Tasman District Council
Motueka Community Board Agenda – 19 April 2022
7 Reports
7.1
Intersection
priority change - Trewavas Street / Old Wharf Road
Decision Required
|
Report To:
|
Motueka Community Board
|
|
Meeting Date:
|
19 April 2022
|
|
Report Author:
|
Mike van Enter, Senior
Transportation Engineer
|
|
Report Number:
|
RMCB22-04-1
|
1.1 We
have received feedback that the present intersection arrangement of Old Wharf
Road and Trewavas Street, with priority given around the 90-degree turn from
Old Wharf Road to Trewavas Street has led to near misses and driver confusion
due to it’s unusual layout.
1.2 The
usual approach with priority intersections is to give priority to the dominant
movement, which is between Old Wharf Road and Trewavas Street, however this
conflicts with providing a simple T-intersection layout that drivers expect.
1.3 The
options are to reinforce the existing layout, provide a simple T-intersection,
or install a small painted roundabout.
1.4 Staff
have reviewed the options and recommend changing to a standard T-intersection
with STOP control on Trewavas Street.
That the Motueka Community Board
receives the Intersection priority change - Trewavas Street / Old Wharf
Road RMCB22-04-2; and
Instructs
implementation of Option 2 – Alter the intersection of Old Wharf Road and
Trewavas Street to a standard T-intersection with STOP control on Trewavas
Street.
3.1 The
purpose of this report is to consider options to alter the intersection form
and priority control at the intersection of Trewavas Street and Old Wharf
Road.
4 Background
and Discussion
Background
4.1 A resident and
regular intersection user has requested the current traffic control
arrangements at the intersection be changed.
4.2 The resident
suggested that the Give Way restriction should be on Trewavas Street allowing
traffic from Motueka Quay to Old Wharf Rd to proceed straight ahead without
restriction. The resident considered this to be the standard road layout
for a straight road.
4.3 The present
arrangement, he noticed, because it was not usual had led to “many near
misses”. Comments and observations shared by the resident were that any
serious accident has been avoided because of slow speeds, not because of the
road lay-out. Also, vehicles turning right in to Trewavas St was an
un-necessary hazard, aggravated by the existing priority situation.
Overview
Assessment
4.4 The usual approach with priority
intersections is to give priority to the dominant movement. Therefore,
there are many intersections where the dominant flow, and priority is around a
90 degree turn. These intersections do add complexity, as the
‘straight through’ movement that has priority is through a
90-degree bend.
4.5 The
most recent traffic count data from 2021, shows that Trewavas Street near Old
Wharf Road end has 1,256 vehicles/day, while Motueka Quay has 526 vehicles/day,
suggesting the current arrangement is appropriate in terms of typical
priorities.
4.6 Add
turning counts.
Technical
Assessment
4.7 The
Crash Analysis System has no crashes recorded during the latest ten-year period
at this intersection. It does include:
4.7.1 Rear end crash into
a forklift on Old Wharf Road,
4.7.2 Loss of control
while driving at speed on the 90 degree bend on Motueka Quay nearby.
4.8 The
technical guidance is not clear cut. Priority depends on road
hierarchy/traffic AND driver expectations. These two are likely to be in
conflict at this site.
4.8.1 Hierarchy and
traffic volumes favor priority around the corner, as per the existing layout.
4.8.2 Driver expectations
may favor a standard T-intersection layout unless the turning volume is very
dominant.
4.9 The
options are:
4.9.1 Option 1,
reinforce the existing priority, and dominant flow through a 90-degree
bend. Alter the existing Give way on Motueka Quay leg to STOP control and
add centerline and edge line markings through the 90-degree turn.
4.9.1.1 This
option provides stronger priority control and additional paint to make drivers
more aware of the unusual 90-degree layout.
4.9.1.2 These
additional aids may not be strong enough to alert all drivers to the layout
against expectations of a standard T-intersection.
4.9.2 Option 2,
alter the intersection layout to a standard T-intersection form with STOP
control on Trewavas Street.
4.9.2.1 Due
to the higher traffic volumes of drivers turning left from Trewavas Street, not
all drivers may choose to stop and properly check for traffic coming from
Motueka Quay. Visibility restriction around property frontages does
require this driver to stop in accordance with technical guidance.
4.9.2.2 Due
to higher traffic volumes of drivers turning right into Trewavas Street, there
may be a tendency to “follow the leader”, a behavior where drivers
follow the car in front without properly checking if they need to giveway to
Motueka Quay traffic.
4.9.2.3 This
is a simple and expected intersection form.
4.9.3 Option 3,
give equal priority to all legs by installing a painted or very low raised
roundabout.
4.9.3.1 Roundabouts
are the preferred safe system intersection treatment, as they require all
approaching vehicles to slow down and giveway if needed.
4.9.3.2 At
this location, the roundabout footprint will be very small, marginally smaller
than similar roundabouts we have installed on Talbot Street at the Mall
entrance. This will require drivers to drive over the painted roundabout,
or very low raised asphalt island. As in Option 2, dominant flows may not
properly check for traffic.
4.9.3.3 The
sight distance from Trewavas Street is limited, meaning Trewavas Street drivers
will need to approach slowly and take care, while Motueka Quay drivers may
approach faster as they have good visibility. This is a similar scenario
at the existing mountable roundabout at the intersection of Hill Street and
Champion Road.
Photograph 1 – Sight
distance looking from Trewavas Street to Motueka Quay approach.
Photograph 2 – Similar
sight distance constraints at Hill Street / Champion Road.
4.10 It is normal traffic engineering practice to monitor
the outcomes and impacts of any treatments installed. From the user
feedback we have received, we know that not all users use the current layout as
intended. It is possible that not all users would use any of the proposed
alternatives as intended, although they could have an improved outcome.
4.11 Any
improvement to the intersection will require the property owners adjacent to
the intersection to remove their fencing and vegetation from road reserve.
5.1 The
options are summarized and compared in the following table.
|
|
Option
|
Advantage
|
Disadvantage
|
|
1.
|
Reinforce the existing priority
with STOP
|
Improves awareness of the unusual
intersection form.
The dominant movement has
priority.
Low cost.
|
The intersection form remains
unexpected for some drivers.
|
|
2.
|
Alter the
intersection layout to a standard T-intersection form with STOP control on
Trewavas Street
|
Alters the intersection layout to
a standard T-intersection.
Many drivers will expect this
form of intersection.
Low cost.
|
The dominant turning movement
drivers may not stop to look properly.
|
|
3.
|
Install a
painted or very low raised roundabout
|
Provides equal priority for all
users.
Slows all approaching vehicles
providing a good safe system approach to intersections.
|
Due to very small size some
drivers may ignore the markings and not slow down.
Sight distance from Trewavas
Street less than other approaches.
More costly than other options.
|
|
4.
|
Do nothing
|
Low cost
|
No potential for intersection
improvement.
|
5.2 Option
2 is recommended as it is a simple and expected intersection form.
6.1 The
draft walking and cycling strategy shows separate cycle lanes through this
intersection along Old Wharf Road. Old Wharf Road is not wide enough to
accommodate separated cycle lanes so implementation will involve significant
construction. All intersection options in this report involve minor
physical works and can therefore be altered to suit any future separated cycle
lane design.
7 Policy
/ Legal Requirements / Plan
.7.1 Regulatory
Traffic Control devices need to be added to our Traffic Control Devices Bylaw
Schedule by Council resolution. Traffic Control device updates are
presented to Council for approval on a regular basis.
8 Consideration
of Financial or Budgetary Implications
8.1 The
recommended option can be achieved from existing transportation budgets.
9 Significance
and Engagement
9.1 The
overall significance of this proposed change is considered to be low. We
recommend engagement with adjacent and nearby residents to inform them of the
proposed change, if approved by the Board, in advance of works occurring.
|
|
Issue
|
Level of Significance
|
Explanation of Assessment
|
|
1.
|
Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision
likely to be controversial?
|
Low
|
Interest may be high for local road users, but this is a
low volume intersection change that can be easily monitored and altered.
|
|
2.
|
Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental
or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?
|
Low
|
|
|
3.
|
Is there a significant impact arising from duration of
the effects from the decision?
|
Low
|
|
|
4.
|
Does this activity contribute or detract from one of
the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?
|
No
|
|
|
5.
|
Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer
Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)
|
Yes
|
This is a minor change to the roading network.
|
|
6.
|
Does the decision create a substantial change in the level
of service provided by Council?
|
No
|
|
|
7.
|
Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially
affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?
|
No
|
|
|
8.
|
Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion
or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?
|
No
|
|
|
9.
|
Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a
private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any
Council group of activities?
|
No
|
|
|
10.
|
Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting
from or entering into a group of activities?
|
No
|
|
|
11.
|
Does the proposal require inclusion of Māori in the
decision making process (consistent with s81 of the LGA)?
|
No
|
The Council has a number of initiatives to maintain and
improve relationships with local iwi, providing opportunities for Māori
to contribute to the decision-making process with no indication that
Māori wish to take the opportunity specifically in regards to this
project.
|
10.1 From the user
feedback we have received, we know that not all users use the current
intersection layout as intended. It is possible that not all users would
use any of the proposed alternatives as intended, although an alternative
layout could have an improved outcome.
10.2 A simple form
of intersection is often expected. On this basis altering the
intersection to a standard T-intersection (Option 2) with a STOP control on
Trewavas Street is recommended.
11.1 If approved, a letter
regarding the recommended option will be sent to adjacent and nearby residents
to inform them of the proposal.
11.2 The Traffic Control
Devices required for the selected intersection will be proposed to Council for
approval and inclusion in our Traffic Control Devices Bylaw Schedule, and the
works then undertaken by our Contractors. It is expected that this could
be achieved early next financial year.
11.3 A reasonable timeframe
should be allowed for landowners to remove or relocate their infrastructure
from road reserve.
|
1.⇩
|
Old Wharf Road / Trewavas Street Intersecton Options
|
13
|
Tasman District Council
Motueka Community Board Agenda – 19 April 2022
7.2 Motueka Community Board Chairs Report
Information Only - No Decision
Required
|
Report To:
|
Motueka Community Board
|
|
Meeting Date:
|
19 April 2022
|
|
Report Author:
|
Emma Gee, Team Leader -
Customer Services (Motueka)
|
|
Report Number:
|
RMCB22-04-2
|
1.1 This
is the Motueka Community Board Chairperson’s regular monthly report.
That
the Motueka Community Board receives the Motueka Community Board Chairs Report RMCB22-4-2
3 DRAFT Motueka bus route plan
3.1 The
DRAFT Motueka bus route plan discussion has been confirmed.
4.1 The new library is now open.
5 Email
requests from Mr Hughes
5.1 Email
requests from Mr Hughes attached in the Correspondence Report.
6.1 The
Board to discuss Special Projects.
8 Emails
attached regarding graffiti and weed control in Motueka.
9.1 Update
attached from Cr Ogilvie.
10 Operations Committee Report
10.1 The
next Operations Committee meeting will be held 12 May 2022, agenda and reports
available for viewing from 9 May 2022 via the meeting calendar on Councils
website Meetings
calendar | Tasman District Council
11 Items
from Board Members
11.1 Any items from Board Members.
12.1 Any items from the Motueka Youth Council.
13 Items from Public Forum
13.1 Any
items raised in the Public Forum requiring further discussion.
|
1.⇩
|
D Armstrong - Special Projects
|
18
|
|
2.⇩
|
M Drummond - Special Projects
|
21
|
|
3.⇩
|
Motueka Township
|
32
|
|
4.⇩
|
Cr Ogilvie Update
|
35
|
