Hāwea Roundabout
Proposed Development
QLDC proposes a roundabout at the corner of Domain Road and Capell Avenue intersection eastern end of the dam. The main concern for Hāwea residents is whether the proposed roundabout will satisfy the needs of the growing Hāwea community with the following considerations:
Safety
Traffic flow (i.e. will it create a bottle neck that significantly impacts commute times?)
Hāwea Community Association is working on behalf of the community to get as much information as possible from QLDC in relation to design proposals and timelines and is advocating on the community’s behalf to ensure our concerns are heard and we achieve the best possible outcome. We want a roundabout that is safe and will meet the community’s needs.
Proposed Design
Michael Rossiter Report on behalf of QLDC - September 2020
Full Report
Part 6 presents the views of Mr Rossiter on behalf of QLDC in relation to affects of re-zoning (i.e. changing the urban growth boundary to enable Universal Developments to develop more land beyond the Special Housing Area) on Lake Hawea’s transport infrastructure
6.1 - 6.3 : General information
6.4 - 6.6 : SH6 / Capell Avenue intersection
6.7 - 6.10 : Capell Avenue / Domain Road Intersection - i.e. the proposed roundabout
6.11 - 6.17 : Domain Road / Cemetary Road intersection
Report Extract
BEFORE THE HEARINGS PANEL
FOR THE QUEENSTOWN LAKES PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN
IN THE MATTER
of the Resource Management Act 1991
AND
IN THE MATTER
of Hearing Streams 17 and 18 – Stage 3 and 3b Proposed District Plan
REPLY OF MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER ROSSITER
ON BEHALF OF QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL
Transport: Rezonings – General Industrial, Three Parks, Settlement and Rural Visitor Zones
4 September 2020
Extract Begins:
STREAM 18 –SETTLEMENT ZONE REZONINGS
6. 3248 – UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENTS
6.1 The primary access route to the Lake Hāwea township is via Capell Avenue to SH6. Secondary access is available via Gladstone Road to SH8A close to Luggate or Camp Hill Road to Maungawera with both routes involving single lane bridges.
6.2 The requested rezoning will enable development of about 1,400 dwellings which would effectively double the size of the existing Hāwea township. I have some concerns in relation to the road network resilience and the wider effects in the event of any partial or complete closure of Capell Avenue. These concerns stem from the presence of one-lane bridges on each of the alternative routes which would affect their ability to accommodate the volume of diverted traffic.
6.3 Mr Carr tabled additional information about the rezoning, at the hearing (through his ‘highlights summary’), and I have spoken to Mr Carr about this information after he presented to the Panel.
SH6 / Capell Avenue
6.4 Mr Carr’s Evident in Chief stated that queues at the SH6 / Capell Avenue will be low (paragraph 71). I do not consider queue lengths of seven or fifteen vehicles to be low (refer his Table 14). Queue lengths of seven vehicles on SH6 would exceed the capacity of the right turn bay which increases the potential for crashes because queuing vehicles are likely to obstruct the through lane.
6.5 Mr Carr discussed this in his summary statement (paragraphs 26-29). I agree that a queue of up to seven vehicles could be accommodated within the flush median. However, this does mean that right turning vehicles would need to start decelerating earlier or more rapid deceleration would be required to ensure a vehicle could stop behind the queued vehicles. This does represent an increased safety risk but is one that could be mitigated by a requirement for intersection improvements.
6.6 A simple trigger for the improvements could be based on the number of dwellings within the submitter’s site. In my opinion, any threshold should be based on a level of development that would change the LOS at the intersection from LOS C to LOS D. Elsewhere, Mr Carr has proposed that the LOS D / E threshold should form the basis of a trigger threshold. I disagree with this because I do not consider that this would be consistent with a Safe Systems design philosophy.
Capell Avenue / Domain Road
6.7 Capell Avenue and Domain Road have been constructed on land that is owned by Contact Energy and in the absence of any planning agreements between Contact and Council (I am not aware of any planning arrangement in existence), will affect the ability of Council to approve any intersection improvements. Since this represents a planning rather than an engineering issue, I have provided the following comments on Mr Carr’s concept design for a roundabout at the intersection from a transport engineering perspective, disregarding the land ownership issue.
6.8 A roundabout designed to current best design practice would require a 20m diameter central island and an 8m circulating lane. This is larger than the concept design presented by Mr Carr to the Panel. Adopting a smaller central island size will require the circulating lane to be widened, for example, an island size of 16m diameter would require an 8.4m circulating lane to accommodate large trucks. Again, this is larger than the concept design that was presented.
6.9 In my opinion, adopting a design with a smaller central island and apron represents a design compromise which results in very slow heavy vehicle movement speeds and a smaller reduction in light vehicle speeds than is desirable. If land ownership is not an issue, constructing a larger size island in accordance with current best practice is achievable. The final size of any island and its location is an engineering matter that would need to consider required earthworks, extension into the lake-bed and road safety. Such a design would require a full road safety audit to ensure that a suitable and safe design is formed.
6.10 As with SH6 improvements, a trigger threshold for improvements can be defined noting that these would need to be at the developer’s rather than Council’s expense.
Domain Road / Cemetery Road
6.11 Following the development of the Special Housing Development (SHA)on Cemetary Road, Domain Road and Cemetery Road will effectively function as Collector Roads with a primary purpose of connecting local traffic with the arterial road network. Additional traffic associated with the Universal Developments proposal will reinforce this function.
6.12 Changes to speed limits on many roads across the district will be implemented following the adoption of the QLDC Speed Limits 2019 bylaw. The section of Domain Road north of Timsfield Drive will have a 40km/h speed limit but an open speed limit to the south. An 80km/h speed limit is currently proposed for Cemetery Road.
6.13 If the Universal zoning proposal is adopted, I would expect the 40km/h urban speed limit zone to be extended to include all of the zoned land. It is common design practice to adopt a design speed for intersections that is 10km/h greater than the speed limit, that is, 50km/h.
6.14 In practice, I consider that the lack of driveways and road development on Domain Road could result in vehicle speeds being higher than 50km/h even with the 40km/h sign-posted speed limit.
6.15 Based on a 50km/h design speed, creating a curve to link the roads will require a larger radius curve than indicated by examples presented to the Panel by Mr Carr. His suggested options would represent a sub-standard intersection configuration and an “out of context” curve which would raise significant safety concerns, especially with vehicles accessing the industrial land further down Domain Road. I consider that a roundabout would represent a better intersection configuration in this instance. I understand from Mr Carr that this option was not investigated in detail because it would require Contact land on the west side of the intersection.
6.16 Regardless of the final intersection form, additional land that is not under Universal or Council ownership would be required to form an intersection to a Safe Systems design standard. If the land ownership issue can be resolved, then as before, a trigger threshold could be developed that sets a framework for the necessary intersection improvements.
6.17 While a rule framework could be defined that enabled some development on the existing transport network as a permitted activity with further development being contingent on specific intersection improvements, there is a risk that the scope of any improvements would be compromised by the lack of access to required land which in turn could affect road safety.
Questions, feedback or comments?
