1982
SH2 / Tasman Quay
Act
Maintenance, Multimodal and Safety
Information
Official
the
under
Released
1982
Act
Outcomes
• Situation
• Reseal Opportunity
Information
• Clarifying Road Safety Input
Official
• Options A and B
the
• Discussion
under
Released
The bridge route is:
• Intimidating: even confident road
1982
cyclists use the shared use path
Act
(single lane, little shoulder, 70kph,
50k AADT, 10% HGVs)
• There is no alternative route nearby
Information
• The SUP is dif icult to see for drivers
so they won’t expect cyclists
emerging near Tasman Quay
Official
the
People cycling wil remain here
under
Released
Section 1
•
The SUP existed in 2008, and had a cycle ramp added in about 2010 (Source: Streetview)
•
The ramp (arrow) allows confident riders to access the multilane roadway an
1982
cycle lane
•
The reason for building the ramp could be to solve a risk or inconvenience
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Section 2
•
The first in a series of left lane drops.
•
Cyclists head primarily North at Totara Street but many also head east, on-roa
1982
d.
•
Westbound road cyclists can use the jug-handle to crossing option (arrow)
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Strava Heatmap
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Reseal
1982
Due in the ‘23/24 Construction Season’
Act
• Not currently urgent, the reseal programme is unknown –
could be early or late in the 23/24 year (TBC)
• Extents include all of the cycle lane and fatal crash site
• Sought ‘stand alone quick win’ sought by Maintenance
Information
Team in contact with Tauranga City Council
• Maintenance approached Multimodal Team
• Fatal crash is important/urgent but reseal is not yet
Official
confirmed to be urgent, its stil developing
•
the
s 9(2)(g)(i)
• The reseal would need a clear plan to make line marking
design for changes (e.g. if we remove the cycle lane)
under
Released
Fatal Crash Re
1982
port
s 9(2)(a)
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Crash Diagram
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Fatal Crash
1982
Recommendations
Act
Short Term
1. Should consider removing cycle lane
and fil ing in the bike ramp
Information
2. SUP not clearly an SUP – make it
more obvious
3.
Official ‘A few weeks’ (Gazette also needed)
the
Longer Term
1. Widen the SUP out, because the
under
corridor is unlikely to change, or any
separation of cycle lane be effective
Released
•
Multimodal Development – Initial advice: reseal occurring in a few weeks
1982
Act
Immediate Changes
Prompt LCLR Project
(no design, operational budget)
(as ‘Immediate’ plus:)
High risk on Multimodal Team
• A new crossing at Tasman Quay
• Green patches
• Verge rem
Information oval in the east to widen the
• Pedestrian and Cycle Symbols
path within kerblines (services need to
• SUP signs also visible to drivers
be checked for height)
• Lines around lighting columns
Official • LCLR Funding is existing process
• Prune SUP signs near crossing
Can easily apportion out quickest parts
• Remove the bike ramp
the
•
Remove the cycle lane (later retracted)
The nature of the LCLR has options
under
•
LCLR Crossing design wil be 23/24, construction hoped before July24
•
A project manager can separate the portions to arrange the immediate works
Released
Risks
1982
• s 9(2)(g)(i)
Act
• Safety Team are the appropriate respondents to the FCR Recommendations – all component
changes are part of the overall safety balance of a corridor.
• s 9(2)(g)(i)
Information
• Removal of the bike ramp is interrelated to the roadway cycle lane safety. Confident riders wil
stil aim to join the roadway somewhere nearby. The next opportunity is at the red man phase at
Tasman Quay between left turning trucks Official
• A reseal is an opportunity for good value changes, in line with GLT direction and the GPS.
the
• A reseal is directly relevant to cycles - limit line position, loop detector placement, lane arrows,
roadway warning sign updates become options, but the appropriateness should be decided upon
by the safety team. Even chance to pl
under an for SUP widening (a FCR Recommendation)
• A fatal/coronial scrutiny needs both quick and meaningful changes and system lessons to project
elsewhere and into guidance sources for others
Released
•
Multimoidal Team have drafted two LCLR Approaches to seek Road Safety input:
1982
Option A – LCLR Project Approach
Option B – LCLR+ Project Approach
Act
Not related to Safety
Collaborates with Safety
Not related to Reseal
Uses the Reseal Opportunity
This is the independent works option
Same as Option A, plus:
• SUP Signs and Lines
• Bike Ram
Information p and Lane co-ordination
• Bike ramp removal
• Scope for causation mitigation work
• A Crossing at Tasman Quay (likely later)
• A better ‘Waka Kotahi’ representation
• Verge removal in the East
Official • Less risks for decision makers
Relatively Quick, could be endorsed by
the
Stil has immediate and quick works but
Safety Team regarding the bike ramp
uses the LCLR PM to manage the
Has immediate and quick wins
collaboration between teams into one plan
under
Released
Discussion
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Document Outline
