Speed limit on Tram Rd

Andrew from Swannanoa - Ohoka

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.

ViaStrada Left-only safety audit.pdf Download View