Speed limit on Tram Rd
Replies have been disabled on the Northern Outlook's post titled "Speed limit on Tram Rd" so I've started a new one.
Previously, I pointed out the ‘catalyst’ for the non-complying RC application for full-accesses rights off Tram Rd to the development as being the safety concerns from experts of people potentially doing U turns around the ends of the raised concrete median strip down the middle of Tram Road.
Their solution the problem is to remove the concrete median strip and replace it with a right turning lane in to the development for east bound traffic. So, instead of a concrete median strip we’ll now have other vehicles in the middle of the road waiting to turn right.
While it is true that the illegal manoeuvre the experts refer to may actually occur, by and large most drivers obey the road rules – still, the experts determine “Crashes are likely to be Common”. Another curious rationale from the experts for the illegal U turning manoeuvres is that “It appears that vehicles entering the site from the Mandeville Road cannot readily access the service station” – so, it’s the developer’s fault! Looking at the site plan I would argue the same holds true for vehicles travelling east entering via the right-hand turn off Tram Rd.
However, what the traffic safety experts do not address, in any kind of detail, is the far more likely scenario of a commuter accidentally clipping the concrete median strip as they drive past the development. To accommodate the concrete median strip the road lanes either side of the barrier are forced to diverge around the obstacle – Tram Rd is no longer straight in this section of the road.
The risk is far greater for a distracted driver to fail alter course and clip the median strip than it is for them to smash in to someone performing an illegal U turn. The argument is simply based on probabilities – there are more legal drivers than there are illegal drivers on our roads. So, instead of one vehicle being involved in crash clipping a concrete median strip we’ll have them clipping the another vehicle sitting in the middle of the road waiting to turn right to enter the development.
It’s my contention the PC33 that created the new commercial zone was deliberately designed with this flaw – i.e. left-ins and left-outs accesses off Tram Rd with concrete median strip. PC33 was designed with developer input. This theory is supported by the fact that there were actually two safety audits running concurrently – one for the lefts only plan and the other for full accesses plan. What we’re witnessing here is commonly referred to as ‘scope creep’ in the project management game. Also, a building consent was granted the developer prior to the accesses issue being resolved – contrary to the conditions of the original RC. Presumably, the accesses issue was to be deferred for as long as possible so that the PC33 and the non-complying RC decisions were less likely to be in the forefront of anyone’s minds.
So, why? Well, we only need to consider the unmanned petrol station, NPD. The lease for a petrol station is going to much higher for a site that has full access off Tram Rd as opposed to being only accessed by west bound traffic – more money for the developer. Petrol sales are also going to be higher – therefore the petrol tax take will also be higher – more money for the council. It's always about the money.
The problem is “Crashes are likely to be common”. The irony is that this whole mess was predicated on the stated desire for improved traffic safety.
Attached is a copy of the Safety Audit Report for plan A: left-in and left-out only accesses. An analysis of the Safety Audit Report for plan 2.0: full left and right accesses, will follow.
Have your say on Canterbury’s public transport
By David Hill, Local Democracy Reporter
Canterbury residents are being encouraged to have their say on public transport in the region.
Environment Canterbury has released its draft public transport plan and is seeking submissions.
The draft plan outlines a vision for public transport in the region and notes key priorities such as improving the environment, growing patronage, accessibility, innovation and technology, and affordability.
‘‘Public transport takes many forms with communities across our region,’’ councillor Peter Scott said.
‘‘With limited funding available, we need to make sure we make the best decisions to deliver a public transport network that is integrated with urban development, innovative and meets the needs of new and existing customers.
‘‘Effective public transport is the lifeline that connects us to work, school, recreation and our friends and family, so it is important we get this right.’’
The Canterbury’s population is growing and by 2050, it is projected 700,000 people will be living in Greater Christchurch.
The draft plan covers public transport for the region, which includes the Metro service (Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri), MyWay by Metro in Timaru, Total Mobility and Community Vehicle Trusts.
It was developed in partnership with local councils and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency.
Environment Canterbury has been planning to step up its public transport efforts by increasing the frequency of existing services and introducing mass rapid transport in Greater Christchurch.
But these plans have been stalled by a lack of public transport funding in the Government’s 2024-27 National Land Transport Programme.
A proposal to allow people to travel with domestic pets is also included in the draft plan.
Having pets on buses has been successfully trial in other parts of New Zealand, councillor Joe Davies said.
‘‘We’re keen to understand what controls are needed for our bus users in Greater Christchurch and Timaru to be comfortable with pets on public transport.
It is proposed to allow adult passengers to bring a single pet on board, as long it is in an approved carrier at off-peak times, weekdays between 9am and 3pm or after 6pm, and during weekends.
Another proposal would loosen those restrictions in future to allow for leashed and muzzled dogs and increasing the limit to two pets per passenger.
‘‘We want to gauge how people feel about these proposals. Now is the time to have your say,’’ Davies said.
Submissions close on Thursday, October 24.
■ LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
What workplace change would you like to see most?
This coming Monday is Labour Day in New Zealand. This public holiday marks when the eight-hour workday and 48-hour workweek became law in 1899. The idea started with Samuel Parnell, a carpenter in Wellington, who in 1840 refused to work more than eight hours a day. Since skilled workers were in short supply, his employer had to agree.
As more skilled workers arrived, employers tried to change working conditions, but Parnell and others kept pushing for better rights. In 1890, Parnell led a Labour Day parade of 1,500 people to promote the eight-hour day. He passed away shortly after, and nine years later, Labour Day became an official public holiday.
Do you feel that we have reached the ideal in working environments yet? What rights are you passionate about relating to employment? Share your thoughts!
What's your favourite recipe for gooseberry?
Love gooseberries? Share your favourite way to enjoy them. We're looking for our readers' favourite family recipes for this delicious crop. Send yours to mailbox@nzgardener.co.nz, and if we use it in the magazine, you will receive a free copy of our December 2024 issue.
Loading…
