to be between 59,000/year west of the Kiwi and 84,000/year east of the Kiwi. We have argued that the road in this respect is thus clearly a national as well as a local asset.
That said, given strict interpretation of Transit's criteria, the Summit Road would not meet all requirements for Special Road status, because these (in respect of tourist traffic) are:
(i) the proportion of tourists is more than 75%, and the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is more than 50, or
(ii) the proportion of tourists is more than 75% and visitors number more than 20,000 per annum.
In other words, although the Summit Road clearly carries more than 20,000 tourists a year, a further Transit criteria is that the proportion of `tourists' must be 75% or greater (whereas on the Summit Road it is estimated from the surveys to be 22-27%).
Maintenance costs for the Summit Road are about $60,000/year. This is some 45 times higher than the rates budgeted for road maintenance expenditure collected from properties in the immediate area served by the road, which amount to about $1,350/year. The Summit Road thus meets Transit's criteria that states that the rating potential from land adjacent to a road must be insufficient to cater for maintenance costs for that road to be considered for Special Purpose road status.
In the report to Transit it has been argued that their Special Purpose Road criteria in respect of tourist traffic are somewhat illogical: If rating potential from surrounding land is not sufficient to cater for maintenance costs, then logic suggests that the absolute number of tourists (rather than a proportion) should be taken to indicate the `national-benefit' of the road. Under Transit's criteria a road with 100 vehicles a day carrying 75 tourists could qualify for Special Purpose Road status whereas a road carrying 300 vehicles a day with 150 tourists would not.
As the City Services committee overseeing the State Highway Review did not have a full sitting in September the following draft submission was made to Transit NZ to meet their formal closing date of 20 September. Transit accepted the caveat that the submission was draft pending approval of the Council through the City Services Committee in October.
Recommendation: 1. That the above information on the Summit Road be received.
2. That approval is given to the following submission being forwarded to Transit New Zealand:
SUBMISSION: RELOCATION OF STATE HIGHWAY 74
The Council accepts TNZ's proposed changes with respect to relocation of SH74 and renaming of part of SH74 to SH73, subject to:
1. completion of the proposed Woolston-Burwood Expressway Stages I AND II; and
2. negotiation with Transit New Zealand regarding the extent of works required on the current SH74 before its relocation to the proposed route.
SUBMISSION: SUMMIT ROAD
The Council submits once again that the Summit Road between Gebbies Pass and Evans Pass should be considered for Special Road Purpose status. The road serves a tourism function of national importance and its rating potential is considerably below current maintenance costs.
9. GLASS RECYCLING (SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT)
| Officer Responsible | Author |
| City Manager | Peter Mitchell, Legal Services Manager |
| Corporate Plan Output: Glass Reuse/Recycling |
The purpose of this report is to seek the Council's approval on the establishment of a Glass Recycling Special Committee.
A meeting of the Recovered Materials Foundation Advisory Group was held on Thursday 3 October 1996. The meeting was attended by representatives from the City Council, the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce, the Canterbury Manufacturers Association and the Sustainable Cities Trust.
The report in the City Services Committee agenda refers to the establishment of a Recovered Materials Foundation Trust to develop a glass processing system for Christchurch and to become the vehicle for promoting the development of a local recycling industry dealing with a wide range of recovered materials in Canterbury. This glass processing system will establish a bottle washing/re-use plant sourcing bottles from local industry and from Council kerbside recycling collection contracts. It would also establish a glass crusher to process glass cullet for re-use in existing and new industries.
To date there has been an advisory group meeting to consider the establishment of the trust. This group has representatives from the City Council, the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce, the Canterbury Manufacturers Association and the Sustainable Cities Trust.
At its meeting on 3 October 1996 the advisory group considered that the appropriate time to establish the trust would be in approximately September 1997 when the new kerbside collection recycling contracts would have been set up. However the group considered that until that time there would be a need to have a vehicle for the promotion of the project.
In the interim the advisory group believes that this body could be a Special Committee of the Council. A Council Special Committee would highlight the importance to the Council of glass recycling and signal the Council's commitment to this issue.
It would also be necessary to give the Special Committee certain delegated powers in relation to entering into contracts for the purpose of glass recovery.
The advisory group believes that the Special Committee's composition should be the same as that of the present advisory group, namely, one representative from the Canterbury Development Corporation, one from the Canterbury Manufacturers Association, one from the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce, three from the City Council, one from the CWC, one from the Sustainable Cities Trust, and one industry/community representative.
Section 114P of the Local Government Act 1974 empowers the Council to appoint such special committees as it considers appropriate.
Section 114R provides that the Council may appoint to any committee any person who is not a member of the Council if in the opinion of the Council, that person has knowledge that will assist the working of the committee.
Recommendation: 1. That pursuant to section 114P of the Local Government Act 1974 the Council appoints the Glass Recycling Special Committee.
2. That the terms of reference for the Special Committee be:
(a) to oversee the establishment of the Recovered Materials Foundation Trust by 1 September 1997;
(b) to oversee the establishment in 1997 of a glass processing system for Christchurch, including a glass crusher and bottle washing/reuse plant;
(c) to establish a budget for the period until 1/9/97;
(d) to develop a business action plan for the period to 1/9/97 and for the Trust.
3. That Councillors Close, Howell and O'Rourke be appointed as City Council members of this Special Committee.
4. That the following organisations be invited to nominate one representative as a member of the Special Committee;
(a) The Canterbury Development Corporation;
(b) The Canterbury Manufacturers Association;
(c) The Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce;
(d) The Sustainable Cities Trust;
(e) The Clean Washington Centre;
(f) The Recycling Operators of New Zealand.
5. That the Council, pursuant to Public Bodies Contracts Act 1959, delegate to the Special Committee the power to enter into contracts to a sum not exceeding $100,000 for items relating to glass recycling specified in the Council's Annual Plan.
PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
10. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
10.1 RICCARTON ROAD, PEDESTRIAN CROSSING (Clause 13 refers)
Mr John Bartlett, the Principal of St Theresa's School spoke to the Committee on his concerns at the removal of the pedestrian crossing and its replacement with a refuge island.
Ms Justine Mouat requested that the crossing be reinstated and emphasised the current danger to pedestrians particularly the elderly, young and the disabled crossing the road at this point. She stressed that the speed of traffic on Riccarton Road worsened the problem and was concerned that the onus was on pedestrians to take care rather than traffic to slow down.
10.2 CYCLISTS ON FOOTPATHS IN THE LINCOLN ROAD SHOPPING AREA
(Clause 3 refers)
Mr Geoff Guest the Area Secretary of the Addington Village Business Association had been granted speaking rights in order to appraise the Committee of his group's concerns.
Mr Guest was unable to be present at the reconvened time, however details of the issues he wished to raise were circulated to all Committee members.
10.3 BURWOOD/PEGASUS AND SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARDS
David Dobbie and Councillor Carole Evans, representing the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board spoke on Joy Street/Golf Links Road traffic calming issues and Bexley Road speed limits.
10.3.1 Joy Street/Golf Links Road
With regard to Joy Street/Golf Links Road traffic calming measures the Committee were advised that $40,000 was budgeted for the works in 1996/97 and $20,000 in 1997/98. The Community was concerned that the works would not commence until early next year and requested that consideration be given to the provision of additional funds this financial year.
The Committee discussed at length the traffic issues related to the expansion of the Palms Shopping Centre and the resultant impact on the community. Members requested that staff report back to a future meeting of the Committee detailing the Resource Consent Process and possible ways in which the Committee could have input, particularly in those applications that may be of major significance.
10.3.2 Bexley Road Speed Limits
David Dobbie further outlined to the Committee his Board's concern at the location of the 50 kpm speed limit at the southern end of Bexley Road.
He requested that consideration be given to extending the limit to south of the Wetland Grove Sub-division.
Brian Neill advised that extending the speed restriction did not meet the Land Transport Safety Authority criteria. He outlined to the Committee the proposal to complete a two way cycle track from Wetlands Grove along Bexley Road before crossing Bexley Road into Bexley Reserve and advised that this proposal was likely to afford cyclists more protection than a reduction of the speed limit.
10.3.3 Woolston Burwood Expressway
Yvonne Palmer, representing the Shirley/Papanui Community Board, together with Carole and David outlined the concerns with the delays to the Woolston/Burwood expressway.
Denis O'Rourke advised that recent discussions with Transit and Transfund NZ had been extremely beneficial and staff were currently negotiating a proposal for both Stage I and II of the expressway.
The Committee resolved:
1. That staff investigate and report back on possible substitutions in order to complete the Golf Links Road/Joy Street traffic calming measures this financial year.
2. That staff report to the November meeting of the Committee detailing the traffic management issues arising from the extension of the Palms shopping area.
3. That an invitation be extended to Max Percasky of Woodvale Limited, and to members of both the Burwood/Pegasus and Shirley/Papanui Community Boards to attend the November meeting of the Committee to discuss the officer's report.
11. PEDESTRIAN CROSSING POINTS GUIDELINES
The Traffic Operations Engineer, Brian Neill, made a presentation to the Committee on a number of various crossing types.
He advised of the need to introduce National and Christchurch City guidelines and outlined the research that was being undertaken.
The Committee resolved that a legal opinion be sought to clarify the rights of pedestrians and further that an investigation be carried out on the best options for pedestrians and as necessary make submissions to central Government on legislation amendment.
12. ZEBRA PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Brian Neill outlined to the Committee the research that had been carried out by Stephen Abley, a Canterbury University student, on zebra crossings in the city.
The Committee resolved:
1. That following the Traffic Management Workshop the staff prepare recommendations for a Council policy on the installation, maintenance and removal of pedestrian zebra crossings and other pedestrian crossing facilities in Christchurch.
2. That a forum be held to develop a consensus view on any future policy and that representatives of NZ Police, AA, LTSA and the Traffic Safety Co-ordinating Committee be invited to participate.
13. RICCARTON ROAD PEDESTRIAN CROSSING POINT NEAR RATTRAY STREET
The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board requested that the pedestrian crossing in the above location be reinstated.
Brian Neill outlined why the crossing had been removed and advised that a crossing could not be justified on technical grounds as there were insufficient numbers using it.
There was considerable discussion on pedestrian safety issues at this crossing point and divergent opinions as to the benefits or otherwise of reinstating the crossing.
The Committee resolved that the existing pedestrian refuge be removed and the pedestrian crossing be reinstated.
14. LOWER STYX ROAD/HARBOUR ROAD/KAIANGA ROAD INTERSECTION CONTROLS
The Shirley/Papanui Community Board requested that the Committee consider the replacement of the "Give Way" sign on Lower Styx Road west approach to the intersection of Harbour Road and Kaianga Road with a "Stop" sign.
Members were advised that the Board did not support the installation of splitter islands and also felt that the Give-Way sign was ineffective.
The Committee resolved that a "Stop" sign be placed against Lower Styx Road at its intersection with Harbour Road and Kaianga Road.
15. SCHOOL CROSSING POINTS
Brian Neill reported to the Committee on the Land Transport Safety Authority's extension to the school crossing points project covering an additional 30 schools nationwide and to endorse the list of 11 Christchurch schools to be included in the trial.
The Committee resolved to endorse the City Streets Manager's action in forwarding the listing of 11 schools in the Christchurch City area for inclusion in the extension to the school crossing point trial being conducted by the Land Transport Safety Authority.
16. CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY
Members were provided with an update on the road safety awareness campaigns currently being run by the Council.
The Committee resolved to receive the information and to approve the New Zealand Road Safety Programme for Christchurch for the year 1997/98.
17. COWLISHAW STREET TRAFFIC RESTRAINTS
The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board reported to the Committee requesting the consideration of additional funding for the installation of traffic restraints in Cowlishaw Street.
The work had initially been funded in the 1995/96 financial year however due to the delay in property purchases had been carried forward to 1996/97. This factor combined with changes brought about by the public consultation process had resulted in an increase in cost for the works of $110,000.
The Committee resolved that the project proceed and that the additional funding be sought at the four monthly review.
18. SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS
It was resolved to consider the two supplementary reports that were tabled at the meeting:
1. STATE HIGHWAY REVIEW (Clause 8 refers).
2. GLASS RECYCLING (Clause 9 refers).
19. ITEMS RECEIVED
The Committee received the following reports:
19.1 STRATEGY FOR CHILDREN
Information was provided to members on the progress to date of the City Streets Unit's proposed strategy to improve road safety for children. The report dealt primarily with the activities included in and the resultant success of Kidsafe Week.
19.2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SEMINAR
Members were advised that the Joint Seminar had been rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Monday 21 October in the No 2 Committee Room. The Chairperson emphasised the importance of the seminar and requested that all members attend.
19.3 CHRISTCHURCH DISTRICT SAP REPORT
Inspector Garth Hames presented the 12 month report on the Christchurch Police District. He advised that the last 12 months boasted the lowest number of fatal accidents since records have been kept.
He further advised that both injury and non injury accidents had reduced despite a 15% increase of vehicles on the road.
The meeting concluded at 7.45 pm.
CONSIDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 1996
MAYOR