|
|
Regulatory Subcommittee
28 October 2020
|
Part
A Reports
Proposed Speed Limit Bylaw Amendments 10 and
11
Department: Transport
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 This
report discusses with the feedback received from two separate consultations
undertaken in relation to proposed speed limit changes under the Speed Limit
Bylaw 2004. Consultation was carried out from 6 September to 7 October
2019 on Amendment 10, Port Chalmers, and consultation was carried out from 27
July to 20 August 2020 on Amendment 11 which includes four specific areas
across the District.
2 The
Port Chalmers consultation was carried out in conjunction with the separate
consultation by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) in respect of proposed
changes to the speed limit on George Street (SH88) and sought feedback on the
establishment of a 40 kilometres per hour (km/h) speed limit on eight side
roads within the town. Amendment 10 was publicly notified for consultation
during the period 12 August 2019 to 13 September 2019.
3 Amendment
11 sought feedback on the introduction of a 30 km/h speed limit on some Central
City roads including Green Island; 40km/h speed limits on Peninsula Town centre
roads; 60km/h limits on some high-risk rural roads; and an 80km/h speed limit
on Scroggs Hill Road.
4 This
report considers the commentary and submissions for each of these areas and
makes recommendations to the Regulatory Subcommittee as to whether the proposed
speed limits should be upheld or changed.
5 A
total of seven submissions were received on the proposed Amendment 10 Port
Chalmers changes. Two submissions supported the proposed changes, one was
neutral, and four were opposed to the changes. The submissions opposing the
changes sought a reduction to 30 km/h rather than the 40 km/h limit as
proposed.
6 Three
hundred and thirty-three submissions were received during the consultation
period on Amendment 11. Of these submissions, 144 responses indicated support,
176 indicated opposition and 27 of the respondents made no specific comments on
the overall direction of the proposed amendments.
7 In
respect of the proposed Port Chalmers changes (Amendment 10) one person wishes
to be heard. In respect of the wider area changes (Amendment 11) 25 submitters
have indicated they wish to be heard.
8 Council
staff recommend the speed limits on the roads in question be adopted as
proposed.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Committee:
a) Recommends that
the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 – Amendment 10 (Port Chalmers) be adopted
by Council, with a speed limit of 40kmh for the six roads in question, with
the speed limits to come into effect on 24 December 2020.
b) Recommends that
the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 – Amendment 11, Central city and Green
Island 30km/h as proposed, be adopted by Council, with the speed limits to
come into effect on 29 January 2021.
c) Recommends that
the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 – Amendment 11, Peninsula 40km/h as
proposed, be adopted by Council, with the speed limits to come into effect on
29 January 2021.
d) Recommends that
the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 – Amendment 11, High Risk Rural roads
60km/h as proposed, be adopted by Council, with the speed limits to come into
effect on 29 January 2021.
e) Recommends that
the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004 – Amendment 11, Scroggs Hill 80km/h as
proposed, be adopted by Council, with the speed limits to come into effect on
29 January 2021.
f) Notes the
Proposed Speed Limit Bylaw Amendments 10 and 11 report.
|
BACKGROUND
Waka
Kotahi (NZTA) Road to Zero Safety Strategy
9 New
Zealand has one of the worst crash rates in terms of death and serious injury
crashes within the developed world. On average one person is killed every day
and another is injured in road crashes nationwide.
10 In
2019 there were a total 2,139 serious injuries reported in New Zealand. That
equates to almost six serious injury crashes per day. If minor injuries were
included, the total number of injury crashes reported increases to 11,425
across the year, or 31 injury crashes per day.
11 In
December 2019, the Government launched ‘Road to Zero’ New
Zealand’s road safety strategy 2020-2030. The strategy outlines a plan to
stop people being killed and injured on our roads. It’s based on Vision
Zero – a global movement that has seen significant decreases in road
trauma in Sweden, New York and parts of Australia. This kind of meaningful
change takes time, so the strategy sets a target of a 40 percent reduction in
Deaths and Serious Injuries (DSI) over 10 years. Steady progress towards this
target would mean about 750 fewer people would be killed and 5,600 fewer would
be seriously injured over 10 years compared to current levels of harm.
12 As
presented in the table below, Dunedin has a significantly poor road safety record.
In Dunedin over the five-year period between 2014 and 2018, 26 people have been
killed, and 385 people have been seriously injured in crashes on our roads.
Looking forward to the next 10 years with the Road to Zero goal of
reducing deaths and serious injuries by 40%, there is a need to reduce the
number of deaths and serious injuries from crashes on our roads. Note, data
from 2019 is not available yet.
13 Underpinning
the Road to Zero vision are seven guiding principles:
· We
promote good choices but plan for mistakes;
· We
design for human vulnerability;
· We
strengthen all parts of the road transport system;
· We
have a shared responsibility for improving road safety;
· Our
actions are grounded in evidence and evaluated;
· Our
road safety actions support health, wellbeing and liveable places; and
· We
make safety a critical decision-making priority.
14 The
strategy provides a map for change, charting a path to achieve this through
five areas of focus. These are:
a) Infrastructure
improvements and speed management;
b) Vehicle
safety;
c) Work
related road safety;
d) Road
user choices; and
e) System
management.
15 The
strategy is supported by a series of action plans over the next 10 years that
will outline priority actions for Road Controlling Authorities (RCA’s) to
deliver on the vision. These are set out in an Outcomes Framework included in
the Road to Zero: New Zealand’s Road Safety Strategy 2020-2030 which can
be found at this link https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Import/Uploads/Our-Work/Documents/Road-to-Zero-strategy_final.pdf.
Speed
limits and survivability
16 It
is known through a large body of evidence, that whatever causes a crash, the
severity of the outcome depends on speed. Research tells us that if a person
walking is hit by a car travelling at 30km/h, the risk of dying is 10%. If a
person gets hit by a car travelling at 50km/h, the risk of dying increases to 80%.
Speed
Limit Reviews
17 Both
speed limit reviews were undertaken in accordance with the Land Transport:
Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 (“the 2017 Rule”). The Dunedin
City Council – (DCC) has the power under the Land Transport Act 1998 and
the Local Government Act 2002 to amend bylaws to set speed limits for roads
under its control.
18 The
Dunedin City Speed Limit Bylaw dates from 2004, following the change in
legislation giving RCA’s the responsibility for the setting of speed
limits. The overall objective of the Bylaw is to set maximum speed limits for
roads under the jurisdiction of the Council. The speed limits are set to what
the Council considers is the safe and appropriate speed limit for a road with
regard to the function/nature and use of the road, its environment, land use
patterns and whether the road is an urban or a rural traffic area.
19 The
DCC undertakes a number of measures to improve safety on Dunedin’s roads,
including, reviewing and ensuring that speed limits across the city are set at
levels appropriate for road function, safety, design and use. Setting safe
speed limits will see a reduction in deaths and serious injuries on our roads.
Safe speed setting is complimented by DCC’s road safety education and
promotion programme.
20 The
DCC’s speed limit assessments are undertaken in accordance with the Waka
Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) Speed Management Guide and the Safer
Journey’s Risk Assessment Tool. All areas are independently assessed to
ensure they are accurate and fit for purpose. Attachment A summarises the
process used.
21 “The
2017 Rule” formalises the approach to speed management as follows:
a) Requires
NZTA to provide guidance and information about speed management for
RCA’s.
b) Requires
RCA’s to set speed limits that are, in the RCA’s view, safe and
appropriate.
c) Encourages
a consistent approach to speed management throughout New Zealand.
d) Replaces
the methodology of the previous 2003 Rule with assessment criteria and outcome
statements based on the approach of the Guide for both permanent and variable
speed limits.
e) Sets
out categories of speed limits that may be set in accordance with the Rule as
well as the range of possible speed limits (all multiples of 10km/h)
f) Specifies
the circumstances in which a variable speed limit may be set.
22 Speed
Limits Bylaw 2004 – Amendment 10 was publicly notified from 6 September
to 7 October 2019, and Amendment 11 from 27 July to 20 August 2020. The
documents that formed the basis of the public consultation in respect of both
are found in Attachments B-I and consist of:
a) Public
Notices B & F
b) Tables
of proposed speed limit changes C & G
c) Maps
of proposed speed limit changes D & H
d) Statement
of Proposal E & I
23 The
two tables below summarize the formal processes in Amendments 10 and 11 to
date, and those to come.
Amendment 10 process
|
Time
|
Actions
|
Origin
|
|
2019 /2020
|
|
|
|
August 2019
|
Staff publicly notify the Statement of Proposal for
Amendment 10 for consultation from 12 August to 13 September 2019
Notes that a hearings committee will be appointed in
the new triennium if required.
Notes that the NZTA led consultation of the proposed
speed changes to SH88 will be occurring at the same time.
|
Planning and Environment Committee Decision
6 August 2019
|
|
August – September 2019
|
Public Consultation from 12 August to
13 September 2019.
|
|
|
October 2019
|
Staff collate responses and passed on to Waka Kotahi
NZ Transport Agency for consideration.
|
|
|
July 2020
|
Waka Kotahi notify DCC speed changes to George Street
/ SH88 to be ratified October 2020.
|
|
|
28/29 October 2020
|
Staff Report to Hearings Committee
|
|
|
Steps to Come
|
|
|
|
28/29 October 2020
|
Public Hearings.
|
|
|
24 November 2020
|
Report to Council
|
Hearings
|
|
24 November 2020
|
Council Resolution
|
Council
|
|
24 December 2020
|
Bylaw Effective
|
Council
|
Amendment 11 process
|
Time
|
Actions
|
Origin
|
|
2020
|
|
|
|
15 July 2020
|
Staff publicly notify the Statement of Proposal for
Amendment 11 for consultation from 24 July – 20 August 2020.
|
Infrastructure Services Committee decision
12 May 2020
|
|
24 July – 20 August 2020
|
Public Consultation: 24 July – 20 August 2020.
|
|
|
September 2020
|
Staff collate responses
|
|
|
28/29 October 2020
|
Staff Report to Hearings Committee (this report).
|
|
|
Steps to Come
|
|
|
|
28/29 October
|
Public Hearings
|
|
|
24 November 2020
|
Report to Council
|
Hearings
|
|
24 November 2020
|
Council Resolution
|
Council
|
|
2021
|
|
|
|
29 January 2021
|
Bylaw Effective
|
Council
|
DISCUSSION
Proposed
Amendment 10
24 There
are eight roads within Port Chalmers that were the subject of the consultation.
A total of seven submissions were received during the consultation period.
These comprise two submissions in support of the proposed changes, one that was
neutral and four which were against the changes. The submissions against the
changes seek a reduction to 30 km/h rather than the 40 km/h limit as proposed.
A summary of the submissions is included in in the table below.
25 One
submitter wishes to be heard in support of the changes.
Proposed
Amendment 11
26 There
are three areas and categories of roads and one specific road on which speed
limit changes are proposed. The proposed areas and roads are listed in the
below table.
Amendment 11 submission summary
|
Proposed areas and roads
|
Current speed km/h
|
Proposed speed km/h
|
|
Central city roads:
CBD Dunedin and Green Island.
|
50
|
30
|
|
Peninsula town centre
roads: Broad Bay, Company Bay, The Cove, Harwood, MacAndrew Bay and
Portobello
|
50
|
40
|
|
High risk rural roads:
Allanton, Blackhead, Brighton, Fairfield, Green Island, Halfway Bush,
Highcliff, Mount Cargill, North Taieri, Ocean View, Otago Peninsula, Saddle
Hill, Tomahawk, Waldronville and Westwood.
|
70, 80 & 100
|
60
|
|
Scroggs Hill Road
|
100
|
80
|
27 Three
hundred and thirty-three responses were received for Amendment 11, during the
consultation period.
28 Of
these submissions, 144 responses indicated support, 167 indicated opposition
and 27 of the respondents made no specific comments on the overall direction of
the proposed amendments.
29 Twenty-five
submitters have indicated they wish to be heard in relation to their
comments.
30 A
summary of the responses to the general questions is noted below. See
attachment J for the full summary of feedback, including the themes, received.
|
Summary of general questions
|
Yes
|
No
|
No comment
|
Total
|
|
Would you like to speak to the hearing panel in person?
|
25
|
308
|
0
|
333
|
|
Overall, do you agree with the general direction of Amendment 11 to
the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004
|
144
|
162
|
27
|
333
|
|
Do you support reducing the speed limit to 30km/h on central city
roads?
|
135
|
176
|
22
|
333
|
|
Do you support reducing the speed limit to 40km/h on Peninsula town
centre roads?
|
147
|
163
|
23
|
333
|
|
Do you support reducing the speed limit to 60km/h on high risk rural
roads?
|
135
|
179
|
19
|
333
|
|
Do you support reducing the speed limit to 80km/h on Scroggs Hill
Road?
|
171
|
105
|
57
|
333
|
General feedback
31 The
majority of respondents (49%) did not agree with the overall general direction
of Amendment 11 to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004. Key issues raised in feedback
included:
· The
perception that the existing speed limits are safe and appropriate;
· The
current speed limits are not the issue, drivers are. Education might be a
better avenue to pursue;
· Lower
speeds will increase driver frustration and will lead to dangerous overtaking
manoeuvres;
· Lower
speeds will lead to increased congestion;
· Lowering
the speed limit will not automatically result in lower speeds without Police
enforcement;
· Speed
limit changes are not required as the crash history is low; and
· Speed
limit changes along the Peninsula are not required due to the widening works
which will make the road safer.
32 In
a Safe System approach, and as outlined in the Road to Zero: Road Safety Strategy
2020 – 2030, RCA’s do not set safe and appropriate speeds to reduce
the frequency of crashes, as it is accepted people make mistakes. RCA’s
can however reduce the likelihood of death or serious injury (DSi) type crashes
by reducing the severity of crashes through the setting of safe and appropriate
speeds.
33 The
DCC could be proactive and target those roads deemed high risk due to the
factors outlined by Waka Kotahi including road width, alignment, roadside
hazards, shoulder width etc.
34 DCC
has a finite annual capital expenditure budget, which affects our ability to
remove all roadside hazards through infrastructure changes throughout Dunedin.
However, Council and staff have the ability to set safe and appropriate speeds
for the current environment.
35 The
reduction in speed limits will have small changes in travel times as per the
table below. These travel times were calculated by multiple drive overs,
driving the posted speed limit (time from) compared to the proposed new speed
limit (time to).
|
Location
|
Length
|
Time from
|
Time to
|
Difference
|
|
3 Mile Hill Rd
(speed limit change from 80km/h to 60km/h)
|
5km
|
4 min 11 sec
|
4 min 50 sec
|
39 sec
|
|
Green Island to Brighton
(speed limit change from 60, 70 and 80km/h to 60km/h)
|
8.8km
|
9 min 2 sec
|
9 min 46 sec
|
44 sec
|
|
Highcliff Rd to Camp Rd
(speed limit change from 80km/h to 60km/h)
|
6.2km
|
6 min 12 sec
|
6 min 32 sec
|
20 Sec
|
Central City roads (CBD and Green Island) proposal
feedback
36 In
regard to the proposed changes to the central city roads, the majority of
respondents (53%) did not agree with reducing the speed limit to 30km/h. Key
issues raised included:
· Lower
speeds will lead to increased congestion and driver frustration; and
· Existing
speed limits are perceived to be safe and appropriate.
37 Some
respondents favoured perceived efficiency in lieu of the safety benefits in the
reduction of speed limits. Some respondents highlighted that the combination of
the existing signal phasing and proposed lowering of the speed limits will
create the potential for major congestion.
38 There
was confusion among some respondents who did not know that the existing speed
limits along George Street and other central city streets is already 30km/h.
These respondents didn’t understand the proposal is to expand the current
30km/h to the surrounding/adjacent streets.
39 Forty
percent (40%) of respondents agreed with reducing the speed limit to 30km/h on
central city roads noting the safety benefits for pedestrians and vulnerable
road users as well as network consistency.
40 Feedback
from key stakeholders including the Community Boards, this is set out in
Attachment K.
Peninsula proposal feedback
41 The
majority of respondents (49%) did not agree with reducing the speed limit to
40km/h on Peninsula town centre roads. Key issues raised in feedback included:
· The
perception that the existing speed limits are safe and appropriate;
· Lower
speeds will lead to increased congestion and driver frustration;
· Speed
limit changes are not required as the crash history is low; and
· Speed
limit changes are not required due to the widening works which will make the
road safer.
42 Some
respondents favoured perceived efficiency in lieu of the safety benefits in the
reduction of speed limits. Numerous respondents stated that the Peninsula
widening works would increase safety for all road users and therefore the
proposed speed limit change is not justified.
43 Though
the Peninsula widening works will go some way to improving safety for
pedestrians and cyclists, it does not provide the benefit in reducing speeds in
areas where there are high numbers of pedestrian movements. This is especially
relevant when considering many individuals will need to cross the road to
access the new shared path. When looking at the summary of themes (Attachment
J), the majority of respondents (52%) supported the proposed 40km/h speed limit
restrictions within the Peninsula townships. Respondents noted the benefits for
vulnerable road users (especially school children) crossing the road in built
up areas.
44 A
design philosophy for The Peninsula Connection project has been to improve
safety for all road users along the Peninsula route. Improvements to the route
includes a 3m shared path separated from the road with simple concrete kerb
blocks, and localised widening of narrow sections of the road, and widening
through some tight corners where larger vehicles (buses) had issues. However
due to geometrical constraints, the route remains twisty in nature with a very
high number of corners with design speeds of less than 50kmh. The design speed
of the widened road has not been able to be designed to more than 50kmh. While
there are a number of straight sections where the design allows for higher
speeds, these are often followed by tight curves. Were a higher speed allowed,
then the overall safety along the route would be compromised.
45 The
independent Road Safety Audits carried out on all the designs (post
construction audits currently in progress) flagged the existing speed limit of
70/50 km/h as being too high and recommended a review of the speed limit was
necessary.
46 The
60/40km/h proposed speed limit is considered an appropriate compromise between
road safety and user experience.
47 Speed
limits of 40kmh through settlements such as MacAndrew Bay and Portobello could
be reinforced with raised crossing platforms.
High risk rural roads proposal feedback
48 The
majority of respondents (53%) did not agree with reducing the speed limit to
60km/h on high risk rural roads. Key issues raised in feedback included:
· The
perception that the existing speed limits are safe and appropriate;
· Lower
speeds will lead to increased congestion and driver frustration; and
· Speed
limit changes are not required as the crash history is low.
49 As
previously stated, RCA’s do not set safe and appropriate speeds to reduce
the frequency of crashes, as it is accepted people make mistakes. RCA’s
can however reduce the likelihood of death or serious injury (DSI) type crashes
by reducing the severity of crashes through the setting of safe and appropriate
speeds.
50 The
current measured operating speeds along the high-risk rural roads do not match
the posted speed limits. The current operating speeds are significantly lower
than the posted speed limit. The posted speed limits are not considered safe
and appropriate for the environment, as illustrated in Attachment G by the
‘existing 85th percentile speed’ column.
51 The
Saddle Hill Community Board requested clarity on the reasoning for the
reduction in speed limits through Waldronville, Westwood and Oceanview.
Attachment L outlines the rationale behind the proposed speed limit changes.
Scroggs Hill feedback
52 The
majority of respondents (51%) agreed with reducing the speed limit to 80km/h on
Scroggs Hill Road. There were no specific themes raised.
Additional Issues
53 Some
submitters, including the community boards, requested additional roads to be
considered for lower speed limits. These roads are outside the scope of
the current reviews and are included in the key stakeholder feedback and are
included in Attachment K alongside the key stakeholder feedback.
Summary
of recommended changes to the proposed bylaw
54 Having
considered the submissions in relation to both Amendment 10 (Port Chalmers) and
each of the proposed category of changes (Amendment 11), staff recommend the
following speed limits.
Revised Road Speed Limits – Amendments 10 and 11
|
Proposed areas and Roads
|
Current Limit
|
Proposed Limit
|
Speed Limit rationale
|
|
Port Chalmers: Wickliffe
Terrace, Borlases Road, Albertson Avenue, Grey Street, Mount Street, and
Beach Street
|
50
km/h
|
40km/h
|
40km/h is the safe and
appropriate speed for the environment.
|
|
Central city roads:
CBD Dunedin and Green Island.
|
50
km/h
|
30km/h
|
Green Island and the Dunedin
CBD has a high volume of pedestrian movements, so 30km/h is the safe and
appropriate speed for this environment.
|
|
Peninsula town centre
roads: Broad Bay, Company Bay, The Cove, Harwood, MacAndrew Bay and
Portobello
|
50km/h
|
40km/h
|
40km/h is the safe and
appropriate speed for the environment.
|
|
High risk rural roads:
Allanton, Blackhead, Brighton, Fairfield, Green Island, Halfway Bush,
Highcliff, Mount Cargill, North Taieri, Ocean View, Otago Peninsula, Saddle
Hill, Tomahawk, Waldronville and Westwood.
|
70,
80 & 100km/h
|
60km/h
|
60km/h is the safe and
appropriate speed for the environment.
|
|
Scroggs Hill Road
|
100km/h
|
80km/h
|
60km/h is the safe and
appropriate speed for the environment, however, the independent report from
consultants showed that this road should be 80km/h instead of 60. And
stakeholder reflected this.
|
OPTIONS
55 There
are two options proposed within this report. The recommended option is to
proceed with the changes to both amendment 10 and 11. Option two is status
quo.
Option
One – Implement consulted speed limit changes (Recommended Option)
56 Option
One is:
a) to
proceed with the permanent speed limit changes to the groups of roads in
accordance with the details as proposed in Amendments 10 and 11, with no changes
from that which was proposed.
Advantages
· Speed
in affected areas will be reduced, which will improve safety for all road users
and provide a safer environment where there are high numbers of vulnerable road
users.
· The
speed limit changes that are recommended for Amendment 11 are safe and
appropriate for the road environment.
· Lower
speed limits reduce the likelihood of death or serious injury.
· Dunedin
City Council will be contributing to the Road to Zero: Road Safety Strategy
2020 – 2030 goal of reducing Deaths and Serious Injuries on our roads by
40%, and will be actively working to reduce road trauma throughout the city.
· Some
of the existing operating/actual speeds are normally lower than posted speeds
during peak periods due to the high volume of foot traffic.
· The
removal of some of the 70km/h speed zones would minimise the speed limit
changes on a road. 70 km/h speed zones are being phased out nationally.
· Speed
limit changes are all in accordance with the changes consulted in the Statement
of Proposal.
Disadvantages
· Costs
associated with the installation of new speed limit signs.
· Speed
changes in Amendment 10 (Port Chalmers) will not be in accordance with the
majority of respondent’s feedback who preferred 30km/h speed reduction.
· There
are many members of the community that do not support lower speed limits.
Option
two – Status Quo
57 The
status quo would be to leave the speed limits unchanged.
Advantages
· No
resources required for the installation of new speed limit signs.
Disadvantages
· Does
not help to improve safety of all road users in the areas that have been
identified as being at risk.
· Dunedin
City Council will not be contributing to the Road to Zero: Road Safety Strategy
2020 – 2030 goal of reducing Deaths and Serious Injuries on our roads by
40% and will not address the issue of continued road trauma and deaths when
crashes occur at speeds that are not safe and appropriate for the road
environment.
NEXT STEPS
58 The
Regulatory Subcommittee must consider each proposal and the submissions
received under Amendments 10 and 11 respectively and decide whether it should
proceed as recommended. It is important that any decisions are made in
accordance with the requirements of the Land Transport: Setting of Speed Limits
Rule 2017 (“the 2017 rule”).
59 If
the recommended changes to the Bylaw are adopted by Council, the final
amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2004, including any subsequent changes,
will be sent to the NZTA and the NZ Police at least 14 days prior to it coming
into effect.
60 In
addition to this staff would arrange for the changes in speed limits to be
publicised and the necessary changes in signage to be implemented.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Stacey Hitchcock - Transport Planner
Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport
Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
⇩a
|
Speed limit assessment
process
|
26
|
|
⇩b
|
Amendment 10 Public
Notice
|
27
|
|
⇩c
|
Amendment 10 Table of
proposed speed limit changes
|
28
|
|
⇩d
|
Amendment 10 Map of
proposed speed limit changes
|
29
|
|
⇩e
|
Amendment 10 Statement
of Proposal
|
30
|
|
⇩f
|
Amendment 11 Public
notice
|
64
|
|
⇩g
|
Amendment 11 Table of
proposed speed limit changes
|
65
|
|
⇩h
|
Amendment 11 Maps of
proposed speed limit changes
|
71
|
|
⇩i
|
Amendment 11 Statement
of Proposal
|
79
|
|
⇩j
|
Amendment 11 Summary of
responses
|
108
|
|
⇩k
|
Key stakeholder
feedback - Amendments 10 & 11
|
111
|
|
⇩l
|
Technical Assessment
Reports
|
114
|
|
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
Fit with purpose
of Local Government
This decision promotes the social
well-being of communities in the present and for the future.
This decision promotes the economic
well-being of communities in the present and for the future.
This decision promotes the environmental
well-being of communities in the present and for the future.
|
|
Fit with strategic
framework
|
|
Contributes
|
Detracts
|
Not applicable
|
|
Social Wellbeing Strategy
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Economic Development Strategy
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Environment Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Arts and Culture Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
3 Waters Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Spatial Plan
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Integrated Transport Strategy
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Parks and Recreation Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Other strategic projects/policies/plans
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
Ensuring Dunedin is a safe city is prioritised in the
Social Wellbeing Strategy, Spatial Plan and Long-Term Plan as well as the
Integrated Transport Strategy. Safer speeds is one of four pillars under the
Safe System approach to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes
occurring on Dunedin’s road network.
|
|
Māori Impact
Statement
There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.
|
|
Sustainability
There are no implications for sustainability.
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan /
Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy
There is no impact on the 10-year plan or Annual Plan.
|
|
Financial
considerations
Costs associated with speed limit changes are funded
through the Low Cost / Low Risk safety improvement programme.
|
|
Significance
The proposed speed limit changes are considered to be of
medium significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and
Engagement Policy.
|
|
Engagement –
external
Engagement has been
undertaken with affected parties and key stakeholders on the proposed speed
limit changes through formal consultation. Affected parties include the key
stakeholders who were specifically asked for feedback were the affected
Community Board/s, Waka Kotahi (NZTA), NZ Police, NZ Fire, St John Ambulance,
the Automobile Association, Otago Regional Council, Heavy Haulage, SPOKES,
CCS Disability Action, Disabled Persons Assembly, and The Blind Foundation.
In addition, Well South Primary Health Network and Public Health South (SDHB)
has given feedback.
|
|
Engagement -
internal
Staff and managers from Transport, Council Communications
and Marketing and Legal Services, have been involved in the drafting of the
proposed Speed Limit Bylaw Amendments 10 and 11.
|
|
Risks: Legal /
Health and Safety etc.
The proposed speed limit changes will “treat”
the risk by reducing speed to fit the road environment.
|
|
Conflict of
Interest
There are no known conflicts of interest.
|
|
Community Boards
All of the Community Boards were invited to participate in
the consultation process where speed limit changes were proposed within their
areas. They have provided feedback, and this is detailed in the report.
|
