Ture ā-rohe Waka me ngā Tūnga Waka 2021

Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021

Gisborne District Council proposes to revoke its Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2011 and make a new Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021.

This proposed new bylaw allows Council as the road controlling authority to set requirements for parking and control of traffic on roads under the care, control or management of Council.

The proposed changes to the bylaw include:
  • Amending the structure of the bylaw to use a resolution register rather than schedules to list all the location specific controls
  • Introducing new mechanisms so that Council can create location-specific controls in the future. For example: 
    • restrict or prohibit vehicles on unformed legal roads – including beaches
    • creation of resident parking areas
    • heavy traffic user charges
    • storage of vehicles on roads
    • shared paths and zones
    • temporary use of legal roads
    • temporary accessways
    • heavy vehicle engine braking on local roads (with speeds under 70km/per hour)
  • New location-specific controls introduced covering:
    • Heavy vehicle traffic in the Gisborne urban area
    • Inner Harbour parking zones
    • One-way system on Titirangi
    • Wheeled  recreational  vehicles  in the CBD.
    • Special vehicle lanes for cyclists only, established on Ormond Road, Childers Road, Gladstone Road and Crawford Road.

Timeline for draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021

13 October - 5pm 15 November 2021Have your say
22 NovemberCouncillors hear and consider submissions
16 December 2021Decision of Council

Have your say

Before making any final decisions, we would like your input. You can make a submission:

  • Online:  Submission form below
  • By Post: PO Box 747, Gisborne 4040
  • In person: 15 Fitzherbert Street, Gisborne
  • Zoom meeting: if you would like to join a meeting, please email feedback@gdc.govt.nz

Key document

Statement of Proposal - Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021

Proposed changes to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021

Proposals 1-10 are proposed changes and include:

  • restrict or prohibit vehicles on unformed legal roads – including beaches
  • creation of resident parking areas
  • heavy traffic user charges
  • storage of vehicles on roads
  • shared paths and zones
  • temporary use of legal roads
  • temporary accessways
  • heavy vehicle engine braking on local roads (with speeds under 70km/per hour)

Proposal 1 - Revoke the previous bylaw

Proposal (1)

Revoke the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2011 and make a new Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021.

Reasoning

In order to make a new Traffic and Parking Bylaw the Local Government Act 2002 Section 86(2)(ii) requires Council makes a statement in this Statement of Proposal that it intends to revoke its existing Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2011.

Options Considered

As this is a legal requirement of the process to propose making a new bylaw Council did not consider any other options.

Preferred Option

Council makes a statement proposing to revoke the existing Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2011.

Proposal 2 - Use a resolution register instead of schedules

Proposal (2)  

Replace the use of schedules with a resolution register to record locations to which the bylaw clauses apply.   

Reasoning

The proposed bylaw includes a flexible framework to allow appropriate responses to issues by way of resolutions to set out the details of location-specific traffic and parking controls. This approach is expressly allowed for under the Land Transport Act 1998.

Options Considered

Option One - Status quo: Schedules listing controls and resolutions as required.This option requires Council to amend schedules to the bylaw for each individual traffic control via a publicly notified resolution for the listed controls in clause 5.1.

Option Two – Utilising only a resolution register listing resolutions for all of the specific controls under the rules in the bylaw. This option enables Council to respond efficiently and effectively to arising issues by way of resolutions to set out the details of location-specific traffic and parking controls.

Preferred Option

Option Two – Utilising only a resolution register listing resolutions for all of the specific controls under the rules in the bylaw.

Proposal 3 - Use of restrictions for unformed legal roads and beaches

Proposal (3)

Include a clause allowing Council to restrict or prohibit vehicles on unformed legal roads and beaches.

Reasoning

Currently Council does not have a mechanism to restrict or prohibit vehicles on unformed legal roads or beaches.

Beach ecosystems are under considerable pressure through climate change, sea level rise, woody debris, habitat loss and dune degradation. While restricting or prohibiting vehicles on beaches cannot be Councils first response to these issues, a programme of work to consider overall beach and dune health could suggest limitations on vehicle access to certain areas. This clause does not apply to any areas at this time, and its application to any areas would require further consultation with the community.

Options Considered

Option One – Status quo: no clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 and no specific bylaw created.

Council does not introduce a clause allowing for restrictions for vehicles on beaches or any other unformed legal roads. If Council wished to introduce any such restriction in the future to do so would require a new bylaw or provision introduced to an existing bylaw.

Option Two – Include a ‘Restricting vehicles on unformed roads’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021

This allows Council to consider location-specific restrictions or prohibitions for vehicles on unformed legal roads including beaches at a later date with appropriate consultation when other management methods fail. This would be a matter that would be updated via the resolution register and specific restrictions would not need to be named in the bylaw itself at this point in time.

This provision would require enforcement officers (including NZ Police). Police cannot commit resources to vehicles on beaches, but will continue to prioritise response to dangerous driving and speeding reported.

Option Three - Include a ‘Restricting vehicles on unformed roads’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 and introduce a speed limit on beaches as part of the Speed Management Plan review.

This allows Council to consider location-specific restrictions or prohibitions for vehicles on unformed legal roads including beaches at a later date with appropriate consultation when other management methods fail. This would be a matter that would be updated via the resolution register and specific restrictions would not need to be named in the bylaw itself at this point in time.

This provision would require enforcement officers (including NZ Police). Police cannot commit resources to vehicles on beaches but will continue to prioritise response to dangerous driving and speeding reported.

Introducing a speed limit regulates the maximum speed for driving on the beach that can be enforced. This matter will be addressed as part of the Speed Management Plan development process and will not form a restriction under this bylaw.

Preferred Option

Option Three - Include a ‘Restricting vehicles on unformed roads’ clause the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 and introduce a speed limit on beaches as part of the Speed Management Plan review.

Proposal 4 - Resident parking areas

Reasoning

With growth in population, vehicle numbers and increasingly decentralised work practices, Council is seeing increased demand for suburban on-street parking. It is likely that that this trend will continue, and that Council will need to consider ‘resident parking areas’ in the peri-urban area within the lifespan of this bylaw. Such controls would seek to ensure sufficient parking is available to residents at all times.

Options Considered

Option One - Status quo: no provision for resident parking areas in the draft bylaw.

Council does not introduce a clause allowing for resident parking areas to be established by resolution publicly notified. If Council wished to introduce resident parking areas in the future to do so would require a review of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.

Option Two – Include a ‘Residents’ parking’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 providing for the establishment of resident parking areas.

This allows Council to assess, on a case-by-case basis, the demand against the available capacity of suburban residential parking and apply controls if deemed appropriate.

Introducing this clause would be consistent with Council’s Parking Policy 2018 which identified the growing need for residential parking controls, particularly within, but not limited to, the peri-urban area.

Preferred Option

Option Two – Include a ‘Residents’ parking’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 providing for the establishment of resident parking areas.

Proposal 5 - Heavy traffic user charges

Reasoning

Section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998 provides local authorities with a range of powers to enable the taking of securities, recovery of costs or the establishment of annual payments from heavy traffic operators to cover the increased maintenance and remediation costs associated with heavy traffic activities.

The proposed clause will establish the legal framework within which a methodology could be developed, and Council may, by publicly notified resolution, commence collection of charges from heavy traffic operators to contribute toward maintenance to the roading network.

Any resolution will be subject to the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 including stakeholder engagement and community consultation.

Options Considered

Option One - Status quo: no mechanism for charging heavy traffic operators.

At this time, the cost of remediating damage or the increased maintenance caused by heavy traffic is born by Council and there is no means of cost recover from individuals, operators, or industry.

Tairāwhiti has a large road network with a small population and significant rating affordability issues. Recovering costs from operators is one means of improving rates affordability and preventing an unsustainable rate payer subsidy for industry.

Option Two – Include a ‘Heavy traffic user charges’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 giving effect to the financial contribution powers in Section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998.

Council has for some time sought a means by which the additional network maintenance and repair costs incurred by heavy traffic activities could be recovered. These powers would be relevant wherever heavy traffic operates, and could be applied to specific classes of heavy traffic.

Using section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998 provides a legal basis for the programme, ensuring Council can both legal require contributions and undertake compliance actions for non-payment.

Note: This would be the first step in the process, further development, consideration and consultation will be necessary prior to any to resolution to activate this clause.

Option Three – Develop a standalone bylaw to give effect to the powers in Section 22AB.

Council could in theory develop an additional bylaw to deal exclusively with from user charges for heavy traffic operators however as there are no identified advantages in doing so, duplicating the bylaw making process would be inefficient.

Option Four – Develop an alternative mechanism for receiving heavy traffic user charges.

No viable, comparable methods for charging heavy traffic operators have been identified.

Preferred Option

Option Two – Include a ‘Heavy traffic user charges’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 giving effect to the powers in Section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998.

Proposal 6 - Storage of vehicles on roads

Reasoning

This clause ensures businesses which are storing vehicles in connection with the activity of the business do not store those vehicles on a road. Examples of this could be a panel beater, mechanic or car yard storing vehicles on the road.

Options Considered

Option One - Status quo: no change to the current bylaw.

Council currently has no recourse to infringe or enforce removal of vehicles if a business were to utilise the public road for the storage of vehicles. This is undesirable as it reduces available parking for other users but also constitutes the access of a public good for private benefit which should be avoided.

Option Two – Include a ‘Storage of vehicles on road’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 prohibiting the storage of vehicles associated with a business activity on a road.

This clause allows Council to regulate the storage of vehicles associated with a business activity on a road. This rule does not apply to vehicles of customers visiting the business.

Option Three – Prohibit the storage of vehicles on roads through a different mechanism such as the Tairāwhiti Resource Management Plan (TRMP) or the Public Places Bylaw 2015.

Options for parking controls through the TRMP are limited under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development and more difficult to enforce than the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.

The Public Places Bylaw 2015 is made under the Local Government Act 2002 and is therefore not the appropriate bylaw for implementing powers under the Land Transport Act 1998.

Preferred Option

Option Two – Include a ‘Storage of vehicles on road’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 prohibiting the storage of vehicles associated with a business activity on a road.

Proposal 7 - Shared paths and zones

Reasoning

Since the current bylaw was drafted Council have installed a number of shared paths which require regulation to ensure correct use and the safety of all users.

Council’s shared cycle and foot paths as well as the city centre wheeled recreational devices restrictions are examples of shared paths under these clauses. Council does not currently have any shared zones; however, the draft bylaw provides the ability to establish these if they become necessary.

Options Considered

Option One – Status quo: no regulation of shared paths and zones through Council’s bylaw.

The absence of any clause in the bylaw means that Council cannot specify rules and restrictions in relation to specific shared zones or paths.

There are rules in the Land Transport Act 1998 which Police can enforce that are not affected by whether Council has a bylaw or not.

Option Two – Include ‘Shared zones’ and ‘Shared paths’ clauses in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 regulating the use of shared paths and zones.

By including these clauses, Enforcement Officers (including NZ Police) will be able to enforce correct use of the region’s shared paths and cycle ways, reducing incidences of driving and parking on shared paths. It also enables infringements to be given to those that do not follow the rules.

Preferred Option

Option Two – Include ‘Shared zones’ and ‘Shared paths’ clauses in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 regulating the use of shared paths and zones.

Proposal 8 - Temporary use of legal roads

Reasoning

To ensure safety, the free flow of traffic and the availability of parking, Council needs to regulate the temporary use of legal roads.

Activities that may affect the normal operating conditions of a road could still be undertaken with a written permit issued by the Council.

The current Corridor Access Request system (CAR) is used for permits but is not reinforced by the current bylaw. This means that monitoring, enforcement, and infringement options under the bylaw are not available for the current CAR framework.

Options Considered

Option One – Status quo: only use Corridor Access Request process.

Council currently has high levels of compliance through its Corridor Access Request system (CAR). Council has limited compliance tools available in instances where permission is not sought or if there are any instances of non-compliance with the written permission conditions as specified in the granted CAR. Continuing with the status quo would be a missed opportunity to reinforce the CAR system and the safety it provides.

Option Two – Include a ‘Temporary use of legal road’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 to complement the Corridor Access Request process.

A clause regulating the temporary use of legal roads will complement the CAR system, providing further options for monitoring and compliance activities.

Preferred Option

Option Two – Include a ‘Temporary use of legal road’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 to complement the Corridor Access Request process.

Proposal 9 - Temporary accessways

Reasoning

Temporary access ways are commonly erected during construction and are defined as any access way that crosses a legal road or foot path. The draft bylaw would require the written permission of Council to construct such an access way and clarifies liability for any damage because of unprotected or inadequately protected accessways.

Options Considered

Option One - Status quo: only use Corridor Access Request process.

Council currently issues written permission for temporary access ways through the Corridor Access Request (CAR) system. Council has limited compliance tools available in instances where permission is not sought or if there are any instances of non-compliance with the written permission conditions as specified in the granted CAR. Continuing with the status quo would be a missed opportunity to reinforce the CAR system and the safety it provides.

Option Two – Include a ‘Temporary access ways’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 to complement the Corridor Access Request process.

Written permission for construction or use of a temporary access way would continue to be administered through the CAR system.  The inclusion of a clause in the bylaw provides for clear and effective enforcement measures in instances where non-compliance with any written conditions has been identified.

The clause also outlines who is liable for the costs of any damage to the road and/or footpath caused through unprotected or inadequately protected access ways.

Preferred Option

Option Two – Include a ‘Temporary access ways’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 to complement the Corridor Access Request process.

Proposal 10 - Local roads engine braking restrictions

Reasoning

Engine braking is an integral safety feature for heavy vehicles, providing greater control under deceleration than conventional braking.

Under s22AB of the LTA Council can include restrictions on engine braking in a bylaw to a certain extent.

Council will continue to work with transport operators to reduce heavy vehicle noise where possible, particularly during the hours of darkness.

Options Considered

Option One – Status quo: no clause providing for engine breaking restrictions on local roads.

Under the status quo, to apply any engine breaking restrictions to a given road Council would need to review the Traffic and Parking Bylaw and insert the enabling clause to enact the restriction. This would still require undertaking the safety review and consultation about the given road.

Option Two – Include an ‘Engine braking’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 for engine braking restrictions to be applied to local roads in the future if required.

Council can use this review to insert an engine braking clause to provide the option to make restrictions via resolution in the future – subject to a targeted safety review and consultation. This aids in future proofing the draft bylaw.

Under the draft bylaw, areas where the speed limit is below 70km per hour and it is not necessary for safety reasons such as descending hills, engine braking restrictions could be applied once a safety review and consultation had taken place.

No restrictions have been proposed in the resolution register at this time.

Note: This clause cannot be applied to state highways as Council does not have authority to introduce restrictions without a delegation from Waka Kotahi. Waka Kotahi have indicated they are not supportive of providing delegation to Council at this time for enforcement reasons.

Preferred Option

Option Two – Include an ‘Engine braking’ clause in the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 for engine braking restrictions to be applied to local roads in the future if required.

New location-specific controls to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021

Proposals 11-15 are proposed new resolutions that are not currently in the existing bylaw.

Reasoning

The number of heavy vehicles on the urban road network – particularly logging trucks going to the Port – has increased significantly in recent years. The volume of forest harvesting is still increasing. Road transport is currently the only viable option for transporting logs to the Port. The increased heavy vehicle flows are impacting the amenity of residential areas, safety of all transport users and some aspects of the economy. Council has already made a decision on a preferred heavy vehicle route.

Options Considered

Option One – Status quo: no heavy vehicle route restrictions in the urban area.

In the current bylaw there are no route restrictions for all heavy vehicles in the urban area.

The current bylaw does restrict the transportation of stock in heavy motor vehicles through urban areas to arterial routes only and restricts the parking of heavy vehicles in residential areas for more than an hour, except on arterial roads or for loading/unloading. This would be carried over into the new resolution register.

Option Two – Council resolves to restrict heavy vehicle traffic in the urban area to Awapuni Road pending safety upgrades.

Under clause 20 in the draft bylaw Council may by resolution prohibit or restrict, subject to such conditions as the Council thinks fit, any specified class of traffic or any specified motor vehicles or class of vehicle that, by reason of its size or nature or the nature of the goods carried, is unsuitable for use on any road or roads.

Enforcement Officers (including NZ Police) would be required to enforce any heavy vehicle route restrictions. As Awapuni Road is a state highway there is no option of removing heavy vehicles from it. The question is whether it is preferable to focus heavy vehicles to a single route or spread the load of heavy vehicles across routes into and around the urban area.

Highway Route

Figure 1: Map of proposed heavy vehicle route restriction

Council consulted on a preferred heavy vehicle route in 2020 and resolved to include the above route in the draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw. This restriction does not prohibit local road access for deliveries to premises not on the heavy vehicle routes.

Table 1 lists the other roads for inclusion in a resolution of prohibited roads for heavy vehicles. This was also endorsed by Council in 2020.

Road 

Reason 

Justification for inclusion 

Andrew Street 

Increased heavy vehicle traffic since the instalment of marshalling yard on Lytton Road.

Deputation to Council 28 Feb 2019.

Lytton Road (between Ormond Road and Gladstone Road)

Discourage through traffic as an alternative to the identified “Link road”

Will reinforce preferred link road option between Back Ormond and SH35.

Gladstone Road (between Grey Street and Customhouse Street)

Discourage through traffic, with the intention of increasing shared space.

Spatial Plan aspiration for shared space along Gladstone Road.

Grey Street 

Discourage through traffic, with the intention of increasing shared space.

Spatial Plan aspiration for Grey Street Linear Park shared space.

Table 1: Proposed prohibited roads to enable heavy vehicle route restrictions

Council staff already process heavy vehicle access permits for current bridge restrictions. This process could be extended to cover access under any additional route restrictions once enacted.

Note: the enactment of this restriction could not be made until safety upgrades have been constructed for the route identified – this may not be enacted for several years.

Option Three –Council includes the powers to make the heavy vehicle route restrictions in the draft bylaw but decides to defer making a resolution specifying the preferred route/routes for heavy vehicles until further consultation is undertake and/or there is more certainty regarding the road safety upgrades.

Preferred Option

Option Two – Council resolves to restrict heavy vehicle traffic in the urban area to Awapuni Road pending safety upgrades.

Reasoning

Through the design process for the Inner Harbour redevelopment project, Council consulted extensively with stakeholders, businesses, and recreational users to establish the correct mix of parking types. Those were installed on the network and their inclusion in the draft bylaw is the necessary legal step to make those controls enforceable.   

Options Considered

Option One – Status quo: Council does not include the Inner Harbour parking controls, as installed on the network, in the draft bylaw.

If not added to the resolution register Council does not have the necessary legal framework to enforce the parking restrictions as currently installed. This effectively renders the parking restrictions inoperative.

Option Two – Council resolves to add to the resolution register the Inner Harbour parking controls as installed on the network.

This option adds the controls to the list of parking restriction resolutions under clause 8 of the draft bylaw and permits Council to enforce the parking restrictions within the Inner Harbour. The P5, P30 and Vehicle and Boat trailer only parking, for example, will become enforceable and Council will have the ability to infringe for non-compliance.

Inner Harbour

Figure 2: Map of installed Inner Harbour Parking Controls

Preferred Option

Option Two – Council resolves to add to the resolution register the Inner Harbour parking controls as installed on the network.

Reasoning

The steep, narrow, winding road over Titirangi presents safety and access issues for all users. The existing narrow road widths are substantially narrower than the Gisborne District Council Engineering Code of Practice minimum width to accommodate two-way vehicle traffic and pedestrian users [1].

Titirangi is a popular walking and recreation area, with high volumes of walkers choosing to use the roadway rather than the walking tracks contributing the safety issues in the reserve.

Council has previously resolved to proceed with converting the two way road over Titirangi to a one way system (Report 20-11). The physical construction work is nearing completion. The resolution sought here is to include the new one way system in the draft bylaw for consultation.

Figure 3: Design of Titirangi one way system.

Options Considered

Option One – Council resolve that Queens Drive and Titirangi Drive become one way from the Queens Drive entrance to Poho-O-Rawiri Marae to Endcliffe Road.

Under clause 16 in the draft bylaw Council may by resolution designate any road or part of a road where vehicles must travel in one specified direction only. Resolving this for Queens Drive and Titirangi Drive from the Queens Drive entrance to Poho-O-Rawiri Marae to Endcliffe Road will legally formalise the one-way system that is being constructed under a previous Council decision. Adding it to the resolution register makes it legally enforceable and further protects the health and safety of the public.

Option Two – Council does not resolve that Queens Drive and Titirangi Drive become one way from the Queens Drive entrance to Poho-O-Rawiri Marae to Endcliffe Road.

Under this option, the one-way system currently under installation on Titirangi would not be legally enforceable.

Preferred Option

Option One – Council resolve that Queens Drive and Titirangi Drive become one way from the Queens Drive entrance to Poho-O-Rawiri Marae to Endcliffe Road.


Reasoning

Council’s current bylaw includes a prohibition on wheeled recreational vehicles within the CBD (shown in Red in figure 4 below). Since Council reviewed the bylaw in 2011 there has been a rise in popularity of e-mobility devices. These are classified as wheeled recreational vehicles and covered under the ban. Reducing the area covered by the ban would enable users better access into the CBD.

Under clause 22 of the draft bylaw Council may by resolution determine priority for users on a shared path.

Waka Kotahi now classify those using these types of devices as pedestrians and entitled to use footpaths as long as they take extra care to check for vehicles coming in or out of driveways and are courteous to other pedestrians[1]. This advice includes the following message: “Be courteous whenever you’re travelling faster than those around you. When passing others on the footpath, leave enough room that you don’t scare them or put them in danger.”

Active transport is an important part of transitioning to low emission transport. Further work on this will be needed as part of regional emissions reduction, developing Council’s walking and cycling routes, and integrating with public transport networks – this work is programmed under the Regional Land Transport Plan for the next couple of years.

Options Considered

Council considered 4 different area options alongside no longer having a prohibited area:

CBD

Figure 4: Options for Wheeled Recreational Vehicle Ban

Status quo – Existing Ban (red line).

The red line in Figure 4 is the existing area currently prohibited in the current bylaw and encompasses a significant area of the CBD. Effectively prohibiting all active transport options on the footpath throughout the CBD. This option is inconsistent with current active transport trends in other regional and main centres, guidance from Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Transport, and with Council’s own emissions reduction aspirations (Tairāwhiti 2050) for shifting commuters to using active transport options.

The reason for the ban in 2011 was to protect the health and safety of pedestrians in the high use areas of the city. Foot traffic in the urban periphery of Childers Street and Palmerston Road is insufficient to justify the continuation of the existing prohibition.

Option One – Council resolves to restrict wheeled recreational vehicles from the area bounded by Grey Street, Childers Road, Palmerston Road, Reads Quay, and Customhouse Street (blue line).

Shown in blue in Figure 4, this option would reduce the effective area by almost 50%. This option, as with the status quo would still form a barrier to active transport options in the CBD.

Option Two – Council resolves to restrict wheeled recreational vehicles from Gladstone Road from Derby Street to Customhouse Street (green line).

Shown in green in Figure 4, this option covers both high use and medium usage areas of the main walking area in the CBD along Gladstone Road. This option enables greater access to the CBD via the footpath for active transport users.

Option Three – Council resolves to restrict wheeled recreational vehicles from Gladstone Road from Lowe Street to Grey St (yellow line).

Shown in yellow in Figure 4, this option only covers the high use and areas of the main walking area in the CBD along Gladstone Road. This option only covers a small area and has greater access than the other options.

Option Four – Council makes no resolution restricting wheeled recreational devices from any part of the CBD.

This option would mean there would be no restrictions for wheeled recreational devices anywhere in the CBD.

Preferred Option

Option Four – Council does not resolve to restrict wheeled recreational devices from any part of the CBD.


Reasoning

Under clause 18 in the draft bylaw, Council may by resolution specify any road, or part of a road, to be a special vehicle lane and specify restrictions in relation to that lane.

Options Considered

Option One – Status quo: no parts of the road classified as special vehicle lanes.

Currently the bylaw does not include a clause covering improper use of cycle lanes. Enforcement Officers (including NZ Police) do not have all enforcement options available to them for improper use of special vehicle lanes such as on-road cycle lanes.

Option Two – Council resolves to designate parts of the list roads as special vehicle lanes for the use of cyclists only:

  • Childers Road
  • Gladstone Road
  • Ormond Road
  • Crawford Road

By designating the specified on-road cycle lanes as special vehicle lanes and specifying how they are to be used Enforcement Officers (including NZ Police) have the legal authority to infringe or prosecute drivers who park and/or drive in cycle lanes. This contributes to enhanced safety for cyclists and supporting the movement of commuter traffic to active transport options.

Preferred Option

Option Two – Council resolves to designate parts of:

  • Childers Road
  • Gladstone Road
  • Ormond Road
  • Crawford Road

as special vehicle lanes for the use of cyclists only.

Make a submission

Tell us what you think about the proposed changes to the draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021.

Submissions close 5pm Monday 15 November 2021

Required fields are marked with an asterisk (*).
Note your feedback will be made public as part of Council’s decision-making process. If you provide your name and organisation, this may be made public too. The information you provide may be included in papers for the public and the media, and will be used for the Traffic and Parking Bylaw review process. This information may also be used for statistical and reporting purposes. If you would like a copy of the personal information we hold about you, or to have the information corrected, please contact us service@gdc.govt.nz
Do you wish to present your submission in person to councillors at the hearing? *
Proposals 1-10
Do you agree with the preferred options for Proposals 1-10?
Do you agree with the preferred options for the new location-specific controls - proposals 11-15?
Proposal 11 - Heavy vehicle route restrictions Council resolves to restrict heavy vehicle traffic in the urban area to Awapuni Road pending safety upgrades.
Proposal 12 - Inner harbour parking controls Council resolves to add to the resolution register the Inner Harbour parking controls as installed on the network.
Proposal 13 - One-way system over Titirangi Council resolve that Queens Drive and Titirangi Drive become one-way from the Queens Drive entrance to Poho-O-Rawiri Marae to Endcliffe Road.
Proposal 14 - Wheeled recreational devices in the CBD Council does not resolve to restrict wheeled recreational devices from any part of the CBD.
Proposal 15 - Cycle lane restrictions Council resolves to designate parts of Childers Road, Gladstone Road, Ormond Road and Crawford Road as special vehicle lanes for the use of cyclists only.