Read the full research report (PDF 3187 KB)

Transcription

MOBILITY SPACES AND STREET
ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT REPORT
CCS DISABILITY ACTION
TAYLORED ACCESSIBILITY SOLUTIONS LTD
FEBRUARY 2013
TE HUNGA HAUA MAURI MO NGA TANGATA KATOA
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared for CCS Disability Action by Taylored Accessibility
Solutions Limited. CCS Disability Action are not professionals in the road safety
and building industries and therefore additional professional advice may be
necessary before implementing any recommendations. CCS Disability Action
does not accept any liability in relation to the implementation of any
recommendations made in this report.
STREET ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT FOR WAIPA DISTRICT COUNCIL
Revision Final: Issued – Waipa D.C
Page | i
Page | ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Waipa District Council (WDC) has requested an audit of the mobility spaces and
access routes for the Central Business Districts (CBD) areas of Cambridge, Kihikihi,
Leamington, Pirongia and Te Awamutu townships, with particular emphasis for
disabled and elderly residents.
The audit covers:
Mobility spaces;
Kerb ramps;
Footpaths;
Crossings;
Street Furniture;
Tactiles; and
Temporary Traffic Management.
While CCS Disability Action recognise that standards such as NZS 4121 and the
Department for Building and Housing Building Code Compliance Documents
contribute to improving disabled access, there are often relatively small and
inexpensive solutions that can remove significant barriers to access that are
overlooked.
Waipa District is based in New Zealand’s North Island and has a population of
approximately 40,000 people. The population is evenly mixed between urban and
rural, with the main urban populations centred in the towns of Cambridge, Kihikihi,
Leamington, Pirongia and Te Awamutu.
CCS Disability Action is an organisation that supports people with disabilities to live
independent lives. One of the many services CCS Disability Action provides is to
work with communities to ensure that they are welcoming and inclusive of all people.
An estimated 660,300 New Zealanders live with a disability, representing 17% of the
total population.
The percentage of people with disability increased with age, from 10% for children
aged less than 15 years to 45% for adults aged 65 years and over.
Because of their disability, an estimated 129,100 adults and 8,700 children needed
to park close to their destination in 2006. Among adults, the need to park close
increased with age.
The Waipa District has a higher proportion of elderly residents (14.2%) compared to
the average for New Zealand (12.3%). Many of these people are unable to access
Page | iii
the community without some form of support, whether using mobility aids such as
wheelchairs, mobility scooters etc, or requiring a flat surface in order to avoid
tripping. Some disabled people do not drive and therefore depend on safe and level
footpaths to reach services essential to meet their everyday needs.
The Destination Areas of interest defined by WDC include:
Cambridge – Queen Street (Dick St to Anzac St), Dick Street, Duke Street
(Dick St to Wilson St and Fort St to Anzac St), Wilson Street, Victoria Street
(Wilson St to Fort St), Fort Street, Anzac Street (Duke St to Alpha St), Alpha
Street (Anzac St to Empire St), and Empire Street (Alpha St to Queen St);
Kihikihi – SH.3 Lyon Street (Leslie St to Balance St);
Leamington – Shakespeare Street (Bryon St to Thompson St)
Pirongia – SH.39 Franklin Street (Belcher St to Crozier St);
Te Awamutu – Mutu Street (Mahoe St to Alexandra St), Rewi Street
(Alexandra St to Jacobs St), Jacobs St, Teasdale Street (Jacobs St to Vaile
St), Vaile Street, SH.3 Albert Park Drive, Arawata Street (Albert Park Dr to
Gorst Ave), Gorst Avenue (Arawata St to Selwyn Ln), Selwyn Lane, Mahoe
Street (Selwyn Ln to Mutu St).
Consultation with the community was conducted at two community meetings and site
visits with interested parties.
Feedback from the initial Community Consultation Meetings included issues with:
Lips on kerb ramps;
Footpath routes crossing on driveways;
Crossfall;
Steep kerb crossings;
Street clutter (signage and alfresco dining);
Wheelchair access to the lake (Cambridge);
Speed limits in CBD are too high;
Halley’s Lane mobility spaces are better for cars than vans; and
Public toilet access.
WDC has made the Shopping areas of Cambridge, Leamington, Pirongia, and Te
Awamutu particularly attractive and accessible and has a good working relationship
with businesses and residents of the town. The community clearly appreciates the
efforts being made by Council to tackle social issues, and have pride in their town.
Page | iv
Shop owners take pride in the town by minimising footpath clutter and maintaining
access routes, but it will need more co-operation from the community and council to
make further improvements, and WDC may need to consider incentives of some
form to implement them. These would include:
Consolidating health services to fewer locations;
Moving large rural service organisations to new locations away from the CBD;
Provision of accessible entrances to commercial premises; and
Improved use of the Building Consent, RMA and Local Government Act
processes.
The community, including councillors and council staff, work well together and the
consultation necessary to gain support from the residents for future change will no
doubt result in some useful feedback that can be taken into consideration in future
plans.
Specific recommendations with indicative cost are provided in Section 16 of this
report. To assist with prioritisation of recommendations, appendices are also
included with additional information and CCS Disability Action’s assessment of
relative importance.
It is recommended that this report is accepted and the recommendations are
adopted into the 10 year plan with a review of progress every 12 months.
Page | v
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ ix
TABLE OF TABLES ................................................................................................. xiii
1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
1.1
WAIPA DISTRICT ......................................................................................... 1
1.2
CCS DISABILITY ACTION ............................................................................ 1
1.3
AUDIT PURPOSE ......................................................................................... 2
2
STATISTICS ........................................................................................................ 2
2.1
DISABILITY IN NEW ZEALAND ................................................................... 2
2.2
MOBILITY PARKING IN NEW ZEALAND ..................................................... 3
2.3
AGE IN WAIPA DISTRICT ............................................................................ 3
2.4
ELDERLY ...................................................................................................... 4
2.5
CHILDREN .................................................................................................... 5
3
COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS ......................................................................... 8
4
AREAS OF INTEREST ........................................................................................ 8
5
CONSULTATION................................................................................................. 9
5.1
KIHIKIHI, PIRONGIA, AND TE AWAMUTU .................................................. 9
5.2
CAMBRIDGE AND LEAMINGTON ............................................................. 10
6
CO-OPERATION WITH NZTA........................................................................... 10
7
SITE INSPECTIONS ......................................................................................... 11
8
CONTINUATION ............................................................................................... 11
9
ACCESS ROUTES TO DESTINATION AREAS ................................................ 11
10
MOBILITY PARKING...................................................................................... 13
10.1
THE NEED FOR ACCESSIBLE CAR PARKING ..................................... 13
10.2
PARKING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................... 13
10.3
DIMENSIONS .......................................................................................... 16
10.4
MARKINGS .............................................................................................. 17
10.5
CAMBRIDGE ........................................................................................... 18
Page | vi
10.6
KIHIKIHI ................................................................................................... 22
10.7
LEAMINGTON ......................................................................................... 24
10.8
PIRONGIA ............................................................................................... 25
10.9
TE AWAMUTU ......................................................................................... 26
11
KERB RAMPS ................................................................................................ 29
11.1
CAMBRIDGE ........................................................................................... 30
11.2
KIHIKIHI ................................................................................................... 35
11.3
LEAMINGTON ......................................................................................... 36
11.4
PIRONGIA ............................................................................................... 38
11.5
TE AWAMUTU ......................................................................................... 39
12
FOOTPATHS ................................................................................................. 42
12.1
PROVISION OF FOOTPATHS ................................................................ 42
12.2
CAMBRIDGE ........................................................................................... 43
12.3
KIHIKIHI ................................................................................................... 44
12.4
PIRONGIA ............................................................................................... 44
12.5
TE AWAMUTU ......................................................................................... 45
12.6
FOOTPATH WIDTH................................................................................. 46
12.7
LONGITUDINAL GRADIENT AND CROSSFALL .................................... 52
12.8
CAMBRIDGE ........................................................................................... 52
12.9
LEAMINGTON ......................................................................................... 53
12.10
TE AWAMUTU ......................................................................................... 53
12.11
CROSSFALL ........................................................................................... 54
13
STREET CROSSINGS ................................................................................... 55
13.1
PROVISION OF CROSSINGS................................................................. 55
13.2
LEVEL OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 55
13.3
PEDESTRIAN ISLANDS .......................................................................... 56
13.4
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ................................................................... 57
13.5
CROSSING AT ROUNDABOUTS ........................................................... 57
13.6
CAMBRIDGE ........................................................................................... 58
13.7
KIHIKIHI ................................................................................................... 59
Page | vii
13.8
LEAMINGTON ......................................................................................... 60
13.9
PIRONGIA ............................................................................................... 61
13.10
TE AWAMUTU ......................................................................................... 62
14
STREET FURNITURE.................................................................................... 68
14.1
SIGNAGE ................................................................................................ 68
14.2
CAMBRIDGE ........................................................................................... 68
14.3
KIHIKIHI ................................................................................................... 71
14.4
TE AWAMUTU ......................................................................................... 72
15
TACTILES ...................................................................................................... 74
15.1
USE OF TACTILES ................................................................................. 74
15.2
INSTALLATION ....................................................................................... 74
15.3
VISUAL CONTRAST ............................................................................... 76
16
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ...................................................... 77
17
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 80
17.1
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................... 81
17.2
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 84
APPENDIX A: LOCATION MAPS ............................................................................ 88
APPENDIX B: IMPROVEMENTS – MOBILITY SPACES......................................... 96
APPENDIX C: IMPROVEMENTS – KERB RAMPS ............................................... 102
APPENDIX D: IMPROVEMENTS – FOOTPATHS ................................................. 108
APPENDIX E: RISK MODIFIED CONDITION PROFILE........................................ 114
Page | viii
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Te Awamutu consultation meeting .............................................................. 9
Figure 2: Cambridge consultation meeting ............................................................... 10
Figure 3: Mobility space with poorly located kerb ramp (Victoria St - Cambridge) ... 14
Figure 4: Missing kerb ramp, requiring user to travel in live lane to access footpath
(Mutu St – Te Awamutu) .......................................................................................... 14
Figure 5: Mobility space requiring user to use driveway as access to footpath
(Empire St - Cambridge) .......................................................................................... 15
Figure 6: Mobility space with steep grade on access to footpath (Duke St Cambridge) .............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 7: Mobility space requiring rear loading into live traffic lane (Alpha St Cambridge) .............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 8: Mobility parking space in Paeroa with metal plate crossing ...................... 16
Figure 9: Mobility space blue surfacing design ......................................................... 18
Figure 10: Mobility spaces Lake Street Cambridge - One missing kerb ramp, one
uses driveway as access to footpath ........................................................................ 18
Figure 11: #35 - Alpha Street mobility space – outside Onyx Café & Bar ................ 19
Figure 12: #41 Duke Street mobility space - outside BNZ ........................................ 19
Figure 13: Mobility space on Queen Street – vehicles exiting roundabout ............... 20
Figure 14: Mobility space on Alpha Street - west of Victoria St ................................ 21
Figure 15: Mobility spaces at Halley's Lane ............................................................. 21
Figure 16: Recommended location of mobility space - southbound ......................... 22
Figure 17: Mobility space at Kihikihi School ............................................................. 23
Figure 18: Catchpit and footpath at Kihikihi School .................................................. 23
Figure 19: Mobility space on Shakespeare Street .................................................... 24
Figure 20: #69 Franklin Street mobility space - outside public toilets ....................... 25
Figure 21: #70 Franklin Street mobility space - near Heritage and Visitor Centre .... 25
Figure 22: Mobility space on Bank Street near intersection with Vaile St ................. 26
Figure 23: Mobility space on Mutu Street ................................................................. 27
Figure 24: Mobility space on Sloane Street .............................................................. 27
Page | ix
Figure 25: Mobility space on Alexandra Street ......................................................... 28
Figure 26: Steep approach grade - Bryce St/Queen St Intersection, Cambridge ..... 31
Figure 27: Carriageway approach grade of 15.4% - Wilson St/Bath St intersection,
Cambridge................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 28: Milling required at pedestrian crossing - Hamilton Road (SH.1),
Cambridge................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 29: Lip Kerb south of Town Hall - Lake St, Cambridge ................................. 32
Figure 30: Mother and child crossing road - Hamilton Rd/Bryce St Intersection –
Cambridge................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 31: Missing kerb ramp requiring user to use vehicle crossing - Commerce
St/Milicich Pl - Cambridge ........................................................................................ 33
Figure 32: Alpha St/Victoria west crossing – Cambridge.......................................... 34
Figure 33: Crossing Anzac St at Intersection with Duke St – Cambridge ................. 34
Figure 34: Queen St/Bryce St Intersection – Cambridge.......................................... 34
Figure 35: Whitaker St/Hautapu Rd Intersection – Cambridge................................. 35
Figure 36: Crossing Raleigh St west - Shakespeare St, Leamington ....................... 36
Figure 37: Shakespeare St/Raleigh St Intersection – Leamington ........................... 37
Figure 38: Shakespeare St/Thompson St Intersection - Leamington ....................... 38
Figure 39: Franklin St/Crozier St Intersection - Pirongia .......................................... 38
Figure 40: Crossing to Pirongia Village Cafe - Franklin Street, Pirongia .................. 39
Figure 41: Crossing Roche St from the Police Station to Council - Te Awamutu ..... 40
Figure 42: Lip Kerb - Roche St/Redoubt St Intersection - Te Awamutu ................... 40
Figure 43: Crossing at Supermarket - Jacobs St, Te Awamutu ................................ 41
Figure 44: Roche/Walton St Intersection - Te Awamutu........................................... 41
Figure 45: Missing connection from refuge island - Alpha St, Cambridge ................ 43
Figure 46: Footpath on east side only - Bryce St, Cambridge .................................. 43
Figure 47: Connection to Lake - Lake St, Cambridge .............................................. 43
Figure 48: Missing footpath west side of Franklin St - north of Public Toilets, Pirongia
................................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 49: Mobility scooter user - Scout Ln, Te Awamutu ........................................ 45
Figure 50: Missing footpath - Vaile St, Te Awamutu ................................................ 45
Page | x
Figure 51: Footpath at west entrance to Te Awamutu Events Centre - Selwyn St ... 46
Figure 52: Good width of footpath - Victoria St, Cambridge ..................................... 47
Figure 53: Duke St, Cambridge ................................................................................ 47
Figure 54: Recent upgrade - Shakespeare St, Leamington ..................................... 47
Figure 55: Alexandra St, Te Awamutu...................................................................... 48
Figure 56: Al-fresco dining - Duke Street, Cambridge .............................................. 48
Figure 57: Al-fresco dining forcing pedestrians to walk away from shelter - Victoria
St, Cambridge .......................................................................................................... 48
Figure 58: Al-fresco dining - Duke St, Cambridge .................................................... 49
Figure 59: Confusing access route - Victoria St, Cambridge .................................... 49
Figure 60: Carparking on footpath - Wilson St, Cambridge ...................................... 49
Figure 61: Four Square – Shakespeare St, Leamington .......................................... 50
Figure 62: Storage - Rogers Pl, Te Awamutu ........................................................... 50
Figure 63: Al-fresco dining - Arawata St, Te Awamutu ............................................. 50
Figure 64: Car parking - Market St, Te Awamutu ..................................................... 51
Figure 65: Trimming required - Duke St/Fort St Intersection – Cambridge............... 51
Figure 66: Trimming required - Lyon S, Kihikihi ....................................................... 51
Figure 67: Change in Longitudinal Grade - Fort St, Cambridge ............................... 52
Figure 68: Footpath at Duke St/Fort St intersection - Cambridge............................. 53
Figure 69: Intersection with Sloane St and Redoubt St ............................................ 54
Figure 70: Ideal pedestrian island crossing facility ................................................... 56
Figure 71: Unsatisfactory pedestrian crossing due to change in grade at refuge ..... 56
Figure 72: Pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Duke St and Wilson St Cambridge................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 73: Crossing Queen St/Empire St Intersection – Cambridge ........................ 58
Figure 74: VTNZ Entrance - Lake St, Cambridge ..................................................... 59
Figure 75: Car illegally parked - Lyon St, Kihikihi ..................................................... 60
Figure 76: Pedestrian crossing - Shakespeare St, Cambridge ................................. 61
Figure 77: Crossing Franklin Street - Pirongia ......................................................... 62
Figure 78: Pedestrian crossing - Roche St, Te Awamutu ......................................... 62
Page | xi
Figure 79: Pedestrian crossing - Rogers Ln, Te Awamutu ....................................... 63
Figure 80: Vehicle cutting corner - Albert Park Drive/George St, Te Awamutu ........ 63
Figure 81: Mahoe St/Selwyn Ln intersection - Te Awamutu ..................................... 64
Figure 82: Selwyn Ln - Te Awamutu ........................................................................ 64
Figure 83: Mobility scooter user crossing Mutu St - Te Awamutu ............................ 65
Figure 84: Wide intersection - Redoubt St/Walton St/Palmer St, Te Awamutu ........ 65
Figure 85: Person crossing Vaile St at the intersection with Roche St - Te Awamutu
................................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 86: Pedestrian crossing - Sloane St, Cambridge........................................... 66
Figure 87: Pedestrians crossing Sloane St – Cambridge ......................................... 67
Figure 88: Bus stop on Victoria St - Cambridge ....................................................... 69
Figure 89: Bus stop west of Bryce St - Hamilton Road, Cambridge ......................... 69
Figure 90: Rubbish bin facing away from the footpath - Victoria St, Cambridge ...... 70
Figure 91: Rubbish bins at varying heights - Queen St, Cambridge ......................... 70
Figure 92: Seat with difficult access - Victoria St, Cambridge .................................. 71
Figure 93: Kihikihi Bus shelter - Lyon St, Kihikihi ..................................................... 71
Figure 94: Rubbish bin in access route - Lyon St, Kihikihi........................................ 72
Figure 95: Bus stop - Gorst Avenue, Te Awamutu ................................................... 72
Figure 96: Light in Footpath - Arawata St, Te Awamutu ........................................... 73
Figure 97: rubbish bin rotated away from footpath - Arawata St, Te Awamutu ........ 73
Figure 98: Footpath blocked due to construction of building - Alpha St/Dick St
Intersection, Cambridge ........................................................................................... 77
Figure 99: Part closure of footpath - Alpha St, Cambridge ....................................... 78
Figure 100: Full closure of footpath - Alpha St, Cambridge ...................................... 78
Figure 101: Full footpath closure - Empire St, Cambridge........................................ 78
Figure 102: Footpath closed sign at works - Roche St, Te Awamutu ....................... 79
Page | xii
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Pensioner Flats - Waipa District ................................................................... 4
Table 2: Rest Homes and Retirement Villages - Waipa District ................................. 5
Table 3: Schools in the Waipa District ........................................................................ 6
Table 4: Early Child Education - Waipa District .......................................................... 7
Table 5: Mobility parking ratio requirements............................................................. 13
Table 6: When to provide footpaths.......................................................................... 42
Table 7: Minimum Footpath Dimensions .................................................................. 46
Table 8: Roundabout Advantages and Disadvantages for pedestrians .................... 57
Table 9: General Recommendations ........................................................................ 81
Table 10: Serious Safety Risks ................................................................................ 84
Table 11: Significant Concerns ................................................................................ 85
Table 12: Minor Concerns ........................................................................................ 86
Table 13: B:1 Mobility Spaces (Existing) - Cambridge ............................................. 97
Table 14: B:2 Mobility Spaces (Existing) - Kihikihi ................................................... 98
Table 15: B:3 Mobility Spaces (Existing) - Leamington ............................................ 99
Table 16: B:4 Mobility Spaces (Existing) - Pirongia .................................................. 99
Table 17: B:5 Mobility Spaces (Existing) - Te Awamutu ......................................... 100
Table 18: C:1 Kerb Ramps (Existing) - Cambridge ................................................ 103
Table 19: C:2 Kerb Ramps (Existing) - Kihikihi ...................................................... 105
Table 20: C:3 Kerb Ramps (Existing) - Leamington ............................................... 105
Table 21: C:4 Kerb Ramps (Existing) - Pirongia ..................................................... 105
Table 22: C:5 Kerb Ramps (Existing) - Te Awamutu .............................................. 106
Table 23: D:1 Footpaths (Existing) - Cambridge .................................................... 109
Table 24: D:2 Footpaths (Existing) - Kihikihi .......................................................... 111
Table 25: D:3 Footpaths (Existing) - Leamington ................................................... 111
Table 26: D:4 Footpaths (Existing) - Pirongia ......................................................... 111
Table 27: D:5 Footpaths (Existing) - Te Awamutu .................................................. 112
Table 28: Risk Ratings ........................................................................................... 115
Page | xiii
Table 29: Footpath Condition Rating ...................................................................... 116
Table 30: Kerb Ramp Condition Rating .................................................................. 117
Page | xiv
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
WAIPA DISTRICT
Waipa District is based in New Zealand’s North Island and has a population of
approximately 40,000 people. The population is evenly mixed between urban and
rural, with the main urban populations centred in the towns of Cambridge, Kihikihi,
Leamington, Pirongia and Te Awamutu.
The District has arguably New Zealand’s finest agricultural base that is dominated by
dairy farming but also features sheep and beef, thoroughbred horse studs, deer
farming and fruit production. New Zealand Rowing is based at Lake Karapiro and
other New Zealand organisations, including Bike NZ, view Cambridge as an ideal
location for locating their academies.
Waipa District is also home to an International Airport serving the Waikato region
and nearby Hamilton City. The port of Tauranga and Auckland Airport is located less
than 2 hours away, making the Waipa District accessible to international markets.
1.2
CCS DISABILITY ACTION
CCS Disability Action is an organisation committed to creating communities that
include all people.
CCS Disability Action’s role is to support people with disabilities to be 'in the driver's
seat' of their life, to achieve their own dreams and aspirations. With sixteen offices
around New Zealand, CCS Disability Action provides frontline support and services,
and creates local awareness and education around disability issues.
One of the many services CCS Disability Action provides is to work with
communities to ensure that they are welcoming and inclusive of all people. This is
achieved by using universal design principles in the built environment and including
everyone in activities and events. CCS Disability Action works with government
departments, local councils, building developers and owners on a range of issues
that impact on the lives of disabled people. CCS Disability Action has expertise in
making public buildings, homes, amenities, walkways, streets and public transport
more accessible for everybody.
Page | 1
1.3
AUDIT PURPOSE
Waipa District Council (WDC) has requested an audit of the mobility spaces and
access routes for the Central Business Districts (CBD) areas of Cambridge, Kihikihi,
Leamington, Pirongia and Te Awamutu townships, with particular emphasis for
disabled and elderly residents. CCS Disability Action was chosen to conduct the
audit as they are a leading provider for mobility improvements in the community.
While CCS Disability Action recognise that standards such as NZS 4121 and the
Department for Building and Housing Building Code Compliance Documents
contribute to improving disabled access, there are often relatively small and
inexpensive solutions that can remove significant barriers to access that are
overlooked.
This audit is primarily a tool for use by Council to identify priorities for expenditure in
relation to disabled and elderly pedestrian access, but we expect it will be made
available to interested parties as part of Councils’ wider community consultation
commitments.
2
STATISTICS
2.1
DISABILITY IN NEW ZEALAND1
An estimated 660,300 New Zealanders live with a disability, representing 17% of the
total population.
In the 2006 census, 82% of people with disability were adults living in households,
5% were adults living in residential facilities and 14% were children (under 15 years)
living in households.
The percentage of people with disability increased with age, from 10% for children
aged less than 15 years to 45% for adults aged 65 years and over.
The most common disability types for adults are physical and sensory disabilities.
27% of all adults aged 15 years and over have a physical, sensory, or intellectual
disability.
While statistics for disability within Territorial Authorities is freely unavailable, a
certain amount of data can be obtained, for a fee, from Statistics New Zealand.
Quotes are available on request.
1
Statistics New Zealand – 2006 Disability Survey: Disability and Travel and Transport in New
Zealand 2006
Page | 2
2.2
MOBILITY PARKING IN NEW ZEALAND2
Because of their disability, an estimated 129,100 adults and 8,700 children needed
to park close to their destination in 2006. Among adults, the need to park close
increased with age.
In the six months before the 2006 Disability Survey, an estimated 61,100 adults and
5,900 children had problems finding a carpark. The most common problems were:
Finding a park close to their destination;
Carparks meant for disabled people being used by non-disabled people; and
The available carparks being too awkward to use.
31% of disabled adults and 15% of disabled children used taxis for short trips at
least once in the 12 months prior to the 2006 Disability Survey. An estimated 1% of
all disabled adults used taxis every day or almost every day.
The Total Mobility Scheme provides disabled people with vouchers for discounted
taxi fares. At the time of the 2006 Disability Survey, parents/caregivers of 22% of
disabled children and 34% of disabled adults had heard of the Total Mobility
Scheme. An estimated 4% of disabled adults had used Total Mobility Scheme
vouchers in the 12 months prior to the survey.
An estimated 8% of disabled children aged 5–14 needed special transport or help to
get to school.
2.3
AGE IN WAIPA DISTRICT3
The median age (half are younger, and half older, than this age) for people in the
Waipa District is 38.3 years. This is older than the national average of 35.9 years.
While mobility impairments are considered primarily for people with disabilities, the
elderly and the very young are affected as well. In the Waipa District:
14.2% of people are aged 65 years and over, compared with the national
average of 12.3%; and
22.6 % of people are aged less than 15 years, compared with 21.5% for all of
New Zealand.
2
Statistics New Zealand – 2006 Disability Survey: Disability and Travel and Transport in New
Zealand 2006
3
Statistics New Zealand – 2006 Census: Quickstats
Page | 3
2.4
ELDERLY
The Waipa District has a higher proportion of elderly residents (14.2%) compared to
the average for New Zealand (12.3%). Many of these people are unable to access
the community without some form of support, whether using mobility aids such as
wheelchairs, mobility scooters etc, or requiring a flat surface to avoid tripping. Some
do not drive and therefore depend on safe and level footpaths to reach services
essential to meet their everyday needs.
The council own a number of pensioner flats. These are located:
Location
Street Name
Number
Cambridge
Dallinger Court
30 units
Dr Tod Court
13 units
Vaile Court
13 units
Wallace Court
11 units
Kihikihi
101 Lyon Street
25 Units
Te Awamutu
Churchill Street
7 units
Mangapiko Street
3 units
Palmer Street
36 units
Table 1: Pensioner Flats - Waipa District4
4
Waipa District Council – Pensioner Housing Information
Page | 4
Supporting the elderly community are a number of private rest home and retirement
villages:
Location
Name
Street Address
Cambridge
Cambridge Resthaven
6 Vogel St
Lifecare Cambridge Hospital and Rest Home
86 King St
Selwyn St Andrews Village
41J Bryce St
Lauriston Park Retirement Village
91 Coleridge St
Oakdale Rest Home
cnr Tennyson &
Browning St
Raeburn Rest Home
170 Burns St
Camellia Rest Home
1743 Rewi St
Freeman Court
387 Roche St
San Michele Home and Hospital
175 College St
Tarahill Rest Home
5 Golf Rd
Te Ata Rest Home
588 Teasdale St
Leamington
Te Awamutu
Table 2: Rest Homes and Retirement Villages - Waipa District
2.5
CHILDREN
The Waipa District also has a higher proportion of residents under 15 (22.6%)
compared to the average for New Zealand (21.5%). For this age group, early
childcare and schooling are the main destination points for travel.
Page | 5
There are Ministry of Education funded and privately owned education centres in the
Waipa District. These are:
Location
Name
Street Address
Cambridge
Cambridge East Primary School
Williams St
Cambridge High School
25 Swayne Rd
Cambridge Middle School
Clare St
Cambridge Primary School
cnr Wilson St & Duke
St
St Peters Catholic School
22 Anzac St
Kihikihi
Kihikihi School
71 Whitmore St
Leamington
Leamington Primary School
Lamb St
Oakdale Rest Home
cnr Tennyson &
Browning St
Raeburn Rest Home
170 Burns St
Pirongia
Pirongia School
100 Beechey St
Te Awamutu
St Patricks Catholic School
625 Alexandra St
Te Awamutu College
938 Alexandra St
Te Awamutu Intermediate School
646 Hazelmere Cr.
Te Awamutu Primary School
401 Teasdale St
Table 3: Schools in the Waipa District
Page | 6
Location
Name
Street Address
Cambridge
Aberdeen Kindergartens Waikato
104 Victoria St
Bunnies Licensed Childcare & Pre-school
197 Thornton Rd
Cambridge Early Learning Centre
10 Fort St
Cambridge Playcentre
26 Vogel St
James Gray Kindergarten
18 Kingsley St
Jump Start Educare
41 Swayne Rd
Little Einstein’s Educare Ltd
116 Swayne Rd
Montessori Pre-school
22a Taylor St
Te Koutu Kohanga Reo
Mclean St
Tree Town Early Childhood Centre & Pre-school
21a Wilson St
Kihikihi
Kainga Tamariki
1 Carey St
Leamington
Aberdeen Kindergartens Waikato
49 Thompson St
Elim Early Learning Centre
8 Wordsworth St
Kemureti Te Kohanga Reo
3 Brackens St
Leamington Playcentre
cnr Burns &
Thompson St
Montessori Pre-school
18 Raleigh St
Pirongia
Impressions Child Care Centre
3/805 Crozier St
Te Awamutu
Apakura Te Kakano Early Learning Centre
320 Factory Rd
Baby Bears Early Learning Centre Ltd
1 North St
Crackerjacks Pre-school
192 Domain Rd
Hazelmere Kindergarten
1246 Hazelmere Cr.
Kids to Five
86 George St
Rewi Street Free Kindergarten
60 Rewi St
Rosetown Pre-school
433 Rewi St
Te Awamutu Playcentre
99 Bond Rd
The Barnyard Childcare
502 Racecourse Rd
Table 4: Early Child Education - Waipa District
Page | 7
3
COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS
It is evident that both Councillors and Council staff have a good working relationship
with businesses and residents of the town. The community clearly appreciates the
efforts being made by Council to tackle social issues, and have pride in their town.
Shop owners take pride in the town by minimising footpath clutter and maintaining
access routes. Council has contributed by upgrading the town centres of Cambridge,
Leamington, Pirongia, and Te Awamutu to make a more pleasant shopping
environment.
4
AREAS OF INTEREST
The Destination Areas of interest defined by WDC cover the main CBD’s of
Cambridge and Te Awamutu, along with the central parts of Kihikihi, Leamington,
and Pirongia.
Origins were adjacent residential areas, with particular emphasis on facilities for the
very young and the elderly, as well as for people with disabilities.
The boundaries for each Destination Area include:
Cambridge – Queen Street (Dick St to Anzac St), Dick Street, Duke Street
(Dick St to Wilson St and Fort St to Anzac St), Wilson Street, Victoria Street
(Wilson St to Fort St), Fort Street, Anzac Street (Duke St to Alpha St), Alpha
Street (Anzac St to Empire St), and Empire Street (Alpha St to Queen St);
Kihikihi – SH.3 Lyon Street (Leslie St to Balance St);
Leamington – Shakespeare Street (Bryon St to Thompson St)
Pirongia – SH.39 Franklin Street (Belcher St to Crozier St);
Te Awamutu – Mutu Street (Mahoe St to Alexandra St), Rewi Street
(Alexandra St to Jacobs St), Jacobs St, Teasdale Street (Jacobs St to Vaile
St), Vaile Street, SH.3 Albert Park Drive, Arawata Street (Albert Park Dr to
Gorst Ave), Gorst Avenue (Arawata St to Selwyn Ln), Selwyn Lane, Mahoe
Street (Selwyn Ln to Mutu St).
Maps of the CBD’s are included as Appendix A.
Page | 8
5
CONSULTATION
Consultation with the community is vital for Councils to gain an understanding of
how the community use the facilities provided.
Consultation with the community was conducted at two community meetings and
site visits with interested parties.
5.1
KIHIKIHI, PIRONGIA, AND TE AWAMUTU
The first Community Consultation Meeting was held at the i-Site (Te Awamutu) on
Wednesday 5th September 2012. A small group gathered that covered a good range
of mobility issues – Visual, wheelchair, mobility scooter, and elderly.
Representatives from the local Mobility Transport Service also attended.
From this meeting, a site visit was performed with a mobility scooter user in Kihikihi
on Wednesday 12th September 2012.
Feedback from the initial Community Consultation Meeting identified access issues
such as:
Lips on kerb ramps;
Crossing on driveways;
Crossfall;
Steep kerb crossings; and
Street clutter (signage and alfresco dining).
Figure 1: Te Awamutu consultation meeting
Page | 9
5.2
CAMBRIDGE AND LEAMINGTON
A second Community Consultation Meeting was held at the Raleigh Street Christian
Centre (Leamington) on Thursday 6th September 2012. Again, a small group
gathered but had a good coverage of the mobility issues.
Figure 2: Cambridge consultation meeting
Further meetings included attending the Cambridge Stroke Foundation meeting on
the 27th September 2012 and site visits with a wheelchair user and Cambridge
Resthaven.
Comments from the initial Community Consultation Meeting included:
Wheelchair access to the lake (difficulty in using metal paths);
Speed limit in CBD is too high;
Halley’s Lane mobility spaces are better for cars than vans;
Lack of access to Hally’s Lane public toilet;
Some road crossings are good, some hard due to grade, kerbs and visibility;
and
Duke Street pedestrian crossing is too close to roundabout.
6
CO-OPERATION WITH NZTA
The designation of Hamilton Road, Queen Street, Albert Street, and Achilles Avenue
(Cambridge), Lyon Street (Kihikihi), Franklin Street (Pirongia), and Ohaupo Road,
Albert Park Drive, Sloane Street, and Kihikihi Road (Te Awamutu) as State
Highways obliges WDC to liaise with NZTA in relation to any works, introducing an
additional party when negotiating for change.
Page | 10
7
SITE INSPECTIONS
Following the consultation meetings, site inspections were carried out in September
and October 2012 by CCS Disability Actions’ consultant, Taylored Accessibility
Solutions Limited. The audit inspected:
Mobility spaces;
Kerb ramps;
Footpaths; and
Pedestrian and Refuge Island crossings.
8
CONTINUATION
This report is intended to remain a ‘living’ document. It is important for the success
of the investment that WDC has committed to this project that regularly reviewing of
the recommendations is performed.
CCS Disability Action recognises that while all recommendations are important to
providing a usable accessibility network, cost implications will require the
recommendations to be adopted in the 10 year plan.
Recommendation 1: It is recommended WDC accept this report and the
recommendations are adopted into the 10 year plan with a review of progress every
12 months. 12.1 Kerb Cut and Footpath Upgrade Prioritization.
9
ACCESS ROUTES TO DESTINATION AREAS
This report covers access in the destination areas as stated in Section 4: Areas of
interest.
Further investigation will be required outside of these areas to complete accessibility
in Cambridge, Kihikihi, Leamington, Pirongia, and Te Awamutu.
Feedback from enquires generated from the consultation have highlighted the need
for access routes to be assessed between key destinations outside of the
destination areas.
Page | 11
Examples include (but are not limited to):
Cambridge High School;
Cambridge Toy Library;
Churches in all locations;
Fresh Choice Supermarket (Leamington);
Kihikihi School to Kihikihi Domain;
Kihikihi to Te Awamutu (existing footpath);
Leamington to Cambridge; and
Te Awamutu College to Te Awamutu Events Centre (Te Awamutu College
has a portion of students in wheelchairs and is a satellite for Patricia Ave
School);
Recommendation 2: It is recommended WDC continue the positive approach to
providing access routes in the District by extending the Destination Areas to include
all urban areas of Cambridge, Kihikihi, Leamington, Pirongia, and Te Awamutu.
Consideration needs to be given to a more formal method of setting priorities for the
provision of kerb ramps and maintenance of footpaths. By identifying a risk and
condition rating, a profile target can be developed that allows limited resources to
address the most critical barriers first. Poor condition can be tolerated where there is
little or no likelihood of use by the disabled and elderly.
Risk Modified Condition Assessment methodology prioritises upgrades to footpaths
and kerb ramps so that those on routes used by the disabled on a regular basis are
upgraded first. Refer to Appendix E for the calculation assessment.
This assessment designates footpaths and all potential kerb ramp locations within a
risk profile of Low, Medium or High with accessible routes as high priority. A
relatively simple set of KPI‟s can be formulated with condition ratings used to
determine the profile.
Page | 12
10
MOBILITY PARKING
10.1
THE NEED FOR ACCESSIBLE CAR PARKING5
Most people with impaired mobility depend on the use of a privately owned motor
vehicle or a designated maxi-taxi for their transport needs. Both forms of transport
are essential to enable them to participate fully in the everyday working, recreational,
educational and social life of the community.
Many wheelchair users are able to drive a car either while still in their wheelchair or
by transferring to the driver’s seat. When transferring, the manual wheelchair is
carried inside the car or mounted on a roof hoist. However, a wider than normal car
parking space is needed so there is room to place the wheelchair alongside the car
door and to transfer to it.
Other methods of wheelchair loading are by using a side ramp or by a rear hoist. A
side ramp requires an area beside the car which is free from street furniture or other
vehicles while a rear hoist requires the length of the hoist and manoeuvring space of
the wheelchair behind the vehicle.
A route is also needed from the park to the associated building that a wheelchair
user can travel along without assistance (defined as an ‘accessible route’).
10.2
PARKING REQUIREMENTS6
Section 47A of the Building Act covers the need to provide car parks, parking
buildings and parking facilities. Parking facilities or premises, whether private or
public, shall provide the required number of accessible car park spaces.
Where parking is provided, spaces for people with a mobility permit should be
provided to meet requirements defined in NZS 4121:2001. The standard
recommends the following parking space ratio is to be provided to meet compliance
with the Building Code:
Total number of car parks
Number of mobility spaces
1 - 20
Not less than 1
21 - 50
Not less than 2
For every additional 50 car parking spaces
Not less than 1
Table 5: Mobility parking ratio requirements7
5
6
Department of Housing and Building with Barrier Free Trust: Accessible car parking spaces
NZS 4121:2001 Section 5: Car parks
Page | 13
The main concern with mobility spaces is the lack of access to the footpath. The
majority of mobility spaces in the Waipa District (over 75%) had:
Kerb ramps situated in a position that they are unusable or hazardous to use;
Car and pole blocking
kerb ramp
Figure 3: Mobility space with poorly located kerb ramp (Victoria St - Cambridge)
Missing kerb ramps;
Nearest kerb ramp to
mobility space
Figure 4: Missing kerb ramp, requiring user to travel in live lane to access footpath
(Mutu St – Te Awamutu)
7
NZS 4121:2001 Section 5: Table 1
Page | 14
Using vehicle access to provide footpath access;
Figure 5: Mobility space requiring user to use driveway as access to footpath (Empire
St - Cambridge)
Approaches to the kerb ramp on the footpath were of a grade greater than 1
in 12 (8.33%); and
Access grade 12.6%
Figure 6: Mobility space with steep grade on access to footpath (Duke St Cambridge)
Rear loading into live traffic lanes.
Figure 7: Mobility space requiring rear loading into live traffic lane (Alpha St Cambridge)
Page | 15
Recommendation 3: It is recommended WDC follow the lead of the Hauraki District
Council and adopt a strategy to provide access to the footpath along the entire
length of the mobility space, as shown in figure 8, for all the mobility spaces in the
Waipa District. However, WDC needs to ensure the grades (ramp or crossfall of
footpath) do not exceed 1 in 14 (7.1%). This particular style of access to the footpath
will aid to achieve the recommended standard.
Figure 8: Mobility parking space in Paeroa with metal plate crossing
10.3
DIMENSIONS
There is a conflict of standards between NZS 4121:2001 and the Traffic Control
Devices (TCD) Manual when determining the dimensions of a mobility parking
space.
NZS 4121:2001 requires an angle parking width of 3.5m8 and a length of 5m9. For
vehicles that operate a rear-mounted hoist, a further 1000 – 1300mm is required.
The width allows the car and the wheelchair to be on the same level when a person
is transferring from one to the other.
The TCD Manual allows a 3.0m wide angle space, which does not allow for
transferring to the wheelchair, and 5.4m length10.
For parallel parking, the TCD Manual has adopted the NZS 4121:2001 minimum
allowance of 5m in length, and recommends 6m in length as good practise11.
8
NZS 4121:2001 – Section 5.5.1.2: Angle Parking
NZS 4121:2001 – Section 5.5.2: Length
10
TCD Manual Part 13: Parking Control – Section 5.3.2 – Table 5.3
11
TCD Manual Part 13: Parking Control – Section 5.3.1 – Table 5.2
9
Page | 16
There are commonly four styles of transporting people with wheelchairs:
Wheelchair user transfers from wheelchair to driver position (independently
drives);
Wheelchair user transfers from wheelchair to front passenger position;
Wheelchair user remains in wheelchair and uses passenger side entrance to
enter vehicle (ramp or hoist); and
Wheelchair user remains in wheelchair and uses rear of vehicle to enter
vehicle (most commonly by hoist).
By designing a mobility space to allow for these four styles, barriers and hazards can
be eliminated for the end user. Allowance for these styles can be achieved by
lengthening parallel parks, widening spaces, and, for angle parking, allowing space
between the rear of the vehicle and the live traffic lane.
Recommendation 4: It is recommended WDC adopt the recommended minimum
length in the TCD Manual Part 13: Parking Control of 6m for parallel parking.
Recommendation 5: It is recommended WDC adopts the recommended minimum
width in NZS 4121:2001 of 3.5m and the minimum recommended length in the TCD
Manual Part 13: Parking Control of 5.4m for angle parking. Allowance of at least
1.5m should be considered between the parking space and the live traffic lane to
allow safe usage for rear loading vehicles.
10.4
MARKINGS
The Land Transport Rule: TCD Amendment 2010 allows a road controlling authority
to mark, on an area of roadway that is reserved for parking by the holders of
approved disabled persons’ parking permits, a blue surface texture or colour12.
A recent report in The Gisborne Herald concluded an approximate 50% reduction
was achieved in mobility parking infringements once the blue colouring was installed
and infringement fee increased13. A similar result was achieved in Hamilton and
other district councils have reported similar trends. A non-slip textured blue surface
was also applied to all mobility spaces in the Hamilton CBD.
While full blue coverage is preferred for marking spaces, in the interest of
maintenance and costs, consideration to only partially colour the mobility space as
shown in Figure 9 may be used.
A 1m strip for the length of the road edge of the carpark will provide visual notice to
road users, reduce installation costs, and reduce the need for repair when replacing
kerb and channel etc.
12
13
TCD Amendment 2010 Rule 54002/4 – Sections 2.6 and 2.19
th
Gisborne Herald – 18 June 2012
Page | 17
Kerb and Channel
1m blue strip
Figure 9: Mobility space blue surfacing design
Recommendation 6: It is recommended WDC follow the lead of other City and
District Councils and mark the mobility spaces with blue surfacing. Consideration is
needed to provide a non-slip surface with the colour of both the surface and the
marking to comply with Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.
10.5
CAMBRIDGE
There are approximately 1000 defined parking spaces available within the
Cambridge CBD. With 27 mobility spaces (2.9%) available, this complies with NZS
4121:2001. In total, there are 29 mobility spaces in Cambridge.
A full list of WDC controlled mobility spaces with concerns is provided as Appendix
B.
Overall, the condition of the mobility parking provided in Cambridge is poor. Of the
29 mobility spaces:
7 (24%) rear loading access into a live traffic lane;
6 (21%) use a driveway as access to the footpath;
4 (14%) have access grades of over 1 in 12 (8.33%); and
3 (10%) have kerb ramps in an unusable position.
Figure 10: Mobility spaces Lake Street Cambridge - One missing kerb ramp, one uses
driveway as access to footpath
Page | 18
Recommendation 7: It is recommended WDC adopt the recommendations as listed
in Appendix B:1.
Due to carriageway grades, the mobility spaces on Alpha Street (#35 Onyx) and
Duke Street (#41 BNZ) are hazardous and need re-locating.
Alpha Street is surfaced with a smooth AC surface which is slippery in the dry and
has a 1 in 7.8 (12.8%) grade on the carriageway.
Figure 11: #35 - Alpha Street mobility space – outside Onyx Café & Bar
Similarly, Duke Street mobility space has a carriageway grade of 1 in 7.6 (13.1%).
Both spaces are hazardous due to the loss of control a manual wheelchair user has
when transferring to the wheelchair.
Figure 12: #41 Duke Street mobility space - outside BNZ
Recommendation 8: It is recommended WDC re-locate the mobility spaces on
Alpha Street (outside Onyx Restaurant) to the south western corner at the
intersection of Alpha Street and Empire Street.
Recommendation 9: It is recommended WDC re-locate the mobility space on Duke
Street (outside BNZ) to the southern side of the road (outside Café Oasis). An
Page | 19
edgeline guiding traffic away from the mobility space will also be required for driver
access.
Of the seven mobility spaces that require rear loading into a live traffic lane, four are
considered to be of serious concern.
On Queen Street, west of Victoria St and outside the public toilets, and Alpha Street,
west of Victoria St, rear loading occurs in a location where vehicles exit the
roundabout.
Figure 13: Mobility space on Queen Street – vehicles exiting roundabout
Page | 20
Figure 14: Mobility space on Alpha Street - west of Victoria St
Recommendation 10: It is recommended WDC install an edgeline exiting the
roundabout at Victoria/Queen intersection and Victoria/Alpha intersection, guiding
vehicles away from the rear of the mobility spaces.
The two mobility spaces at Halley’s Lane are located at the entrance of the public
carpark. While the access to the footpath is ideal, rear loading is hazardous with
cars entering the carpark.
Figure 15: Mobility spaces at Halley's Lane
Page | 21
Recommendation 11: It is recommended WDC remove the first five parking spaces
on the southern side of the entrance, and replace spaces 6, 7, and 8 as two mobility
spaces.
10.6
KIHIKIHI
Kihikihi has approximately 50 defined on-street parking spaces available within the
urban boundary, with the majority of these on Lyon Street (SH.3). There are
currently no mobility car parks situated on Lyon Street and one is located at the
Kihikihi School.
Mobility spaces should be situated in a location that provides easy access to the
most facilities. The main shopping centre of Kihikihi is Lyon Street with more than 20
defined car parking spaces on Lyon Street.
Recommendation 12: It is recommended WDC install two mobility spaces on Lyon
Street to meet the requirements of NZS 4121:2001.
The ideal spaces would be immediately south of the pedestrian crossing on the
southbound side and immediately north of the pedestrian crossing on the
northbound side.
Location of proposed
mobility space - southbound
Figure 16: Recommended location of mobility space - southbound
The mobility space at Kihikihi School is in very poor condition. At present it is
marked as a parallel park 5m long by 2.5m wide, while the vehicles that park beside
it are usually diagonal. It is clear from the worn grass berm that diagonal parking
occurs at the mobility space. As shown in Figure 17, when diagonally parking, the
seal edge is directly under the front passenger door, creating a hazard by having an
uneven surface.
Page | 22
Figure 17: Mobility space at Kihikihi School
There is a catchpit at the rear of the existing carpark near the power pole. The
concrete footpath finishes before the mobility space.
Figure 18: Catchpit and footpath at Kihikihi School
Recommendation 13: It is recommended WDC re-align the mobility space to
diagonal to match the surrounding carparking. By re-aligning the park, the catchpit
can remain in its present location and will be eliminated as a hazard.
To achieve this, the seal edge will need to be extended to allow the recommended
length of 6m14. Extend the concrete footpath approximately 3m to allow easy
connection from the seal to the footpath.
14
TCD Manual Part 13: Parking Control – Section 5.3.2: Table 5.3
Page | 23
10.7
LEAMINGTON
Leamington has recently had an upgrade of the retail area. In addition to this, a new
supermarket has opened on Burns Street, directly behind the Raleigh Street
Christian Centre (RSCC).
As a result of the upgrade, Leamington has approximately 200 carparks (including
100 at the RSCC, but not including the new supermarket) with 6 mobility spaces
(3%). Two of these spaces are in the RSCC carpark and are the responsibility of the
church. There is also a mobility space located at the Kindergarten on Kingsley Street
and Leamington School on Lamb Street. This complies with NZS 4121:2001
guidelines.
Figure 19: Mobility space on Shakespeare Street
The mobility spaces in Leamington suffer a similar problem to other spaces in the
Waipa District – access to the footpath.
Recommendation 14: It is recommended WDC adopt the recommendations as
listed in Appendix B:3.
There is a Fruit and Vegetable shop on the north-western corner of Shakespeare
Street and Raleigh Street. There is also a post box to the north of the shop.
Observations of this intersection concluded a high percentage of elderly people
using the carpark closest to the shop on Raleigh Street. At present, people with
mobility requirements need to cross Raleigh Street to access this shop.
Recommendation 15: It is recommended WDC relocate the mobility space outside
the Shakespeare Street Liquor Store to the closest parking space to the Fruit and
Vegetable shop on Raleigh Street.
Page | 24
10.8
PIRONGIA
With 59 defined carparks and two mobility spaces, Pirongia will need one extra
mobility space to comply with NZS 4121:2001.
However, no concerns were raised with the two existing spaces (#69 and #70)
during the consultation meetings and they are well located at either end of the
defined parking on the northbound side of Franklin Street (SH.39). There is no
mobility parking on the southbound side of Franklin Street.
Both spaces are clearly marked on the carriageway, although yellowing hatching is
missing from the southern park (#70) and signage needs to be installed or relocated. Access from the southern mobility space is unusable by wheelchairs due to
the nature of the vehicle crossings. Using the vehicle crossings to access the
footpath is not ideal practise.
Figure 20: #69 Franklin Street mobility space - outside public toilets
Figure 21: #70 Franklin Street mobility space - near Heritage and Visitor Centre
Slot crossings, as shown in figure 21, are unusable for both manual and power
wheelchairs and need to be avoided.
Page | 25
Recommendation 16: It is recommended WDC provide access from the mobility
spaces in Pirongia as recommended in recommendation 3.
Recommendation 17: It is recommended WDC provide a mobility space on the
southbound side near the café. The café is the most popular destination on the
southbound side, and will fulfil the requirements of NZS 4121:2001.
10.9
TE AWAMUTU
There are approximately 924 defined on-street parking available within Te Awamutu.
With 29 mobility spaces (3.1%) available, the number of mobility spaces complies
with NZS 4121:2001.
A full list of WDC controlled mobility spaces with concerns is provided as Appendix
B.
Recommendation 18: It is recommended WDC adopt the recommendations as
listed in Appendix B:5.
Overall, the condition of the mobility parking provided in Te Awamutu is average. Of
the 29 Waipa District Council controlled mobility spaces:
24.1% (7 spaces) requires using driveways to access the footpath; and
10.3% (3 spaces) requires using the live traffic lane to access the footpath.
Recommendation 19: It is recommended WDC immediately provide full length kerb
ramps to the three mobility spaces in Figures 22, 23, and 24 that currently require
wheelchair users to use the live traffic lane to gain access to the footpath.
Figure 22: Mobility space on Bank Street near intersection with Vaile St
Page | 26
Figure 23: Mobility space on Mutu Street
Figure 24: Mobility space on Sloane Street
Recommendation 20: It is recommended WDC install full length kerb ramps on the
remaining 16 spaces that use driveways or have kerb ramp access to the footpath,
as per Recommendation 1.
Also of concern is the lack of mobility spaces on Alexandra Street. There is currently
one space on Alexandra Street, located at the western end outside Strawbridge’s
100%. There are mobility spaces located on the side streets (Churchill St, Market St,
Roche St, and Teasdale St). All spaces on the side streets are parallel parks.
Page | 27
Figure 25: Mobility space on Alexandra Street
Recommendation 21: It is recommended WDC install more mobility parking on
Alexandra Street to provide closer parking for shop users.
Page | 28
11
KERB RAMPS
Kerb ramps are a vital component for mobility access. As they provide access to the
safety of the footpath, a relatively small fault can become a serious hazard. Without
them, mobility scooters, pushchairs, and wheelchair users are often forced into live
traffic lanes to the nearest driveway before accessing the footpath.
When designing kerb ramps, it is important to ensure that15:
If there is a kerb ramp on one side of the roadway, there is also one on the
other to prevent pedestrians being ‘stranded’ on the roadway itself; and
There are no low points in the gutter where water and silt can collect.
The Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide (PPDG) states the following guidelines
when designing kerb ramps16:
Ramp – Normal maximum gradient 1 in 12 (8.33%), Maximum gradient 1 in 8
(12.5%). A gradient of 12.5% should only be considered for constrained
situations where the vertical rise is less than 75mm;
Maximum crossfall of 2%; and
Minimum width of 1m, 1.5m is recommended. Maximum width to equal the
width of the approaching footpath.
For the kerb and channel itself:
Maximum gradient is 5%. Anything greater can cause wheelchair users to
lose their balance at the transition; and
Transition between kerb and channel and ramp or carriageway should be
smooth with no vertical face. Milling of the carriageway at the channel may
need to be performed so this does not inadvertently happen when the
roadway has been resurfaced.
The flares for the transition from full kerb face to cut-down have a maximum gradient
of 1 in 6 (16%).
While these guidelines provide a good starting point, some are still not accessible by
disabled people with impaired mobility.
While 1 in 12 is recommended by the PPDG, manual wheelchair users still struggle
to manage this grade. A desirable maximum grade of 1 in 14 is more usable. A
grade of 1 in 8 is not usable by most mobility devices so an absolute maximum of 1
in 12 should be adopted instead of 1 in 8.
15
16
Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide – Section 15.6.1: Kerb ramps
Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide – Table 15.2
Page | 29
The PPDG recommends kerb crossings should be installed wherever a footpath
crosses an intersection and at every pedestrian crossing point17. Kerb ramps should
be installed at every kerb crossing where the grade changes as pedestrians step
onto the roadway. They should guide pedestrians to the safest place to cross.
Tactile paving should be used at kerb crossings so that visually impaired pedestrians
are aware of the change from footpath to roadway.
Crossfall is a major concern for users with mobility devices. A grade of greater than
1% requires the user to fight against the crossfall. As the majority of footpaths drain
to the road, this can lead to the user rolling over the kerb and tipping into the live
traffic lane.
The width of 1.8m for the cut down allows the user to access the footpath without the
need for slowing down in the carriageway to negotiate footpath access.
Recommendation 22: It is recommended WDC adopt the Pedestrian Planning and
Design Guide for Kerb Ramps with the following changes:
Ramp – Normal maximum gradient to be 1 in 14 (7.14%), with the absolute
maximum gradient to be 1 in 12 (8.33%).
Minimum cut down width of 1.8m.
11.1
CAMBRIDGE
Approximately 43 kerb ramps in the Cambridge Destination Area have an approach
grade of between 1 in 12(8.33%) and 1 in 4 (25%).
25 kerb ramps had approach grades on the footpath of between 1 in 12
(8.33%) and 1 in 8 (12.5%);
12 kerb ramps had approach grades on the footpath and 2 on the
carriageway of between 1 in 8 (12.5%) and 1 in 6 (16.7%); and
4 kerb ramps had approach grades of between 1 in 6 (16.7%) and 1 in 4.2
(23.8%).
A full list of affected sites is listed in Appendix C.
17
Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide – Section 6.4.5: Kerb crossings
Page | 30
The most severe of the footpath approaches is located at the north-west intersection
of Bryce Street and Queen Street. Crossing Bryce St, the approach ramp is 23.8%.
This is particularly hazardous due to location of the Alpha Lodge and Soup Kitchen,
and the Trinity St Paul’s Union Parish which hosts the Stroke Foundation.
Approach grade – 23.8%
Figure 26: Steep approach grade - Bryce St/Queen St Intersection, Cambridge
The two approaches on the carriageway occur at the intersections of Queen
St/Empire St and Wilson St/Bath St intersection.
Approach grade – 15.4%
Figure 27: Carriageway approach grade of 15.4% - Wilson St/Bath St intersection,
Cambridge
Recommendation 23: It is recommended WDC replace the 43 kerb ramps in the
Cambridge Destination Area to have an approach grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%) or less.
Milling of the carriageway at the channel edge is important to maintain a smooth
transition from the carriageway to the footpath and vise-versa. If this is not done, a
vertical face appears on the seal edge, creating a potentially hazardous barrier for
mobility scooters, wheelchairs, and pushchairs.
Page | 31
The worst example recorded in the destination area occurs at the pedestrian
crossing of Hamilton Road (SH.1), near the intersection with Victoria St and Hautapu
Rd, on the northern side.
Figure 28: Milling required at pedestrian crossing - Hamilton Road (SH.1), Cambridge
Recommendation 24: It is recommended WDC liaise with the New Zealand
Transport Agency (NZTA) to remove the vertical face in the seal edge of the
northern side of the pedestrian crossing on Hamilton Road (SH.1) near the
intersection of Victoria St and Hautapu Rd.
Of lesser frequency are Lip Kerbs (small vertical faces). In the destination area,
these occurred at 12 sites.
Figure 29: Lip Kerb south of Town Hall - Lake St, Cambridge
Recommendation 25: It is recommended WDC replace the 12 lipped kerbs with a
flush kerb and channel (no vertical face).
Page | 32
12 intersections in the destination area have a total of 13 missing kerb ramps. While
completing the site visits, a mother with a young child was seen crossing Hamilton
Road at the Bryce Street intersection, where there are two missing kerb ramps. This
is an example of pedestrians wanting to take the shortest route, and will take risks
instead of walking a further distance to cross safely. In this instance, it would have
involved walking back to Victoria St/Hamilton Rd intersection to use the pedestrian
crossing.
Figure 30: Mother and child crossing road - Hamilton Rd/Bryce St Intersection –
Cambridge
Other intersections require the use of driveways to access the footpath. This is not
recommended practise as reversing vehicles are often not able to see small
children, mobility scooters, and wheelchairs.
Figure 31: Missing kerb ramp requiring user to use vehicle crossing - Commerce
St/Milicich Pl - Cambridge
Recommendation 26: It is recommended WDC install 13 kerb ramps at the 12
intersections specified in Appendix C. Care to be taken to ensure the kerb has a
flush kerb and channel (no vertical face) and approach grades to not exceed 1 in 14
(7.1%).
Visually impaired people require straight crossing lines to safely access crossing
points. When the crossings are not straight, visually impaired people are often forced
to feel their way along the channel to find the kerb ramp.
Page | 33
Figure 32: Alpha St/Victoria west crossing – Cambridge
Figure 33: Crossing Anzac St at Intersection with Duke St – Cambridge
Figure 34: Queen St/Bryce St Intersection – Cambridge
Page | 34
During the site visit, a visually impaired person
was observed struggling to find the crossing
point at this intersection. Even though this is out
by a fraction, this caused problems.
Figure 35: Whitaker St/Hautapu Rd Intersection – Cambridge
Recommendation 27: It is recommended WDC align the crossing points at the
intersections of Victoria St/Alpha St, Duke St/Anzac St, Queen St/Bryce St, and
Whitaker/Hautapu Rd.
11.2
KIHIKIHI
There are six kerb ramps in the Kihikihi Destination Area which have an approach
grade of between 1 in 12(8.33%) and 1 in 6 (16.7%).
(8.33%) and 1 in 8 (12.5%); and
1 kerb ramp had an approach grade on the footpath and 2 on the carriageway
of between 1 in 8 (12.5%) and 1 in 6 (16.7%).
The most severe of the footpath approaches is located at the south-west intersection
of Lyon Street (SH.3) and Balance Street. Crossing Balance St, the approach ramp
is 14.5%. Milling of the carriageway is also required at this intersection.
Page | 35
Recommendation 28: It is recommended WDC replace the six kerb ramps in the
Kihikihi Destination Area to have an approach grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%) or less.
Recommendation 29: It is recommended WDC liaise with NZTA to remove the
vertical face in the seal edge at the crossing of Balance Street at the intersection
with Lyon Street (SH.3).
Three crossings in the destination area have Lip Kerbs. These are situated at the
north-east intersection of Lyon St and Whitmore Street (crossing Whitmore St) and
the intersection of Lyon Street and Church St.
Recommendation 30: It is recommended WDC liaise with NZTA to replace the 3
lipped kerbs with a flush kerb and channel (no vertical face).
There is one crossing point that does not line up completely straight. This is the
intersection of Lyon St and Whitmore St.
Recommendation 31: It is recommended WDC straighten the crossing point at the
intersection of Lyon St and Whitmore St.
11.3
LEAMINGTON
Generally, Leamington kerb ramps are of excellent condition, due to the recent
upgrade that has taken place. There are only five kerb ramps in the Leamington
Destination Area which have an approach grade of between 1 in 12(8.33%) and 1 in
8 (12.5%).
The most severe of the footpath approaches is located at the intersection of
Shakespeare Street and Raleigh St, on the western side. Crossing Raleigh St, both
approaches are 10.4%.
Figure 36: Crossing Raleigh St west - Shakespeare St, Leamington
Page | 36
Recommendation 32: It is recommended WDC replace the five kerb ramps in the
Leamington Destination Area to have an approach grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%) or less.
Two crossings in the destination area have Lip Kerbs. These are situated at the
north side of the entrance to the Raleigh Street Christian Centre and the north-east
intersection of Shakespeare Street and Thompson Street (crossing Shakespeare
St).
The intersection of Shakespeare Street and Raleigh Street is missing kerb ramps
crossing Shakespeare St. The nearest crossing point is at the mid-block pedestrian
crossing by the bus stop. The north side of the intersection has a bakery, fruit and
vegetable shop and a NZ Post box.
Figure 37: Shakespeare St/Raleigh St Intersection – Leamington
Recommendation 34: It is recommended WDC install kerb ramps at the
intersection of Shakespeare Street and Raleigh Street. Care to be taken to ensure
the kerb has a flush kerb and channel (no vertical face) and approach grades to not
exceed 1 in 14 (7.1%).
Page | 37
There is one crossing point that does not line up completely straight. This is the
intersection of Shakespeare St and Thompson St.
Figure 38: Shakespeare St/Thompson St Intersection - Leamington
Recommendation 35: It is recommended WDC align the crossing point at the
intersection of Shakespeare St and Thompson St.
11.4
PIRONGIA
There are seven kerb ramps in the Pirongia Destination Area
which have an approach grade of between 1 in 12(8.33%) and
1 in 6 (16.7%).
5 kerb ramps had approach grades on the footpath of
between 1 in 12 (8.33%) and 1 in 8 (12.5%); and
1 kerb ramp had an approach grade on the footpath and
1 on the carriageway of between 1 in 8 (12.5%) and 1 in
5.6 (17.8%).
The kerb ramps greater than 1 in 8 are located at the
intersection of Franklin (SH.39) and Crozier Street. Crossing
Franklin St, the approach ramp in the footpath on the northeast
crossing is 17.8% and the carriageway approach on the
northwest crossing is 14.4%.
Figure 39: Franklin
St/Crozier St
Intersection - Pirongia
Recommendation 36: It is recommended WDC replace the
six kerb ramps on the footpath in the Pirongia Destination Area
to have an approach grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%) or less.
Recommendation 37: It is recommended WDC liaise with NZTA to replace the
carriageway approach to the kerb ramp at Franklin St/Crozier St in the Pirongia
Destination Area to have an approach grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%) or less.
Page | 38
While access has been provided on the west side of Franklin Street opposite the
Pirongia Village Café, there is no access on the east side and a mobility impaired
user is required to use a busy driveway to access the footpath.
Figure 40: Crossing to Pirongia Village Cafe - Franklin Street, Pirongia
Recommendation 38: It is recommended WDC install a kerb ramp outside the
Pirongia Village Café to link with the west side of Franklin Street. Care to be taken to
ensure the kerb has a flush kerb and channel (no vertical face) and approach grades
to not exceed 1 in 14 (7.1%).
11.5
TE AWAMUTU
Approximately 41 kerb ramps in the Te Awamutu Destination Area have an
approach grade of between 1 in 12(8.33%) and 1 in 4 (25%).
(8.33%) and 1 in 8 (12.5%);
Nine kerb ramps had approach grades on the footpath of between 1 in 8
(12.5%) and 1 in 6 (16.7%); and
Four kerb ramps had approach grades on the footpath and 3 on the
carriageway of between 1 in 6 (16.7%) and 1 in 4.1 (24.3%).
Page | 39
The most severe of the footpath approaches is located at the north-west intersection
of Roche Street and Redoubt Street. Crossing Roche St, the approach ramp is 1 in
4.1 (24.3%). There is also a missing kerb ramp on the north-east intersection linking
to this crossing point.
Figure 41: Crossing Roche St from the Police Station to Council - Te Awamutu
The most severe carriageway approach is at the south-east intersection of Bank
Street and Vaile Street. Crossing Bank St, the approach grade is 1 in 4.9 (20.5%).
Recommendation 39: It is recommended WDC replace the 41 kerb ramps in the Te
Awamutu Destination Area to have an approach grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%) or less.
14 crossings in the destination area have Lip Kerbs, one of which is at the northwest intersection of Albert Park Drive, Sloane St, and Vaile Street.
Figure 42: Lip Kerb - Roche St/Redoubt St Intersection - Te Awamutu
Recommendation 41: It is recommended WDC liaise with NZTA to replace the
lipped kerb at the north-west intersection of Albert Park Drive, Sloane St, and Vaile
Street with a flush kerb and channel (no vertical face).
Page | 40
Te Awamutu has three crossing points that do not line up completely straight. These
are at:
Jacobs St – Vehicle entrance to the supermarket
Figure 43: Crossing at Supermarket - Jacobs St, Te Awamutu
Roche St/Walton St Intersection – lacking kerb as well. Close to public toilets
Figure 44: Roche/Walton St Intersection - Te Awamutu
Sloane St/Redoubt St Intersection – with a longitudinal ramp to Sloane St
Recommendation 42: It is recommended WDC align the crossing points at the
intersections of Victoria St/Alpha St, Duke St/Anzac St, Queen St/Bryce St, and
Whitaker/Hautapu Rd.
Page | 41
12
FOOTPATHS
12.1
PROVISION OF FOOTPATHS
Footpaths enable pedestrians to get to and from their place of work or school and
move around the community to meet in social, sporting, work or cultural events. A
safe and effective footpath provides access to the community for the mobility
impaired.
Waipa district Council manages approximately 187km of footpaths18. The majority of
these footpaths are in Te Awamutu and Cambridge as the major urban areas of the
district.
A number of improvements have been made to the footpaths in the Destination
Areas of Cambridge, Leamington, Pirongia, and Te Awamutu. As a result, footpaths
have been widened and cobblestones have been laid to create a softer, more
appealing environment.
In a number of places around the Waipa District footpaths do not exist on both sides
of the street and stop short of intersections.
The following is a guide from the PPDG for the provision of footpaths:
Land Use
Minimum
Preferred
Commercial and Industrial,
Residential (Collector and Arterial)
Both sides
Both sides
Residential (Local)
One side
Both sides
Up to 10 dwellings per hectare
Shoulders on both sides
One side
Table 6: When to provide footpaths19
Where only the minimum provision is made, the road controlling authority (RCA)
should be able to demonstrate clearly why walking is not expected in that area
Retrofitting footpaths is more costly than providing them in the first place, so the
preferred standard should be installed for any new or improved development20.
Recommendation 43: It is recommended WDC adopt the preferred Pedestrian
Planning and Design Guide recommendations for the provision of footpaths.
18
Waipa District Council website – About our Services: Roading
Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide – Table 14.1: When to provide footpaths
20
Pedestrian Planning and Design Guidelines – Section 14.1: Where footpaths should be provided
19
Page | 42
12.2
CAMBRIDGE
11 sites were identified to have footpaths missing. The sites included locations near
to a school, medical centre, and a public facility.
Figure 45: Missing connection from refuge island - Alpha St, Cambridge
Figure 46: Footpath on east side only - Bryce St, Cambridge
Figure 47: Connection to Lake - Lake St, Cambridge
Page | 43
Recommendation 44: It is recommended WDC install footpaths at the locations
listed in Appendix D:1.
12.3
KIHIKIHI
The footpath is missing on Lyon Street, from Herbert Street to Havelock Street. This
area provides a connection from the shopping centre to the footpath that connects
Kihikihi to Te Awamutu. Located nearby are the Kihikihi Bowling Club and public
toilets.
Recommendation 45: It is recommended WDC install a footpath on the east side of
Lyon Street between Herbert St and Havelock St.
12.4
PIRONGIA
Pirongia has two sections of footpath missing along the West side of Franklin Street.
One section is north of the shopping centre, between Belcher Street and the Public
Toilets. A rest area is located in the vicinity and buses park on the road side of the
rest area.
Figure 48: Missing footpath west side of Franklin St - north of Public Toilets, Pirongia
The second section is located south of the Four Square, on the west side of Franklin
Street. This link provides access from the Persimmon Tree Café to Four Square at
the southern end of the shopping centre.
Recommendation 46: It is recommended WDC install a footpath on the west side of
Franklin Street between Belcher Street and the Public Toilets, and on the west side
between the Persimmon Tree Café and the Four Square.
Page | 44
12.5
TE AWAMUTU
There are three locations of missing footpath that would provide a useful link to
facilities.
While conducting the site inspection of Te Awamutu, two mobility scooters were
observed crossing Albert Park Drive at the refuge island from Scout Ln. From this,
they used the carpark at the Te Awamutu Sports Club to link up with the Pioneer
Walk.
Figure 49: Mobility scooter user - Scout Ln, Te Awamutu
Extending the footpath on Vaile Street, from Palmer St to Sloane St, would provide
users an opportunity to cross at the refuge island located near Palmer St before
continuing east to Sloane St. This would avoid the need to cross at the roundabout
at Sloane St.
Figure 50: Missing footpath - Vaile St, Te Awamutu
Page | 45
A small section of footpath is missing at the Te Awamutu Events centre, requiring
pedestrians to use the vehicle entrance in order to access the centre from town.
Figure 51: Footpath at west entrance to Te Awamutu Events Centre - Selwyn St
Recommendation 47: It is recommended WDC install footpath designations on
Albert Park Drive, outside the Te Awamutu Sports Centre, and Vaile St, from Palmer
St to Sloane St.
Recommendation 48: It is recommended WDC complete the footpath on Selwyn
Street, outside the Te Awamutu Events Centre.
12.6
FOOTPATH WIDTH
Footpath width is often under-rated for accessibility. A wider footpath provides a
safer passage of use for mobility scooters, wheelchairs, and pushchairs eliminating
the requirement to use an uneven surface, such as a grass berm.
The PPDG provides the following guidelines for the through route of footpaths:
Location
Maximum pedestrian
flow
Through route
width
Arterial roads in pedestrian districts;
CBD; alongside parks and schools;
other major pedestrian generators
80 p/min
>2.4m
Local roads in pedestrian districts;
Commercial/ industrial areas outside
the CBD; Collector roads
60 p/min
1.8 m
Local roads in residential areas
50 p/min
1.5 m
Absolute minimum*
50 p/min
1.5 m
Table 7: Minimum Footpath Dimensions21
21
Pedestrian Planning and Design Guidelines – Table 14.3: Minimum footpath dimensions
Page | 46
*Note: The absolute minimum width is only acceptable in existing constrained
conditions and where it is not possible to reallocate road space.
The majority of footpaths on the major roads of the destination areas are of good
width with good consideration from business owners with the location of advertising
signage and al-fresco dining. The WDC is to be congratulated for managing access
routes effectively in these areas.
Figure 52: Good width of footpath - Victoria St, Cambridge
Figure 53: Duke St, Cambridge
Figure 54: Recent upgrade - Shakespeare St, Leamington
Page | 47
Figure 55: Alexandra St, Te Awamutu
Examples of where Business owners need to be reminded of the requirement to
maintain access routes are:
Cambridge
Figure 56: Al-fresco dining - Duke Street, Cambridge
Figure 57: Al-fresco dining forcing pedestrians to walk away from shelter - Victoria St,
Cambridge
Page | 48
Figure 58: Al-fresco dining - Duke St, Cambridge
Figure 59: Confusing access route - Victoria St, Cambridge
Figure 60: Carparking on footpath - Wilson St, Cambridge
Page | 49
Leamington
Figure 61: Four Square – Shakespeare St, Leamington
Te Awamutu
Figure 62: Storage - Rogers Pl, Te Awamutu
Figure 63: Al-fresco dining - Arawata St, Te Awamutu
Page | 50
Figure 64: Car parking - Market St, Te Awamutu
Figure 64 is a particularly hazardous situation. As these photos were taken, a blue
Ute was exiting the ROW as the wheelchair user was using the footpath. The two
vehicles parked outside the Auto Electrical impaired visibility for both the wheelchair
user and the driver of the Ute.
Recommendation 49: It is recommended WDC liaise with business owners to
retain good through route widths and visibility at vehicle entrances.
Away from the main shopping centres, the footpath is generally 1.2m wide. Some
footpaths are narrower due to foliage growing over the paths.
Figure 65: Trimming required - Duke St/Fort St
Intersection – Cambridge
Figure 66: Trimming required - Lyon S, Kihikihi
Where the through route width is constrained to less
than 1.5 metres wide, passing places should be
provided – but only where it is not possible to widen
Page | 51
the footpath over a longer distance, and never as a low-cost alternative to a fullwidth footpath22.
Recommendation 50: It is recommended WDC upgrade the width of the footpaths
to a minimum of 1.5m when the footpaths need replacing. This will provide passing
places in the short term, with a long term strategy of widening all footpaths.
12.7
LONGITUDINAL GRADIENT AND CROSSFALL
Longitudinal gradient and crossfall is a major concern for users with mobility devices.
As with kerb ramps, design standards regard longitudinal grades greater than 1 in 20
(5%) on footpaths as ramps23. CCS Disability Action considers 1 in 8 (12.5%) as an
absolute maximum is too steep and unusable by mobility scooters and wheelchairs.
An absolute maximum grade of 1 in 12 (8.5%) is required as grades steeper than
this are not easily used.
Recommendation 51: It is recommended WDC adopt an absolute maximum
longitudinal grade of 1 in 12 (8.3%) with a desirable maximum grade of 1 in 14
(7.1%).
12.8
CAMBRIDGE
Nine sites in the Cambridge Destination Area were recorded as being above 1 in 12
(8.3%). A full list of affected sites is listed in Appendix D.
Figure 67: Change in Longitudinal Grade - Fort St, Cambridge
Recommendation 52: It is recommended WDC replace the longitudinal grades
listed in Appendix D:1 to a longitudinal grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%).
22
23
Pedestrian Planning and Design Guidelines Section 14.2.3: Passing Places
NZS 4121:2001 Section 6.2.3: Footpaths as ramps
Page | 52
While most occurred at sides of entrances into car parks and ROW’s, a hazardous
situation is in place at the intersection of Duke Street and Fort Street.
The grade of the footpath from Duke Street is 9.6%, flattens to 1.9%, and then
steepens to 8.5%. There is a hazardous drop at the side of the footpath to the live
traffic lane of Fort Street of over 1m.
Figure 68: Footpath at Duke St/Fort St intersection - Cambridge
Recommendation 53: It is recommended WDC install a pedestrian barrier to
reduce the risk of a mobility scooter, wheelchair or young child falling into the live
traffic lane on Fort Street, Cambridge.
12.9
LEAMINGTON
There is one site in the Leamington Destination Area was recorded as being above 1
in 12 (8.3%). This is situated at the R.O.W east of the Bakery, just south of the
pedestrian crossing.
Recommendation 54: It is recommended WDC replace the longitudinal grade listed
in Appendix D:3 to a longitudinal grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%).
12.10 TE AWAMUTU
Six sites in the Te Awamutu Destination Area were recorded as being above 1 in 12
(8.3%). A full list of affected sites is listed in Appendix D:5.
While most occurred at sides of entrances into car parks and ROW’s, an unusable
situation is in place at the intersection of Sloane Street and Redoubt Street.
Page | 53
Figure 69: Intersection with Sloane St and Redoubt St
The ramp is at a grade of greater than 1 in 12 (8.3%) and foliage at the right of
Figure 69 reduces sight visibility of pedestrians approaching each other. The
footpath width is 1.2m.
Recommendation 55: It is recommended WDC replace the longitudinal grades
listed in Appendix D:5 to a longitudinal grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%).
12.11 CROSSFALL
Design standards recommend a crossfall of between 1% and 2% 24. A grade of
greater than 1% requires people using wheelchairs and walking frames to use extra
energy to resist the sideways forces. As the majority of footpaths drain to the road,
this can lead to the user dropping over the kerb and into the live traffic lane.
All footpaths in the Destination areas had a crossfall of greater than 1%, and the
majority had a crossfall of greater than 2%.
Recommendation 56: It is recommended WDC adopt 1% as the crossfall standard,
and upgrade existing footpaths to this grade when replaced.
24
Pedestrian Planning and Design Guidelines Section 14.5: Crossfall and NZS 4121:2001 Section 6:
Footpaths, Ramps, and Landings
Page | 54
13
STREET CROSSINGS
13.1
PROVISION OF CROSSINGS25
Pedestrians cross the road an average of two to three times on every walking trip.
Perceptions of the walking experience are focused on difficulties crossing roads. Any
problems with this can cause delays and create a sense of insecurity. By providing
effective crossings, the walking experience is enhanced and becomes more user
friendly.
There are four main reasons for installing pedestrian crossing facilities:
Level of service – The crossing opportunities available to pedestrians;
Safety – Crash records show that specific pedestrian crashes may be
reduced by providing crossing assistance, or that perceptions of poor safety
are discouraging walking;
Specific access provisions – A particular group (e.g. young children, vision
and mobility impaired people) crossing; and
Integration – Part of integrating and reinforcing a wider traffic management
plan for the area.
13.2
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The level of service for pedestrians is calculated by the time taken to safely cross
the road, the volume of traffic, and physical aids to improve crossings. The longer it
takes, the more frustrated pedestrians become, and the more likely they are going to
take risks.
NZTA has developed a Pedestrian Crossing Facilities Calculation Spreadsheet. A
copy of this can be obtained from Tim Hughes at NZTA.
Recommendation 57: It is recommended WDC adopt the Pedestrian Crossing
Facilities Calculation Spreadsheet for use when determining pedestrian crossing
facilities.
There are four different designated road crossing opportunities in the Destination
areas:
Kerb ramps at intersections (discussed in Section 8: Kerb Ramps);
Splitter islands at intersections;
Mid-block refuge islands; and
Pedestrian crossings.
25
Pedestrian Planning and Design Guidelines – Section 15: Crossings
Page | 55
13.3
PEDESTRIAN ISLANDS26
Pedestrian islands, otherwise known as splitter islands and refuge islands’ share a
common purpose. They are elongated with raised kerb and channel within the
roadway that provide a place for pedestrians to wait before crossing the next part of
the road. Ideal islands use the existing carriageway seal between the raised islands
as a platform for pedestrians to wait for traffic.
Figure 70: Ideal pedestrian island crossing facility
Figure 71: Unsatisfactory pedestrian crossing due to change in grade at refuge
Crossing pedestrians only need to find a gap in one stream of traffic, meaning larger
and more frequent gaps and significantly reduced crossing times. The islands can
be retrofitted to existing carriageways and are particularly helpful to pedestrians
unable to judge distances accurately or who have slower walking speeds.
On busier roads, kerb extensions and a raised median or pedestrian island can
provide excellent safety benefits and a satisfactory level of service at flows above
1500 vehicles per hour27.
26
Pedestrian Planning and Design Guidelines – Section 6.7.1: Pedestrian Islands
Page | 56
Recommendation 58: It is recommended WDC adopt ideal Pedestrian Island
Crossing Facilities as shown in figure 70.
13.4
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS28
Pedestrian crossings are a section of roadway running from kerb to kerb and marked
with longitudinal markings. Drivers are required to give way to pedestrians on both
sides of all zebra crossings unless the crossing is divided by a raised traffic island.
13.5
CROSSING AT ROUNDABOUTS
Of greatest concern for pedestrians with mobility impairments is crossing at
roundabouts. There are three roundabouts in the destination area of Cambridge and
four in Te Awamutu.
Table Eight highlights the advantages and disadvantages of pedestrian crossings at
roundabouts.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Vehicle speed is reduced compared to other Traffic accelerating from roundabout does
intersections.
not necessarily stop. May cause hesitation
by pedestrians.
Pedestrians have fewer conflict points than May cause anxiety in pedestrians who are
at other intersections.
not confident judging gaps in traffic.
Pedestrian islands allow users to focus on Crossing locations often result in a longer
one direction of traffic at a time.
distance of travel for pedestrians.
Crossing movement can be accomplished
with less wait time than at conventional
intersections.
Table 8: Roundabout Advantages and Disadvantages for pedestrians29
Traffic accelerating from the roundabout causes perceived safety issues for mobility
impaired pedestrians. Often, drivers are distracted from pedestrians as they are
looking at the other traffic at the intersection. Traffic calming measures such as
raised platforms control the exit speed, therefore removing this issue.
Recommendation 59: It is recommended WDC install raised platforms at the
crossing points of the seven roundabouts in the Cambridge and Te Awamutu
destination areas.
27
Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide – Section 6.5.2: Types of crossing facility
Pedestrian Planning and Design Guidelines – Section 6.7.5: Pedestrian zebra crossings
29
Accommodating Vulnerable Road Users in Roundabout Design
28
Page | 57
13.6
CAMBRIDGE
Cambridge has a number of pedestrian crossings and islands in the destination area
that are well located along the accessibility route. There are four locations where an
installation of pedestrian islands would improve pedestrian safety.
Duke Street/Wilson Street Intersection – This is a large intersection with
Cambridge Primary School at the intersection and the Public Library nearby.
Wilson Street is approximately 20m wide. An elongated roundabout would
improve pedestrian connection for the school and parking at Hally’s Ln.
Figure 72: Pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Duke St and Wilson St Cambridge
Queen Street/Empire Street Intersection – There were a lot of requests from
the consultation meetings to provide safer crossing facilities at Countdown. A
pedestrian island at the intersection between supermarket and the petrol
station would greatly improve pedestrian safety.
Figure 73: Crossing Queen St/Empire St Intersection – Cambridge
Page | 58
Lake Street/Whitaker Street Intersection – The entrance to VTNZ is located at
a connection to Te Koutu Domain.
Figure 74: VTNZ Entrance - Lake St, Cambridge
Duke St – Between Commerce and Anzac is the Post Office. There is a kerb
extension at the east intersection of Duke/Commerce, and car parking on the
north side outside Vault Financial Group and connection to The Hub Carpark.
Recommendation 60: It is recommended WDC install an elongated roundabout at
the intersection of Duke St/Wilson St.
Recommendation 61: It is recommended WDC install a pedestrian island at the
intersection of Queen St/Empire St.
Recommendation 62: It is recommended WDC install a pedestrian island on
Whitaker Street on the west side of the intersection with Lake Street. The footpath
would need to be installed to complete the link.
Recommendation 63: It is recommended WDC install a Kerb extension on Duke
Street on the north side (outside Vault Financial Group) to link the Post Office with
The Hub Carpark.
13.7
KIHIKIHI
There is one pedestrian crossing in Kihikihi, located mid-block between Galloway St
and William St. While the pedestrian crossing functions well with steel plates making
access very good, there is a problem with vehicles illegally parking on the southwest side. This reduces the sight distance for mobility scooter user, wheelchair user,
and vehicle driver. This can be solved by extending the kerb extension to southern
driveway.
Page | 59
Figure 75: Car illegally parked - Lyon St, Kihikihi
Recommendation 64: It is recommended WDC extend the kerb extension on the
south-west side of the pedestrian crossing at Kihikihi to the driveway to eliminate
illegal parking and restore sight distances.
Whitmore Street is a main pedestrian route with Kihikihi School at the urban
boundary. A pedestrian island at the southern end of the shopping centre will assist
school children in crossing the state highway safely.
Similarly, a pedestrian island north of Leslie Street will complete an accessibility
route to Te Awamutu. At present, the footpath on the west side of Lyon Street
finishes seven houses north of Leslie St. With the footpath missing between
Havelock St and Herbert St, users are required to ‘take their chances’ crossing Lyon
St.
Recommendation 65: It is recommended WDC install two pedestrian islands on
Lyon Street, at the intersection of Whitmore St and north of Leslie St.
13.8
LEAMINGTON
The recent upgrade of Leamington has improved the safety of the pedestrian
crossing. Aside from the east approach at 9.1%, the crossing works well.
Page | 60
Figure 76: Pedestrian crossing - Shakespeare St, Cambridge
Recommendation 66: It is recommended WDC replace the approach grade at the
east side to the pedestrian crossing to a maximum of 1 in 14 (7.1%).
A pedestrian island at the north end of the shopping centre would provide a link for
shoppers between the Bakery and the Fruit and Vegetable Shop. While conducting
the site visit of Leamington, an elderly gentleman was observed parking and
shopping at the bakery, then performing a U-turn in his vehicle to shop at the Fruit
and Vegetable Shop.
Recommendation 67: It is recommended WDC install a pedestrian island with kerb
extensions at the north end of the shopping centre.
13.9
PIRONGIA
Pirongia is lacking any formal crossing facilities on Franklin Street. There is demand
for pedestrians to cross the road due to the location of the Pirongia Village Café, rest
area, and the Public Toilets. Franklin Street serves as a State Highway which
provides a bypass from Otorohanga to Ngaruawahia for heavy vehicles. This makes
it difficult for pedestrians to safely cross the carriageway.
There are excellent pedestrian facilities outside the Heritage and Visitor Centre.
Page | 61
Figure 77: Crossing Franklin Street - Pirongia
Recommendation 68: It is recommended WDC install a pedestrian crossing
between the Pirongia Village Café and the Heritage and Visitor Centre.
13.10 TE AWAMUTU
Te Awamutu has a number of pedestrian crossings and islands in the destination
area that are well located along the accessible pedestrian route. The best crossing is
at the Market Street/Roche Street/Alexandra Street intersection.
Figure 78: Pedestrian crossing - Roche St, Te Awamutu
Page | 62
There are seven locations where an installation of a pedestrian island would improve
pedestrian safety:
Roger Lane – A raised platform would control the speed of vehicles entering
the lane.
Figure 79: Pedestrian crossing - Rogers Ln, Te Awamutu
Albert Park Drive/George Street Intersection – Install a kerb extension on the
western side to reduce speed and eliminate vehicles cutting the corner.
Figure 80: Vehicle cutting corner - Albert Park Drive/George St, Te Awamutu
Page | 63
Mahoe Street Alleyway to Te Awamutu Events Centre – By installing a
pedestrian island in this location, an accessibility route from Alexandra Street
to the Events Centre is completed. Pedestrian markings in the carpark would
complement this route.
Figure 81: Mahoe St/Selwyn Ln intersection - Te Awamutu
Selwyn Lane – Installing a refuge island would complete an accessible
pedestrian route between the i-Site and the Events Centre.
Figure 82: Selwyn Ln - Te Awamutu
Page | 64
Mutu Street – North of Mahoe St. There is a cluster of elderly people living
along Mutu Street. They have chosen to live there as it is close to town. Mutu
Street can get quite busy as it is a link for vehicles to the western end of
Alexandra Street, where there is an industrial area located.
Figure 83: Mobility scooter user crossing Mutu St - Te Awamutu
Redoubt Street/Walton Street/ Palmer Street Intersection – This intersection
is very wide and confusing for mobility users, especially visually impaired
people. Kerb extensions will reduce the distances needed to cross the roads.
Figure 84: Wide intersection - Redoubt St/Walton St/Palmer St, Te Awamutu
Page | 65
Vaile Street/Roche Street Intersection – A cluster of elderly people live south
of Vaile Street. Roche St provides another access route to Alexandra Street.
Figure 85: Person crossing Vaile St at the intersection with Roche St - Te Awamutu
Recommendation 69: It is recommended WDC install pedestrian crossing facilities
at Rogers Lane, Mahoe Street, Selwyn Lane, Mutu Street, Redoubt St/Walton
St/Palmer St Intersection, and Vaile St.
There are a number of pedestrian crossings in Te Awamutu that are well used by
pedestrians. On Sloane Street, near the intersection with Alexandra St and Arawata
St, a pedestrian crossing links McDonalds with the town centre.
Approaching from Arawata St, sight visibility is good with no carparking impeding
sight distances. However approaching the roundabout, carparking blocks visibility in
a manner similar to that in Kihikihi.
Figure 86: Pedestrian crossing - Sloane St, Cambridge
Page | 66
Recommendation 70: It is recommended WDC remove parking at the south-west
side of the pedestrian crossing on Sloane St to increase sight distances for both
vehicles and pedestrians.
During the site visits, a lot of pedestrians crossing Sloane St occurred near the
supermarket. The flush median is used as a refuge for pedestrians.
Figure 87: Pedestrians crossing Sloane St – Cambridge
Recommendation 71: It is recommended WDC install a refuge island Sloane
Street, between Redoubt St and Albert Park Dr/Vaile St Intersection.
Page | 67
14
STREET FURNITURE
Well-designed public space plays a decisive role in the comfort and safety of users.
Street furnishings support people walking, cycling and those taking rest on their
journey30.
Street furniture should avoid interrupting pedestrian desire lines and be carefully
selected and positioned to avoid cluttering the street. It needs to be mounted at a
height that is usable for all users.
Generally, Street Furniture is well located in the five Destination Areas. Most is well
located, and businesses place their advertising signs that allows for the through
route to continue.
Street furniture includes rubbish bins, light and power poles, signs, seats, bus
shelters etc.
14.1
SIGNAGE
Signage plays a key role in access in the community. It provides confidence to the
user that they are heading in the right direction and informs them of access
conditions.
It can be used to identify barriers and inform users of other ways of accessing their
destination.
Recommendation 72: It is recommended WDC adopt a strategy similar to Hamilton
City Council’s Signage Policy to inform users of their choices in accessing
destination points.
14.2
CAMBRIDGE
There is a bus service that links Cambridge with Hamilton. The bus stop at Victoria
St/Hamilton Rd intersection seems well used and is situated near the Selwyn St
Andrews Village. There is not a covered wheelchair parking space available. Access
to the bus is from the kerb, which is at the standard height. A minimum 200mm
height kerb would reduce the gradient required to access the bus.
30
North Shore City Council – Design of Streets: How should street furnishings be incorporated into
street design?
Page | 68
Figure 88: Bus stop on Victoria St - Cambridge
A second bus shelter is located west of Bryce Street. This shelter does not have a
suitable surface for access to the bus and is not signed. This is also missing a
covered wheelchair parking space.
Figure 89: Bus stop west of Bryce St - Hamilton Road, Cambridge
Recommendation 73: It is recommended WDC shorten the seats at the bus
shelters to accommodate wheelchairs.
Recommendation 74: It is recommended WDC install minimum 200mm height kerb
at the Victoria Street bus stop to reduce the gradient required onto the bus.
Recommendation 75: It is recommended WDC install a concrete pad at the
Hamilton Road bus stop for access onto the bus.
There are a number of rubbish bins in Cambridge. Most are well located; however
the height and rotation of some rubbish bins need to be adjusted.
Page | 69
Figure 90: Rubbish bin facing away from the footpath - Victoria St, Cambridge
Figure 91: Rubbish bins at varying heights - Queen St, Cambridge
Recommendation 76: It is recommended WDC check and adjust all rubbish bins in
Cambridge to an opening height of 700mm and ensure they are rotated to face the
footpath.
Page | 70
Seating in Cambridge is of a very high standard. Seats are well situated, and have a
back rest for support.
The seats at Victoria Square on Victoria Street have steps. These steps can be
difficult for elderly to use and caregivers are unable to sit next to wheelchair users.
Figure 92: Seat with difficult access - Victoria St, Cambridge
Recommendation 77: It is recommended WDC lower the seats at Victoria Square
on Victoria St for ease of access.
14.3
KIHIKIHI
Like Cambridge, Kihikihi is well equipped with seating and rubbish bins. There is a
bus stop situated at the north-west end of the shopping centre. There is a bus
service from Kihikihi to Hamilton on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The bus stop is in poor condition visually. The bus shelter is unpainted, and Graffiti
makes this shelter an undesirable place to wait for the bus. The seat is full length,
therefore wheelchair parking undercover is missing. The kerb is standard height and
in poor condition due to buses running it over.
Figure 93: Kihikihi Bus shelter - Lyon St, Kihikihi
Page | 71
Recommendation 78: It is recommended WDC upgrade the bus shelter and
replace the kerb with minimum 200mm height kerb to reduce the gradient onto the
bus.
To the north of the dairy on the west side is a rubbish bin. While the advertising
signs are well placed by the business owner, the placement of the rubbish bin is
blocking the access route.
Figure 94: Rubbish bin in access route - Lyon St, Kihikihi
Recommendation 79: It is recommended WDC re-locate the rubbish bin north of
Top Dairy away from the access route.
14.4
TE AWAMUTU
A bus service runs from Te Awamutu to Hamilton daily. The bus stop is located on
Gorst Avenue, next to the I-site. The shelters are in excellent condition and the bus
stop is well signed.
The kerb height is standard and in poor condition, as is the carriageway itself.
Figure 95: Bus stop - Gorst Avenue, Te Awamutu
Page | 72
Recommendation 80: It is recommended WDC replace the kerb and channel at the
Gorst Ave bus stop to a minimum of 200mm height to reduce the gradient for access
onto the bus.
A light pole is situated in the north-east footpath at the bridge on Arawata Street.
This reduces the width of the path, making it difficult for mobility users to access.
Figure 96: Light in Footpath - Arawata St, Te Awamutu
Recommendation 81: It is recommended WDC re-locate the light pole on the northeast footpath of the bridge on Arawata Street away from the access route.
As with Cambridge, Te Awamutu has a number of rubbish bins at varying heights
and at the wrong rotation.
Figure 97: rubbish bin rotated away from footpath - Arawata St, Te Awamutu
Recommendation 82: It is recommended WDC check and adjust all rubbish bins in
Te Awamutu to an opening height of 700mm and ensure they are rotated to face the
footpath.
Page | 73
15
TACTILES
15.1
USE OF TACTILES31
Tactile ground surface indicators (TGSI) provide pedestrians with visual and sensory
information. The two types of TGSI are warning indicators and directional indicators.
Warning indicators alert pedestrians to hazards in the continuous accessible path of
travel. They are used to indicate that pedestrians should stop to determine the
nature of the hazard before proceeding further. They do not indicate what the hazard
will be.
Directional indicators give directional orientation to blind and vision-impaired people
and designate the continuous accessible path of travel when other tactile or
environmental cues are insufficient.
When combined with other environmental information, TGSI assist blind and visionimpaired people with their orientation and awareness of impending obstacles,
hazards and changes in the direction of the continuous accessible path of travel.
15.2
INSTALLATION32
Warning indicators alert people who are blind or vision-impaired to pending
obstacles or hazards on the continuous accessible path that could not reasonably be
expected or anticipated using other tactile and environmental cues.
Warning indicators shall be installed to inform blind and vision-impaired people of:
Life threatening hazards where serious falls may occur;
All pedestrian kerb crossing points (both formal and informal), paths cut
through medians, and other places where the footpath is not separated from
the roadway by an abrupt change of grade of at least 12.5% (or 1:8) or with a
vertical kerb more than 70mm high;
The presence of level railway crossings;
Overhead impediments or hazards other than doorways (e.g., wall mounted
objects and archway structures), with a clearance of less than 2m from
ground level, in an accessible open public space with no clearly defined
continuous accessible path of travel.
Warning indicators may also be installed to inform blind and vision-impaired people
of:
31
RTS 14 Guidelines for facilities for blind and vision-impaired pedestrians
RTS 14 Guidelines for facilities for blind and vision-impaired pedestrians – Section 4.4: Where are
tactiles installed
32
Page | 74
Vehicle hazards at busy vehicle crossing points such as: shopping centres,
bus stations and large public car parks; and
Street furniture inappropriately located in the continuous accessible path of
travel and not detectable by a vision-impaired person using the aid of a white
cane.
Warning indicators shall be installed across the full width of all pedestrian kerb
crossings (excluding cut down ramps) and paths cut through medians to ensure that
all blind and vision-impaired people using these facilities encounter the warning
indicators. They must also be installed with the front and back edges perpendicular
to the crossing direction so that the domes are aligned with the direct line of travel
across the road. This will enable blind and vision-impaired people to align
themselves correctly with the crossing.
Directional indicators shall be used to provide directional guidance where a person
must deviate from the continuous accessible path of travel to gain access to:
A road crossing point
Public transport access point
Significant public facility e.g. public toilets or information centre.
Where other environmental cues are insufficient, directional indicators may also be
used to provide directional guidance:
Across open space from one point to another, or
Around obstacles in the continuous accessible path of travel (where warning
tiles are not sufficient).
Where required, directional indicators shall be installed in conjunction with warning
indicators where a road crossing point is not located in the continuous accessible
path of travel and directional guidance is required.
Warning Indicators shall be provided at all mid-block crossing points. Directional
indicators are almost certainly required at all mid-block crossing points, unless the
crossing point is on the continuous accessible path of travel. In most cases, the
footpath will run parallel to the roadway and thus the crossing point will not be on the
continuous accessible path of travel.
Where warning indicators are installed in medians, they shall cover the full width of
the median cut through or kerb ramp. The layout of the TGSI in the median will vary
depending on the depth of the median and shape of the island cut through.
Page | 75
Recommendation 83: It is recommended WDC install warning and directional
tactiles at all pedestrian crossings and islands.
Recommendation 84: It is recommended WDC adopt the strategy of installing
warning tactiles at entrances that have a traffic volume of more than 50 vehicles per
day.
15.3
VISUAL CONTRAST33
Research by Bentzen et al (Accessible design for the blind, May 2000) indicated that
the colour ‘safety yellow’ is so salient, even to persons having very low vision, that it
is highly visible even when used in association with adjoining surfaces having a LRV
differing by as little as 40%. Their research found that safety yellow TGSI having a
40% contrast from new concrete was subjectively judged to be more detectable than
a darker TGSI having an 86% contrast with new concrete.
Safety yellow is the recommended standard colour for TGSI. Approval to use an
alternative colour should be sought from the local branch of the Royal New Zealand
Foundation for the Blind (RNZFB).
Recommendation 85: It is recommended WDC replace existing tactile paving with
Safety Yellow as recommended by the RTS 14.
33
RTS 14 Guidelines for facilities for blind and vision-impaired pedestrians – Section 4.3: Visual
Contrast
Page | 76
16
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Where work activities in the road corridor affect pedestrians or cyclists, the
Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) must ensure that34:
Pedestrians are not led into direct conflict with the work operation or traffic moving
through or around the worksite
If pedestrians are directed into live lanes they should be adequately protected from
traffic by delineation and/or barriers and suitable warning signs
Safe and impediment free temporary paths are provided where footpaths are
blocked by the activity.
Pedestrians, including those with impaired vision or wheelchair users must be
considered as part of the design, preparation, approval and implementation of the
Traffic Management Plan (TMP).
There were a number of instances in Cambridge and Te Awamutu where
Contractors need to take more care when controlling pedestrians. Most of these
cases were for a short period of time (1 or two days). However, one case was
reported as having been in place for 6 weeks or more.
The south-east intersection of Alpha Street and Dick Street has a construction of a
building. The footpath is blocked around the entire site, and pedestrians are forced
onto the road.
Figure 98: Footpath blocked due to construction of building - Alpha St/Dick St
Intersection, Cambridge
34
Code of practice for temporary traffic management (COPTTM): Part 8 of the Traffic Control Devices
manual (TCD Manual)
Page | 77
Other sites included the Ultra-fast Broadband implementation and other works which
require closing part or the entire footpath.
Figure 99: Part closure of footpath - Alpha St, Cambridge
Figure 100: Full closure of footpath - Alpha St, Cambridge
Figure 101: Full footpath closure - Empire St, Cambridge
Page | 78
Figure 102: Footpath closed sign at works - Roche St, Te Awamutu
Recommendation 86: It is recommended WDC enforce COPTTM standards for
pedestrian control as part of the TMP approval process and supervision.
Recommendation 87: It is recommended WDC conduct regular ‘random’ audits of
TTM as part of the supervision process of TMP’s.
Page | 79
17
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following tables list the recommendations in order as set out in the report. Table
9 shows the general recommendations with Tables 10, 11, and 12 showing the site
specific recommendations.
The specific recommendations are split into three categories – Serious Safety Risk
(Table 10), Significant Concerns (Table 11), and Minor Concerns (Table 12). The
total estimated costs for the three categories are:
Serious Safety Risk
Significant Concerns
Minor Concerns
$ 90,000
$120,000
$400,000
Consideration should be given to a more formal method of setting priorities for
provision of kerb ramps and maintenance of footpaths over a wider area as
members of the disability community will clearly have preferred routes into the areas
covered by this report. By identifying a risk and condition rating, a profile target can
be developed that allows limited resources to address the most critical barriers first.
Poor condition can be tolerated where there is little or no likelihood of use by the
disabled and elderly. We suggest WDC designate footpaths and all potential kerb
ramp locations within a risk profile of minor, significant or serious with accessible
routes as high priority. A relatively simple set of KPI’s could then be formulated with
condition ratings say 1 - 5 used to determine the profile.
Costs shown in Tables 10, 11, and 12 are indicative only and should only be used as
a guide. They do not include Traffic Management Costs or consultation with affected
parties.
All project costs will need to be finalised as design is completed for each.
Page | 80
17.1
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 9: General Recommendations
No. Pg. No.
Description
1.
Pg. 11.
This report is accepted and the recommendations are adopted into the 10
year plan with a review of progress every 12 months
2.
Pg. 12.
WDC continue the positive approach to providing access routes in the
District by extending the Destination Areas to include all urban areas of
Cambridge, Kihikihi, Leamington, Pirongia, and Te Awamutu.
3.
Pg. 16.
Adopt a strategy to provide access to the footpath along the entire width for
all mobility spaces in the Waipa District. However, WDC needs to ensure
the grades (ramp or crossfall of footpath) do not exceed 1 in 14 (7.1%).
4.
Pg. 17.
Adopt the recommended minimum length in the TCD Manual Part 13:
Parking Control of 6m for parallel parking.
5.
Pg. 17.
Adopt the recommended minimum width in NZS 4121:2001 of 3.5m and
the minimum recommended length in the TCD Manual Part 13: Parking
Control of 5.4m for angle parking.
6.
Pg. 18.
Follow the lead of other City and District Councils and mark the mobility
spaces with blue surfacing. Consideration is needed to provide a non-slip
surface with the colour of both the surface and the marking to comply with
Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.
7.
Pg. 19.
Adopt the recommendations for the upgrade of mobility spaces in
Cambridge as listed in Appendix B:1.
14.
Pg. 24.
Adopt the recommendations for the upgrade of mobility spaces in
Leamington as listed in Appendix B:3.
18.
Pg. 26.
Adopt the recommendations for upgrades to mobility spaces in Te
Awamutu as listed in Appendix B:5.
20.
Pg. 27.
Install full length kerb ramps on the remaining 16 spaces in Te Awamutu
that use driveways or have kerb ramp access to the footpath, as per
Recommendation 1.
22.
Pg. 30.
Adopt the Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide for Kerb Ramps with the
following changes:
•
Ramp – Normal maximum gradient to be 1 in 14 (7.14%), with the
absolute maximum gradient to be 1 in 12 (8.33%).
•
•
Minimum cut down width of 1.8m.
Page | 81
No. Pg. No.
Description
23.
Pg. 31.
Replace the 43 kerb ramps in the Cambridge Destination Area to have an
approach grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%) or less.
25.
Pg. 32.
Replace the 12 lipped kerbs in Cambridge with a flush kerb and channel
(no vertical face).
26.
Pg. 33.
Install 13 kerb ramps at the 12 intersections in Cambridge specified in
Appendix C:1.
28.
Pg. 36.
Replace the six kerb ramps in the Kihikihi Destination Area to have an
32.
Pg. 37.
Replace the five kerb ramps in the Leamington Destination Area to have an
33.
Pg. 37.
Replace the 2 lipped kerbs In Pirongia with a flush kerb and channel (no
vertical face).
36.
Pg. 38.
Replace the six kerb ramps on the footpath in the Pirongia Destination
Area to have an approach grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%) or less.
39.
Pg. 40.
Replace the 41 kerb ramps in the Te Awamutu Destination Area to have an
40.
Pg. 40.
Replace the 12 lipped kerbs in Te Awamutu with a flush kerb and channel
(no vertical face).
43.
Pg. 42.
Adopt the preferred Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide
recommendations for the provision of footpaths.
44.
Pg. 44.
Install footpaths at the locations in Cambridge as listed in Appendix D:1.
49.
Pg. 51.
Liaise with business owners to retain good access route widths (i.e. 1.8m)
and visibility at vehicle entrances.
50.
Pg. 52.
Upgrade the width of the footpaths to a minimum of 1.5m when the
footpaths need replacing.
51.
Pg. 52.
Adopt an absolute maximum longitudinal grade of 1 in 12 (8.3%) with a
desirable maximum grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%).
52.
Pg. 52.
Replace the longitudinal grades in Cambridge as listed in Appendix D:1 to
a longitudinal grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%).
54.
Pg. 53.
Replace the longitudinal grade in Leamington as listed in Appendix D:3 to a
longitudinal grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%).
55.
Pg. 54.
Replace the longitudinal grades in Te Awamutu as listed in Appendix D:5
to a longitudinal grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%).
56.
Pg. 54.
Adopt 1% as the crossfall standard, and upgrade existing footpaths to this
grade when replaced.
Page | 82
No. Pg. No.
Description
57.
Pg. 55.
Adopt the Pedestrian Crossing Facilities Calculation Spreadsheet for use
when determining pedestrian crossing facilities.
58.
Pg. 57.
Adopt ideal Pedestrian Island Crossing Facilities as shown in figure 70.
72.
Pg. 68.
It is recommended WDC adopt a strategy similar to Hamilton City Council’s
Signage Policy to inform users of their choices in accessing destination
points.
76.
Pg. 70.
Check and adjust all rubbish bins in Cambridge to an opening height of
700mm and are rotated so the openings face the footpath.
82.
Pg. 73.
Check and adjust all rubbish bins in Te Awamutu to an opening height of
700mm and are rotated so the openings face the footpath.
83.
Pg. 76.
Install warning and directional tactiles at all pedestrian crossings and
islands.
84.
Pg. 76.
Adopt the strategy of installing warning tactiles at entrances that have a
traffic volume of more than 50 vehicles per day.
85.
Pg. 76.
Replace existing tactile paving with Safety Yellow as recommended by the
RTS 14.
86.
Pg. 79.
Enforce COPTTM standards for pedestrian control as part of the TMP
approval process and supervision.
87.
Pg. 79.
Conduct regular ‘random’ audits of TTM as part of the supervision process
of TMP’s.
Page | 83
17.2
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 10: Serious Safety Risks
No.
Pg. No.
Description
Indicative
Cost
9.
Pg. 19.
Re-locate the mobility space on Duke Street, Cambridge
(outside BNZ) to the southern side of the road (outside Café
Oasis).
$2,000
10.
Pg. 21.
Install an edgeline exiting the roundabout at Victoria/Queen
intersection and Victoria/Alpha intersection, (Cambridge).
$500
11.
Pg. 22.
Remove the first five parking spaces on the southern side of
the entrance to Hally’s Ln, Cambridge, and replace spaces 6,
7, and 8 as two mobility spaces.
$3,000
16.
Pg. 26.
Provide access from the mobility spaces in Pirongia as per
recommendation 3.
$2,500
19.
Pg. 26.
Provide full length kerb ramps to the three mobility spaces on
Bank St, Mutu St, and Sloane St, Te Awamutu
$3,000
24.
Pg. 32.
Liaise with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to
remove the vertical face in the seal edge of the northern side
of the pedestrian crossing on Hamilton Road (SH.1),
Cambridge near the intersection of Victoria St and Hautapu
Rd.
$0
38.
Pg. 39.
Install a kerb ramp outside the Pirongia Village Café to link
with the west side of Franklin Street.
$2,500
45.
Pg. 44.
Install a footpath on the east side of Lyon Street, Kihikihi
between Herbert St and Havelock St.
$15,000
48.
Pg. 46.
Complete the footpath on Selwyn Lane, outside the Te
Awamutu Events Centre.
$5,000
53.
Pg. 53.
Install a pedestrian barrier to reduce the risk of a mobility
scooter, wheelchair or young child falling into the live traffic
lane on Fort Street, Cambridge.
$2,500
64.
Pg. 60.
Extend the kerb extension on the south-west side of the
pedestrian crossing at Kihikihi to the driveway to eliminate
illegal parking and restore sight distances
$3,000
65.
Pg. 60.
Install two pedestrian islands on Lyon Street, Kihikihi, at the
intersection of Whitmore St and north of Leslie St.
$30,000
Page | 84
No.
Pg. No.
Description
Indicative
Cost
68.
Pg. 62.
Install a pedestrian crossing between the Pirongia Village
Café and the Heritage and Visitor Centre.
$15,000
70.
Pg. 67.
Remove parking at the south-west side of the pedestrian
crossing on Sloane St, Te Awamutu to increase sight
distances for both vehicles and pedestrians.
$1000
81.
Pg. 73.
Re-locate the light pole on the north-east footpath of the
bridge on Arawata Street, Te Awamutu.
$5,000
Total $90,000
Table 11: Significant Concerns
No.
Pg. No.
Description
Indicative
Cost
8.
Pg. 19.
Re-locate the mobility spaces on Alpha Street, Cambridge
(outside Onyx Restaurant) to the south western corner at the
intersection of Alpha Street and Empire Street.
$2,000
12.
Pg. 22.
Install two mobility spaces on Lyon Street, Kihikihi to meet the
requirements of NZS 4121:2001.
$5,000
27.
Pg. 35.
Align the crossing points at the intersections of Victoria
St/Alpha St, Duke St/Anzac St, Queen St/Bryce St, and
Whitaker/Hautapu Rd (Cambridge).
$12,500
34.
Pg. 37.
Install kerb ramps at the intersection of Shakespeare Street
and Raleigh Street (Leamington).
$2,500
37.
Pg. 38.
Liaise with NZTA to replace the carriageway approach to the
kerb ramp at Franklin St/Crozier St in the Pirongia Destination
Area to have an approach grade of 1 in 14 (7.1%) or less.
$0
41.
Pg. 40.
Liaise with NZTA to replace the lipped kerb at the north-west
intersection of Albert Park Drive, Sloane St, and Vaile Street
(Te Awamutu) with a flush kerb and channel (no vertical
face).
$0
42.
Pg. 41.
Align the crossing points at the intersections of Victoria
St/Alpha St, Duke St/Anzac St, Queen St/Bryce St, and
Whitaker/Hautapu Rd (Cambridge).
$10,000
47.
Pg. 46.
Install footpaths on Albert Park Drive, outside the Te
Awamutu Sports Centre, and Vaile St, from Palmer St to
Sloane St.
$17,500
Page | 85
No.
Pg. No.
Description
Indicative
Cost
61.
Pg. 59.
Install a pedestrian island at the intersection of Queen
St/Empire St, Cambridge.
$10,000
63.
Pg. 59.
Install a Kerb extension on Duke Street on the north side
(outside Vault Financial Group) to link the Post Office with
The Hub Carpark (Cambridge).
$5,000
67.
Pg. 61.
Install a pedestrian island with kerb extensions at the north
end of the shopping centre, Leamington (along with
Recommendation 34).
$25,000
71.
Pg. 67.
Install a refuge island on Sloane Street, between Redoubt St
and Albert Park Dr/Vaile St Intersection (Te Awamutu).
$10,000
74.
Pg. 69.
Install minimum 200mm height kerb at the Victoria Street,
Cambridge bus stop to reduce the gradient required onto the
bus.
$2,500
75.
Pg. 69.
Install a concrete pad at the Hamilton Road, Cambridge bus
stop for access onto the bus.
$5,000
78.
Pg. 72.
Upgrade the bus shelter in Kihikihi and replace the kerb with
minimum 200mm height kerb to reduce the gradient onto the
bus.
$10,000
79.
Pg. 72.
Re-locate the rubbish bin north of Top Dairy in Kihikihi away
from the access route.
$500
80.
Pg. 73.
Replace the kerb and channel at the Gorst Ave, Te Awamutu
bus stop to a minimum of 200mm height to reduce the
gradient for access onto the bus.
$2,500
Total: $120,000
Table 12: Minor Concerns
No.
Pg. No.
Description
Indicative
Cost
13.
Pg. 23.
Re-align the mobility space at Kihikihi School to diagonal to
match the surrounding carparking.
$3,000
15.
Pg. 24.
Re-locate the mobility space outside the Shakespeare Street
Liquor Store, Leamington to the closest parking space to the
Fruit and Vegetable shop on Raleigh Street.
$2,000
17.
Pg. 26.
Provide a mobility space on the southbound side near the
café in Pirongia.
$2,000
Page | 86
No.
Pg. No.
Description
Indicative
Cost
21.
Pg. 28.
Install more mobility parking on Alexandra Street, Te
Awamutu to provide closer parking for shop users.
$5,000
29.
Pg. 36.
Liaise with NZTA to remove the vertical face in the seal edge
at the crossing of Balance Street at the intersection with Lyon
Street (SH.3), Kihikihi.
$0
30.
Pg. 36.
Liaise with NZTA to replace the 3 lipped kerbs in Kihikihi with
a flush kerb and channel (no vertical face).
$0
31.
Pg. 36.
Align the crossing point at the intersection of Lyon St and
Whitmore St (Kihikihi).
$3,000
35.
Pg. 38.
Align the crossing point at the intersection of Shakespeare St
and Thompson St, (Leamington).
$3,000
46.
Pg. 44.
Install a footpath on the west side of Franklin Street, Pirongia
between Belcher Street and the Public Toilets, and on the
west side between the Persimmon Tree Café and the Four
Square.
$15,000
59.
Pg. 57.
Install raised platforms at the crossing points of the seven
roundabouts in the Cambridge and Te Awamutu destination
areas.
$250,000
60.
Pg. 59.
Install an elongated roundabout at the intersection of Duke
St/Wilson St, Cambridge.
$50,000
62.
Pg. 59.
Install a pedestrian island on Whitaker Street, Cambridge on
the west side of the intersection with Lake Street.
$10,000
66.
Pg. 61.
Replace the approach grade at the east side to the pedestrian
crossing on Shakespeare St, Leamington to a maximum of 1
in 14 (7.1%).
$3,000
69.
Pg. 66.
Install pedestrian crossing facilities at Rogers Lane, Mahoe
Street, Selwyn Lane, Mutu Street, Redoubt St/Walton
St/Palmer St Intersection, and Vaile St (Te Awamutu).
$50,000
73.
Pg. 69.
Shorten the seats at the bus shelters in Cambridge to
accommodate wheelchairs.
$1000
77.
Pg. 71.
Lower the seat at Victoria Square, Cambridge on Victoria St
for ease of access.
$3,000
Total: $400,000
Page | 87
APPENDIX A: LOCATION MAPS
A:1
Cambridge and Leamington
A:2
Cambridge CBD
A:3
Kihikihi
A:4
Leamington CBD
A:5
Pirongia
A:6
Te Awamutu
A:7
Te Awamutu CBD
Page | 88
Page | 89
Page | 90
Page | 91
Page | 92
Page | 93
Page | 94
Page | 95
APPENDIX B: IMPROVEMENTS – MOBILITY SPACES
B:1
Mobility spaces (existing) – Cambridge
B:2
Mobility spaces (existing) – Kihikihi
B:3
Mobility spaces (existing) – Leamington
B:4
Mobility spaces (existing) – Pirongia
B:5
Mobility spaces (existing) – Te Awamutu
Page | 96
Table 13: B:1 Mobility Spaces (Existing) - Cambridge
Location
Description of improvements
Hally’s Ln Carpark
Re-locate to spaces 6-8 along southern fence line
Remove car parks 3-5
Alpha St – Onyx
Restaurant
Relocate east 12 spaces to intersection of Alpha/East
Install full length kerb ramp
Duke St – BNZ
Relocate to Cave Oasis
Install length kerb ramp
Queen St – Public Toilets
Mark traffic lane edgeline
Alpha St – opp. Victoria Sq.
Install edgeline on carriageway
Install full length ramp
Alpha St – Medical Centre
(2)
Victoria St – Fran’s Cafe
Widen to 3.5m
Mark Hatching
Victoria St – Florist
Widen to 3.5m
Mark Hatching
Victoria St – GPO Bar &
Brasserie
Widen to 3.5m
Mark Hatching
Empire St – opp. Rouge (2)
Duke St – Flying Dragon
Takeaways
Repair surface
Relocate street furniture (rubbish bin)
Wilson St – Waipa District
Council
Relocate to cycle park
Mark Hatching
Alpha St – opp. Pastoral
Realty
Empire St – Rouge
Lake St – Town Hall (2)
Anzac St The Hub Carpark
(Absolute Café)
Re-grade access to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Page | 97
Location
Dick St – Police Station
Empire St – I-site (off
Street)
Install sign
Re-mark with Hatching
Milicich Pl Carpark (2)
Relocate one park to west side
Mark Hatchings separate to pedestrian crossing
Queen St – I-site (on street)
Re-mark with Hatching
Re-mount sign to correct height
Victoria St – Town Hall
Install full length kerb ramp with access to path
Mark Hatching
Williams St – Cambridge
East Primary School
Williamson St – Swimming
Pool
Mark Hatching
Table 14: B:2 Mobility Spaces (Existing) - Kihikihi
Location
Whitaker St – Kihikihi
School
Install as angle parking
Complete access to footpath
Page | 98
Table 15: B:3 Mobility Spaces (Existing) - Leamington
Location
Shakespeare St – Liquor
Centre
Re-locate to Raleigh St by Fruit and Vegetable Shop
Shakespeare St - Doctor
Shakespeare St – Medical
Centre
Shakespeare St – Entrance
to Raleigh St Christian
Centre
Lamb St – Leamington
Primary School
Install full length kerb ramp with access to footpath
Re-mark and install Hatching
Kingsley St – James Gray
Kindergarten
Lengthen to minimum 6m
Widen to 2.5m
Install signage
Table 16: B:4 Mobility Spaces (Existing) - Pirongia
Location
Franklin St – Public Toilets
Franklin St – Heritage &
Visitor Centre
Page | 99
Table 17: B:5 Mobility Spaces (Existing) - Te Awamutu
Location
Sloane St - McDonalds
Bank St – opp. Waipa
District Council
Mark hatching
Mutu St – opp. War
Memorial Gardens
Entrance
Widen to 3.5m
Mark hatching
Bank St – NZ Post Office
Churchill St – Flight Centre
Roche St - Library
Market St - ANZ
Roche St – Sth of Walton
Relocate to Alexandra St
Alexandra St – Strawbridge
100%
Mark Hatching
Gorst Ave – i-Site
Rewi St - Kindergarten
Teasdale St – Slip Lane
Churchill St Carpark –
alleyway
Re-locate bins
Lengthen space
Mark hatching
Churchill St Carpark – rear
of National Bank (2)
Widen to 6.5m
Mark hatching
Bank St – Church &
Bowling Club (2)
Remove car park between mobility spaces
Palmer St – St John
Selwyn Ln – Te Awamutu
Events Centre (2)
Widen to 3.5m
Mark Hatching
Page | 100
Location
Mangahoe St – #123
Roche St – Waipa District
Council (2)
Mahoe St – Medical Centre
Widen to 3.5m
Mark Hatching
Page | 101
APPENDIX C: IMPROVEMENTS – KERB RAMPS
C:1
Kerb ramps (existing) – Cambridge
C:2
Kerb ramps (existing) – Kihikihi
C:3
Kerb ramps (existing) – Leamington
C:4
Kerb ramps (existing) – Pirongia
C:5
Kerb ramps (existing) – Te Awamutu
Page | 102
Table 18: C:1 Kerb Ramps (Existing) - Cambridge
Intersection
Crossing Point
Description of Improvements
Alpha/ Victoria
n/w crossing Victoria
Remove lip in kerb
Crossing Alpha both sides
Align crossing point
Alpha/ Empire
n/w crossing Empire
n/e and n/w crossing Alpha
Re-grade ramps to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Alpha/ Anzac
n/w crossing Anzac
Install kerb ramp
n/e, n/w, and s/e crossing
Alpha
s/w crossing Kirkwood
Install kerb ramp
s/w crossing Empire
Remove lip in kerb
s/e crossing Empire
Re-grade carriageway to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
s/w crossing
Re-grade ramp to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
n/e crossing Anzac
n/w crossing Anzac
Bryce/
Dallinger
East crossing Bryce
Install kerb ramps
n/w and s/w crossing
Dallinger
Bryce/ Queen
n/e, n/w, s/e and s/w
crossing Bryce
s/w crossing Queen
Commerce/
Milicich
n/w crossing Commerce
Install kerb ramp
n/e crossing Milicich
Commerce/
Victoria
n/e and s/e crossing
Commerce
Victoria
Pedestrian crossing point
south of Hally’s
Remove lip in kerb
Duke/ Hally’s/
Wilson
East crossing Duke
Install kerb ramps
n/w crossing Hally’s
s/w crossing Wilson
s/w crossing Dick
West crossing Alpha
Install kerb ramps
n/w and s/e crossing Dick
West crossing Queen
Install kerb ramps
s/e crossing Dick
Remove lip in kerb
Empire/
Kirkwood
Empire/ Queen
Commerce/
Duke
Anzac/ Duke
Alpha/ Dick
Dick/ Queen
Remove lip in kerb
Page | 103
Intersection
Crossing Point
Queen/
Victoria
Dick/ Duke
s/w crossing Queen
n/e crossing Duke
James/ Wilson
Fort/ Victoria
James
n/e and s/e crossing Fort
Bath/ Wilson
s/w crossing Bath
Re-grade carriageway to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
n/w crossing Bath
n/w crossing
Refuge island north of
Council
west and east crossing
n/w and s/e crossing Lake
Remove lips in kerb
Remove redundant kerb ramp o/s Subway
n/w crossing Queen
Pedestrian crossing
between Victoria & Lake
Pedestrian crossing
between Lake & Empire
Remove lip in kerb
s/w crossing Lake
Remove lip in kerb
n/w crossing Lake
Remove kerb ramp
Whitaker
Park to pedestrian crossing
Bryce/
Hamilton
n/e and s/e crossing
Hamilton (SH.1)
Install kerb ramps
s/e and s/w crossing Bryce
West crossing Duke
Install kerb ramps
s/w crossing Fort
s/e crossing Fort
Victoria/
Whitaker
Alpha St
North crossing Whitaker
Between Empire and
Anzac
Remove redundant kerb ramps
Commerce St
Between Duke to Milicich
Victoria/
Wilson
Wilson
Hautapu/
Pedestrian
Crossing
Lake/ Queen
Queen St
(SH.1)
Kirkwood/ Lake
Duke/ Fort
Re-grade ramps & carriageway to 1 in 14
(7.1%)
Page | 104
Table 19: C:2 Kerb Ramps (Existing) - Kihikihi
Intersection
Crossing Point
Lyon/ Balance
n/w and s/w crossing Balance
Lyon/ Leslie
s/w crossing Leslie
Re-grade ramp & carriageway to 1 in 14
(7.1%)
Lyon/
Galloway
s/e crossing Galloway
Lyon/ Church
n/e crossing Church
s/e crossing Church
Lyon/
Whitmore
east crossing Whitmore
Table 20: C:3 Kerb Ramps (Existing) - Leamington
Intersection
Crossing Point
Shakespeare/
Raleigh
north crossing Shakespeare
Install kerb ramps
n/w and s/e crossing Raleigh
Shakespeare/
Pedestrian
Crossing
east crossing Shakespeare
Shakespeare/
R.S.C.C
North crossing entrance to
R.S.C.C
Shakespeare/
Thompson
n/e crossing Shakespeare
Remove lip in kerb
n/w crossing Shakespeare
s/w crossing Thompson
Table 21: C:4 Kerb Ramps (Existing) - Pirongia
Intersection
Crossing Point
Franklin/
Crozier
n/w crossing Franklin
Remove lip in kerb
n/e and s/e crossing Franklin
n/w and s/w crossing Crozier
Re-grade ramps & carriageway to 1 in 14
(7.1%)
Franklin/
Persimmon
Cafe
east crossing Franklin
Franklin/
Belcher
n/e and s/e crossing Belcher
Page | 105
Table 22: C:5 Kerb Ramps (Existing) - Te Awamutu
Intersection
Crossing Point
Albert Park/
Sloane/ Vaile
Sloane
s/w crossing Albert Park
n/w crossing Vaile
Remove lip in kerb
Outside NZ Post
Install kerb ramp
Opp. NZ Post
Remove lip in kerb
Alexandra
South pedestrian crossing
between Bank and Churchill
South pedestrian crossing
between Churchill and
Mutu/Rewi
Alexandra/
Market/ Roche
Alexandra/
Bank
Alexandra/
Mutu
n/e crossing Alexandra
s/w crossing Bank
n/w crossing Mutu
n/w crossing Alexandra
s/w crossing Rewi
Alexandra/
Arawata/
Sloane
Bank/
Teasdale
n/w crossing Alexandra
Remove lip in kerb
Crossing Arawata
Remove crossing
North crossing Teasdale
Install kerb ramp
south crossing Teasdale
Re-grade ramp and carriageway to 1 in 14
(7.1%)
Bank/ Vaile
n/w, n/e, s/w and s/e
crossing Bank
Re-grade ramps and carriageway to 1 in 14
(7.1%)
Jacobs/ Rewi
Crossing Jacobs
Remove lip in kerb
Jacobs
n/w crossing at entrance to
shopping centre
Jacobs/
Teasdale
Teasdale
Crossing Jacobs
Remove lip in kerb
Pedestrian crossing
between Jacobs and Vaile
Mahoe/ Mutu
n/e crossing Mahoe
n/w crossing Mutu
Arawata/
Scout
Arawata/
Gorst
s/w and s/e crossing Scout
Remove lip in kerb
n/e crossing Gorst
Remove lip in kerb
n/w crossing Gorst
Bank
Page | 106
Intersection
Crossing Point
Arawata/
George/
Mahoe
Mahoe/
Market
s/w crossing George
n/e crossing Mahoe
Remove lip in kerbs
n/e crossing Mahoe
Install kerb ramp
n/w crossing Market
Churchill/
Mahoe
s/e crossing Churchill
Mahoe
Install kerb ramp
s/w crossing Churchill
s/e crossing Mahoe
West crossing Vaile
Align crossing
n/e and s/e crossing Vaile
n/e crossing Roche
Install kerb ramp
n/e crossing Redoubt
Remove lip in kerb
s/e crossing Redoubt
n/w crossing Roche
Albert Park
East crossing refuge island
south of George
Albert Park/
Arawata/
Cambridge/
Ohaupo
Palmer/ Vaile
s/e crossing Te Rahu
s/w crossing Vaile
Install kerb ramp
n/w, n/e and s/w crossing
Palmer
n/w crossing Vaile
n/e crossing Vaile
Remove redundant kerb ramp
s/e and s/w crossing
Jackson
Outside LJ Hooker
Mutu
West between Alexandra
and Mahoe
Selwyn
Crossing east of Events
Centre
Remove kerb ramps on both sides, install at
main entrance
Mahoe/
Selwyn
Crossing Selwyn
Relocate to intersection to align with
footpath
Redoubt/
Sloane
Crossing Redoubt
Align crossing
Roche/ Vaile
Redoubt/
Roche
Jackson/ Vaile
Mahoe
Remove redundant kerb ramp
Page | 107
APPENDIX D: IMPROVEMENTS – FOOTPATHS
D:1
Footpaths (existing) – Cambridge
D:2
Footpaths (existing) – Kihikihi
D:3
Footpaths (existing) – Leamington
D:4
Footpaths (existing) – Pirongia
D:5
Footpaths (existing) – Te Awamutu
Page | 108
Table 23: D:1 Footpaths (Existing) - Cambridge
Street
Section
Empire
Alpha to
Queen
Install tactiles at entrances to Countdown and Mobil
Repair footpath south of Countdown
Alpha
Dick to Victoria
Footpath needs repair near Dick (north)
Clear debris from trees
Re-lay cobbles at driveway east of Vosper Law
Install tactiles at entrance to Hally’s
Reduce fence height west of Hally’s
Hally’s
Duke to Alpha
Re-grade at entrances to carpark to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Widen footpath for access toilets
Define pedestrian zone from toilets to Alpha
Duke
Victoria to Fort
Replace tactiles with standard yellow
Reduce al-fresco dining (south)
Re-grade west of ROW to 1 in 14 (7.1%) (n/w of Fort)
Install tactiles at entrance to petrol station
Trim foliage south/east of Anzac, including refuge island
Duke
Victoria to Dick
Reduce al-fresco dining (south)
Re-grade west of Lower Duke St to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Anzac
Duke to Alpha
Repair footpath outside Rural Health
Install tactiles at New World entrance
Alpha
Anzac to
Empire
Install footpath (north)
Lower footpath to reduce gradient to New World building
Dick
Alpha to Duke
Install footpath (west)
Dick
Queen to
Alpha
Install footpath (east)
Repair footpath from tree root outside dentist
Victoria
Hamilton to
Queen
Replace kerb o/s café (east)
Repair footpath at south crossing of Whitaker and
between entrances to petrol station
Install tactiles at entrance to petrol stations, KFC, motel,
car yard, retirement village
Reduce al-fresco dining (west)
Repair sunken telecom manhole (west)
Queen
Victoria to Dick
Re-locate Rubbish Skip
Re-grade east of petrol station to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Repair footpath between petrol station and crossing
Repair join in footpath lengthwise (south)
The Hub
Walkway
Empire to The
Hub carpark
Delineate footpath at driveway
Repair join at conc. footpath/AC driveway
Page | 109
Street
Section
Victoria
Queen to
Alpha
Install tactiles at entrance to i-Site
Install footpath at carparks to Town Hall
Repair footpath south of new footpath (west)
Victoria
Alpha to Duke
Replace tactiles to standard yellow
Install tactiles at entrance to Hally’s
Victoria
Duke to Fort
Reduce al-fresco dining (east)
Re-grade at driveway between Gelatamore and Stihl to 1
in 14 (7.1%)
Install tactiles at all crossings and at entrance to petrol
station
Fort
Duke to
Victoria
Re-grade at entrance to Anchor Distribution Centre
Install tactiles at entrance to Anchor Distribution Centre
Install wheel stops at carpark o/s St John
Delineate footpath o/s St John
Raise Telecom Manhole and repair footpath from tree
root o/s #2
Re-grade east from Duke to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Re-grade carpark path to footpath to 1 in 14(7.1%)
Install connection from Taxi stand to footpath
Wilson
Duke to
Victoria
Install tactiles at entrance to Council offices/Library,
Warehouse, petrol station
Remove carparking on footpath
Hamilton
Bryce to
Victoria
Replace footpath (south)
Install tactiles at entrance to retirement village
Bryce
Hamilton to
Queen
Install footpath (west)
Empire
Alpha to Duke
Re-grade at entrance to Autoshoppes to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Lake
Queen to
Alpha
Re-grade north of AON and entrance to Briscoes to 1 in
14 (7.1%)
Install tactiles at entrance to Briscoes
Queen
Victoria to
Empire
Install tactiles at crossings, KFC, petrol station, RD1,
Bunnings
Kirkwood
Lake to
Empire
Install tactiles at entrance to Briscoes and RD1
Lake
Queen to
Whitaker
Install tactiles at entrance to Bunnings and Subway
Remove concrete pad south of Bunnings entrance
Milicich
Page | 110
Table 24: D:2 Footpaths (Existing) - Kihikihi
Street
Section
Lyon
Herbert to
Havelock
Install footpath (east)
Lyon
Galloway to
Whitmore
Repair footpath between café and clothing shop (west)
and o/s reserve (east)
Install tactiles at fruit and vege shop (west)
Install seal to seat o/s vacant parking area (east)
Lyon
Whitmore to
Balance
Delineate footpath o/s clothing shop (west)
Repair footpath opp. #68 (east)
Lyon
Leslie to
Galloway
Repair footpath and trim foliage (west)
Re-grade footpath at south-east intersection
Table 25: D:3 Footpaths (Existing) - Leamington
Street
Shakespeare
Reduce shop clutter (west) side and al-fresco dining (east)
Re-grade at ROW at Bakery to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Install tactiles at pedestrian crossing, entrance to BP
Delineate footpath in R.S.C.C carpark
Remove carpark at connection to supermarket
Table 26: D:4 Footpaths (Existing) - Pirongia
Street
Franklin
Install footpath from Belcher to Public Toilets (east)
Remove nib kerb o/s town hall
Franklin
Install footpath between Persimmon Tree Café and Four Square
Page | 111
Table 27: D:5 Footpaths (Existing) - Te Awamutu
Street
Section
Market
Alexandra to
Mahoe
Remove carparking on footpath
Arawata
Albert Park/
Cambridge/
Ohaupo to
Scout
Re-grade n/w bridge to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Re-locate PP in footpath east bridge
Remove tripping hazard over bridge (s/w)
Bank
Alexandra to
Vaile
Trim tree opp. NZ Post
Mahoe
Selwyn to
Churchill
Relocate cycle barriers at alleyway to 1.5m spacing
Re-grade alleyway to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Install tactiles at entrance to carpark
Alexandra
Mutu/ Rewi
Delineate footpath at petrol station
Albert Park
Arawata to
Sloane
Delineate footpath at Sports Club and Park Rd
East and connection from Scout Ln
Trim foliage from Sports Club to George
Albert Park
Sloane/ Vaile
Install tactiles at entrance to Burger King and all
crossings
Relocate LP s/e corner
Alexandra
Arawata/ Sloane
to Mutu/ Rewi
Remove carparking east of car yard
Albert Park
Arawata/
Cambridge/
Ohaupo
Extend/ install directional and warning tiles at all
crossing points
Align tactiles to match direction of crossing
Reduce shop clutter in Rogers Ln
Arawata
Scout to Mahoe/
George
Install tactiles at entrance to Bunnings, Church, petrol
station
Repair footpath from Scout to church (south)
Re-grade east of petrol station to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Arawata
Mahoe/ George
to Alexandra/
Sloane
Install Tactiles at entrance to RD1
Repair driveway into RD1
Repair dripping gutter o/s Shoemenders
Reduce al-fresco dining at Robert Harris
Remove redundant vehicle crossing outside Paper Plus
Sloane
Albert Park/
Vaile to
Alexandra/Araw
ata
Install tactiles at entrance to supermarket and
McDonalds
Re-grade at Sushi Bar to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Remove redundant kerb ramp o/s WINZ
Page | 112
Street
Section
Teasdale
Jacobs to Vaile
Repair footpath at #220 and between Gracelands and
Invictus
Install Tactiles at entrance to Baptist Church
Re-grade at driveway to Baptist Church to 1 in 14
(7.1%)
Rewi
Alexandra to
Jacobs
Repair footpath behind Redoubt Cafe
Churchill
Alexandra to
Mahoe
Albert Park to
Arawata
Rewi to
Teasdale
Gorst to Mahoe
Install tactiles at entrance to carpark
Roche
Walton
Intersection
Remove carparks by public toilets
Align tactiles
Mahoe
Arawata to
Market
Move footpath away from carpark to identify carpark
area
George
Jacobs
Selwyn
Scout
Install tactiles at entrance to Warehouse
Install tactiles at entrance to supermarket
Install wheel stops at angle parking
Connect footpath at vehicle entrance to Events Centre
Re-grade at Scout Den to 1 in 14 (7.1%)
Vaile
Palmer to
Jackson
Install footpath (north)
Mahoe
Churchill to
Mutu
Replace footpath (south)
Page | 113
APPENDIX E: RISK MODIFIED CONDITION
PROFILE
Page | 114
RISK MODIFIED CONDITION PROFILE
In order to provide a performance measure of the condition of footpaths and kerb
ramps, it is necessary to combine the condition rating with a risk assessment to
ensure the limited resources available achieve the maximum benefit for residents
and other users.
The risk ratings are defined as follows:
Risk Level
High
Definitions
High level of foot traffic (commercial centre).
Regular presence of people using walking
aids, scooters or wheelchairs. Part of an
accessible route for the disabled. Possible use
by visually impaired
Risk Multiplier, R (%)
100
Medium
Regular presence of people using walking
aids, scooters or wheelchairs. Presence of
community facilities likely to be accessed by
pedestrians. Part of an accessible route for the
disabled.
60
Low
Very low pedestrian use. Absence of
community destinations. No through traffic or
low traffic count. Alternative routes available
(e.g. opposite side of road)
30
Table 28: Risk Ratings
There are two measures to be analysed, being the footpaths and kerb ramps, with a
minimum of 100 locations, selected in the same proportions as those within the
defined risk categories, with the locations being chosen at random for assessment.
Footpath sections should be at least 10m in length and kerb ramps should include
the adjacent waiting area. Where a kerb ramp or footpath (for all or any part of a
10m section), is desirable but not built, a condition rating of 5 applies.
The profile score Pf for footpaths or Pk for kerb ramps for the defined area, with a
total of “n” assessed sites is determined as follows:
Pf =Σ(1...n) / n
R1 ...... Rn
C1
Cn
x 100%
The maximum score will depend on the proportions of sections within the various
risk categories and a further normalisation can be undertaken if desired. For
example with a 40/30/30 % allocation to the high medium and low risk categories,
the maximum score would be 67% ( 0.4x100% + 0.3x60% +0.3x30%) and
normalisation could be undertaken to set the maximum at 100%.
Page | 115
FOOTPATH CONDITION RATING
Table 29: Footpath Condition Rating
Rating Conditions
1
Surface in good condition;
Kerb well defined;
Surface in good condition;
No trip hazards; and
No attention required.
2
Good surface;
Minor Wear and Tear;
Crossfall evident; and
No immediate concerns.
3
Surface adequate;
Trip hazard removed;
Minor defects; and
No immediate attention required.
4
Poor surface condition;
Limited width;
Cracks appearing; and
No major trip hazards.
5
Concrete cracked and likely to lift;
Surface Poor; and
Potential for trip hazards.
Page | 116
KERB RAMP CONDITION RATING
Table 30: Kerb Ramp Condition Rating
Rating Conditions
1
Good surfaces;
No trip hazards; and
No defects.
2
Generally Complies with DBH D-1 Fig 9 and NZS 4121;
Minor wear and tear on concrete; and
No immediate attention required.
3
Good level crossing;
Minor repair required; and
No immediate concerns.
4
Rough concrete surface;
Steep ramp;
Inadequate waiting space; and
No major trip hazards.
5
Poor surface condition
No defined waiting area
Potential trip hazards
Excessive slopes
Page | 117

Read the full research report (PDF 3187 KB)

Transcription

Similar documents

marauder - Paramount Group

Brochure

Your guide to Royal Victoria Country Park

2011 2raffle ticket sea crest

Skeppsviken/Gustafsberg

2016 Dual European Scrambles—Stoddard Valley OHV

Snippets - Moe South Street Primary School

Walk Safely Trick or Treat With an Adult Keep Costumes Both

sy newsletter w3t1