Fillable ACCESSIBLE STREETS CONSULTATION Submission form The Ministry of (Kapiti Coast District Council New Zealand)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank ACCESSIBLE STREETS CONSULTATION Submission form The Ministry of (Kapiti Coast District Council New Zealand) Form

Use Fill to complete blank online KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL NEW ZEALAND pdf forms for free. Once completed you can sign your fillable form or send for signing. All forms are printable and downloadable.

ACCESSIBLE STREETS CONSULTATION Submission form The Ministry of (Kapiti Coast District Council New Zealand)

On average this form takes 53 minutes to complete

The ACCESSIBLE STREETS CONSULTATION Submission form The Ministry of (Kapiti Coast District Council New Zealand) form is 25 pages long and contains:

  • 0 signatures
  • 0 check-boxes
  • 213 other fields

Country of origin: NEW-ZEALAND
File type: PDF

Use our library of forms to quickly fill and sign your Kapiti Coast District Council New Zealand forms online.

BROWSE KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL NEW ZEALAND FORMS

Related forms
Fill has a huge library of thousands of forms all set up to be filled in easily and signed.
Fill in your chosen form
Sign the form using our drawing tool
Send to someone else to fill in and sign.
find another form
 
ACCESSIBLE STREETS
CONSULTATION
Submission form
The Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency are proposing a collection of rule
changes that we call the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package.
Thank you for taking time to tell us what you think. Please answer as many or as few questions as
you choose to answer.
You can find information about these proposals in the Accessible Streets Overview (available at
www.nzta.govt.nz/accessible-streets-consultation
), which includes the same questions included in
this online submission form. You may want to have the Accessible Streets Overview open in a
different window or printed alongside you.
Please remember your submission is public information and we will use your submission to help us
make the changes to the rules.
Please note that the Transport Agency will publish a summary of submissions. If you do not
want your name or any identifying information to be included in anything we publish
(including because you believe your comments are commercially sensitive) please indicate
this clearly in your submission.
Please note that your submission is also subject to the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA).
This means that other people will be able to obtain copies of submissions by making a
request under the OIA. If you think there are grounds for your information to be withheld
under the OIA, please note this in your submission. We will take your reasons into account
and may consult with you when responding to requests under the OIA.
1. Please answer a few questions about yourself
NAME:
ORGANISATIONS
REPRESENTING:
ADDRESS:
EMAI
L:
PHONE:
Alison Law
Kapiti Coast District Council
175 Rimu Road Paraparaumu
Alison.Law@kapiticoast.govt.nz
04 2964 740
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Proposal 1: Change and re-name the types of devices that used
on footpath, shared paths, cycle paths and cycle lanes
Proposal 1A: Pedestrians and powered wheelchair users
2. We are proposing to include people using powered wheelchairs in the pedestrian category.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments?
Proposal 1B: Changing wheeled recreational devices
3. Our proposed change will replace the wheeled recreational device category with two new
groups of devices: unpowered transport devices (for example push-scooters, skateboards) and
powered transport devices (for example e-scooters, YikeBikes).
We are proposing to include people using powered wheelchairs in the pedestrian category.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments?
4. We’
re proposing that the new category of powered transport devices will consist of low-
powered devices that have been declared by the Transport Agency not to be a motor vehicle.
What steps (if any), do you think the Transport Agency should take before declaring a vehicle
not to be a motor vehicle?
Agree with proposed classification.
With respect to footpaths, priority must remain with pedestrians.
✔
Agree with proposed classification because it gives more clarity and guidance around the
definitions and use of wheeled recreational devices (also known as micro mobility).
✔
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
5. If the Transport Agency declares a vehicle to not be a motor vehicle, do you think it should be
able to impose conditions?
Yes
No
6. I
f yes, should the Transport Agency be able to apply conditions regardless of the power output
of the device?
Yes
No
What was the reason for your answer? Do you have any other comments?
7. W
e propose to clarify that:
a) low powered vehicles that have not been declared not to be motor vehicles by the
Transport Agency (e.g. hover boards, e-skateboards and other emerging devices) are not
allowed on the footpath
b) these vehicles are also not allowed on the road under current rules, because they do not
meet motor vehicle standards and cannot be registered.
c) if the Transport Agency declares any of these vehicles not to be motor vehicles in the
future, they will be classified as powered transport devices and will be permitted on the
footpath and the road (along with other paths and cycle lanes).
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments?
✔
✔
The clarification around segways remains important to address in light of the fact they have
been around for some time (i.e longer than many recent developments in micro mobility) yet
their status remains ambiguous because of their high power output. It is relativity easy for the
home handyman now to up-rate or build e-bikes with similar or greater power outputs than a
segway or simply purchase a high powered machine outright.
✔
Appears to address issues arising from the development of new wheeled recreational
devices and their subsequent classification.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Proposal 1C: Clarifying cycles and e-bikes
8. Child cycles that are not propelled by cranks, such as balance bikes, will be defined as
transport devices.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments?
Proposal 1D: Mobility devices
9. We’re proposing that users of mobility devices will have the same level of access as
pedestrians, but they will have to give way to pedestrians and wheelchair users.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments?
10. Do you think there will be any safety or access-related problems with mobility devices
operating in different spaces? Please explain.
✔
Unpowered transport devices=Strongly agree.
We believe the E-bike is not suitable for use on a footpath, only shared paths cycle paths,
cycle lanes or on road.
✔
We are observing mobility scooters traveling at 15+km/hr in town centrr areas that warrant a
speed restriction of 5km/hr to be more consistent with pedestrians walking.
it is always concerning to observe a mobility scooter traveling in a cycle lane, particularly if it
is in the wrong direction, but this now is becoming more common. Speeds of mobility scooters
is becoming a concern on shared paths particularly when the shared path transitions into the
pedestrianized town center.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
11. We intend to review the mobility device category at a later date. What factors do you think we
need to consider?
Alternative proposal
12. We have outlined an option to not change vehicle definitions. This means we would make
changes at a later date instead. Do you prefer this option to our proposal to change vehicle
definitions now (see proposals 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D for more details)? Why/why not?
Proposal 2: Establish a national framework for the use of
footpaths
13. Our proposed changes will allow mobility devices, transport devices, and cycles on the footpath
– provided users meet speed, width and behavioural requirements.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments?
14. Do you think there should be any other requirements, in addition to speed, width and
behaviour?
An informal WOF or health check on mobility scooters over 4-5 years old. Steering and other
components wear out depending on the amount of use. Owners should be encouraged to
have regular servicing or inspections of their machines, particularly for older models.
✔
Agree with this approach.
Essentially Wheeled Recreation Devices should be considered as "guests" on a footpath and
they should behave as such. Keep left unless passing and 5km/hr in town centers.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
15. We have outlined two alternative options to address cycling on the footpath. These are:
a) Allow cyclists up to 16 years of age to use the footpath
b) Continue the status quo, where most cyclists are not allowed to use the footpath.
c) Neither option.
What option do you prefer instead of allowing cyclists on the footpath?
A
B
C
16. Wo
uld you support an age limit for cycling on the footpath? What age would you prefer?
Yes, I would support an age limit
No, I would not support an age limit
If yes, what age would you prefer?
17. We
propose to allow road controlling authorities to restrict cycle or device use on certain
footpaths or areas of footpaths to suit local communities and conditions.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments, including on the
proposed process?
✔
✔
13
✔
Council wants to retain the ability to set rules and regulations that suit local communities.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
18. We envisage that local authorities will make decisions to regulate the use of paths by
resolution, rather than by making a bylaw. Do you agree this be specified in the Land Transport
Rule: Path and Road Margins 2020 to provide certainty?
Yes
No
What are the reasons for your answer? Do you have any other comments?
Alternative proposal
19. We’re proposing that road controlling authorities consider and follow certain criteria in addition
to their usual resolution processes if they want to restrict devices from using the footpath These
criteria are:
• consider relevant guidance developed by the Transport Agency
• consider any alternative routes or facilities that will no longer be available to the user due
to a restriction
• consider any other matter relevant to public safety.
The road controlling authority will need to:
• consult with any party affected by the proposed restriction
• give those parties reasonable time to respond
• take their submissions into account
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments about how will this
affect you or whether you think the proposed changes are practical?
20. We
have also outlined an option to maintain current footpath rules. Would you prefer this option
instead of the proposed framework with speed and width requirements? Why/why not?
✔
This gives a clear and simple path for Councils to adjust their rules and regulations.
✔
So Councils can follow a clear and simple process.
The current footpath rules do not take into account the changes in active mode transportation
options and as a society we need to agree how people should behave and use or footpaths.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Proposal 2A: Users on the footpath will operate vehicles in a
courteous and considerate manner, travel in a way that isn’t
dangerous and give right of way to pedestrians
21. We propose that pedestrians should always have right of way on the footpath.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments?
22. Thi
s proposal will require footpath users to operate vehicles in a courteous and considerate
manner; travel in a way that isn’t dangerous; and give way to pedestrians.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was the reason for your rating? Are there any other requirements we should consider?
✔
With respect to footpaths, priority must remain with pedestrians.
✔
Wheeled recreation device users are 'guests' on a footpath and should behave as such. Keep
left unless passing and speeds of 5km/hr in town centers.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Proposal 2B: Default 15km/h speed limit for vehicles using the
footpath
23. We are proposing to set a default speed limit of 15km/h for footpaths.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What is the reason for your rating? Do you think the proposed speed limit should be higher or
lower?
24. Under the proposed changes, road controlling authorities will be able to lower the default speed
limit for a footpath or area of footpaths.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What is the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments?
25. Are there other ways that you can think of to improve footpath safety? Please explain.
✔
We agree 15km/hr is an appropriate default limit although individual TLA's may wish to apply
their own rules to better suit their local situation. Just how TLA's might enforce any posted
limit is another question that should be considered in conjunction with proposal 2b.
✔
Transitional areas from shared paths or footpaths into town centers or other heavily
pedestrianized areas are not suitable for 15km/hr speeds by any WRD or mobility scooter
The suggestion that TLA's would want to or even could practically enforce a speed limit needs
careful consideration. Share with care is still the most appropriate message.
Wheeled recreational devices should be considered as guests on footpaths and should
behave as such. Keep left unless passing and speeds should be kept to 5km/hr in town
centers. Dogs must be kept on leads.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Proposal 2C: 750mm width restriction for vehicles that operate on
the footpath
26. We are proposing that the width of devices used on the footpath should not exceed 750mm
(with the exception of wheelchairs). Do you think this is:
Too wide
About right
Too narrow
What is the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments?
27. Do you use a mobility device?
Yes
No
If yes, what is the width of your device? Would the proposed width restriction impact you?
28. Should a maximum width limit apply to mobility devices?
Yes
No
What is the reason for your response?
29. We propose that people who already own a device wider than 750mm could apply for an
exemption. We’re also considering three alternative approaches to mitigate the impact on
existing device owners.
Which is your preferred option?
a. Mobility devices purchased before the rule changes would be automatically exempt from
the width limit.
b. The Transport Agency could declare certain wider devices to be mobility devices under
section 168A of the Land Transport Act and exclude them from width requirements.
c. Apply a separate width limit to mobility devices.
✔
Under proposal 2, cycles can use the footpath if they ride a cycle no wider than 750mm. We
are seeing a slow uptake of adult tricycles and recumbent tricycles as mobility aids in our
district that will generally exceed the 750mm dimension suggested for use on footpaths (e.g.
these devices can be up to 900mm wide). Even more remarkably, there is one pedal
powered, power wheelchair carrying behemoth in use on our roads and shared paths. To
avoid discrimination and the comparison with Paxters and similar devices already in use on
footpaths, should the width rule be increased to 900mm? it is unlikely that the typical user of
such devices would use them in such a manner as to obstruct or injure pedestrians on the
occasion that they need to use it on a footpath.
✔
✔
Difficult to answer as it is likely that some machines will always exceed maximum width limits
for example; powered wheelchairs designed to cross sand. As a rough rule of thumb we have
made all bicycle barriers on beach and walkway access points about 900mm wide, accepting
that motorbikes will be able to enter but quad bikes and motor vehicles will not.
✔
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Do you have any comments on these alternatives?
Proposal 3: Establish a national framework for the use of shared
paths and cycle paths
30. We are proposing that a person using a shared path or cycle path must travel:
a) in a careful and considerate manner
b) at a speed that is not dangerous to other people on the path
c) in a way that doesn’t interfere with other people using the path.
How much do you agree or disagree with these proposed behavioural requirements?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What is the reason for your rating? Should there be other requirements or rules to use a shared
path or cycle path?
31. W
e propose that all users will need to give way to pedestrians when using a shared path.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What is the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments?
Options B or C should be able to address any potential issue with wider WRD's. It seems
appropriate that TLA's should have some authority to set the limit because of the impact it
may have on their existing infrastructure.
✔
We must have paths that are accessible to horse riders on dangerous roads. Road authorities
must have the ability to form bridleways, and\or include horse riders on shared paths in
rural areas. Horse riders must not be the only legal road user group without access to safe
paths.
✔
A shared space is exactly that; shared and therefore the obligation to give way should also be
shared. Specific locations will determine who should give way to whom but that should be
determined by the users, the same way as pedestrians negotiate their way through a busy
shopping center. Why support cyclists having right of way over shared and cycle paths at side
streets if they then have to give way to pedestrians every time?
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
32. We propose that, if a shared path or cycle path is adjacent to a roadway, the speed limit will be
the same as the roadway – which is currently the case. If a shared path or cycle path is not
located beside or adjacent to a roadway, then our proposed change clarifies that the path has a
default speed limit of 50km/h.
How much do you agree or disagree with the proposed speed limits for shared paths and cycle
paths?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What is the reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments, including on the
proposal to allow road controlling authorities to change limits?
33. We are proposing that road controlling authorities should be able to declare a path a shared
path or a cycle path by making a resolution.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What is the reason for your rating? What factors should be considered when road controlling
authorities make this decision?
34. Do you think that the Transport Agency should be able to investigate and direct road controlling
authorities to comply with the required criteria?
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Yes
No
What is the reason for your response? Do you have any other comments?
✔
High speed cycle riding belongs on the road. Shared paths are shared, so the maximum
speed has to be considered in light of all user groups not just one type. A high speed
(50km/hr) cycle path might be considered appropriate if it were one way only. A 50 km/hr
default (and even at 30km/hr) still seems too high for an urban shared path.
✔
A resolution allows TLA's more flexibility in influencing the design and use of its active
transport assets by its citizens.
✔
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Proposal 4: Enable transport devices to use cycle lanes and cycle
paths
35. We are proposing that devices other than cycles should be allowed to use cycle lanes and/or
cycle paths?
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What is the reason for your rating? Should there be any other requirements?
36. We
are proposing that road controlling authorities should be able to exclude transport devices
from cycle lanes and/or cycle paths?
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What is the reason for your rating? Should there be any other requirements?
✔
We are already seeing other devices used in cycle lanes in an opportunistic manner where it
is convenient for the user to do so. This would give that type of existing use legitimacy.
Powered transport devices should be required to use cycle lanes where available, rather than
footpaths but when they do so, we would recommend they also use helmets.
✔
National guidance would ensure consistency is applied across the regions.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Proposal 5: Introduce lighting and reflector requirements for
powered transport devices at night
37. We are proposing that powered transport devices must be fitted with a headlamp, rear facing
position light, and be fitted with a reflector (unless the user is wearing reflective material) if they
are used at night.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was your reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments about the proposal?
38. Do
you think these requirements are practical? For example, if you own a powered transport
device, will you be able to purchase and attach a reflector or lights to your device or yourself?
39. Do
you think unpowered transport device users should be required to meet the same lighting
and reflector requirements as powered transport device users at night time?
✔
It should be mandatory for escooter riders for example, to use a helmet when traveling in a
cycle lane.
Probably not practical as this will vary hugely with the device. E-scooters already come with
head lights but retrofitting a tail light or reflector may be problematic. Skateboards and
e-skateboards are completely unsuitable for lighting
Its likely that if a powered device were used for commuting then it is not unreasonable to
expect it might be used both on and off the road in the course of a journey. Therefore any
lighting requirement should be consistent with bicycle lighting requirements.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Proposal 6: Remove barriers to walking, transport device use and
cycling through rule changes
Proposal 6A: Allow cycles and transport devices to travel straight
ahead from a left turn lane
40. We propose that cyclists and users of transport devices (like skateboards and escooters)
should be able to ride straight ahead from a left turn lane at an intersection, when it is safe to
do so.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was your reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments about the proposal?
Proposal 6B: Allow cycles and transport devices to carefully pass
slow-moving vehicles on the left, unless a motor vehicle is
indicating a left turn
41. We propose that cyclists and users of transport devices (like skateboards and escooters)
should be allowed to ‘undertake’ slow-moving traffic.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was your reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments about the proposal?
✔
It can be difficult for cyclists to move into the appropriate lane when traffic has stopped so this
seems like a good idea. Perhaps the use of a cycle symbol to indicate the position a cyclist
should take could further reinforce this message. Consideration might also be made to allow a
cyclist to turn left on a red light, form cycle lane to cycle lane when there is no pedestrian
crossing in use.
✔
This is already occurring and typical behavior for road cyclists.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Proposal 6C: Give cycles, transport devices and buses priority
over turning traffic when they’re travelling through an
intersection in a separated lane
42. We propose that turning traffic should give way to buses, cyclists, and users of transport
devices travelling straight through an intersection from a separated lane.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was your reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments about the proposal?
43. Our proposed change will introduce a list of traffic control devices used to separate lanes from
the roadway to help you understand what a separated lane is and if the user has right of way at
an intersection. Is such a list necessary?
Yes
No
What was your reason for your response? Do you have any other comments about the
proposal?
44. Should the definition of a separated lane include the distance between the lane and the road?
Yes
No
What was your reason for your response? Do you have any other comments about the
proposal?
✔
✔
✔
National experience in, and broad community understanding of how example 3F operates for
both motorists and separated lane users, is required.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Proposal 6D: Give priority to footpath, shared path and cycle path
users over turning traffic where the necessary traffic control
devices are installed
45. We propose that turning traffic should give way to path users crossing a side road with the
proposed minimum markings of two parallel white lines.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was your reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments about the proposal?
Additional questions for road controlling authorities
46. Do you think that the proposed minimum markings of two parallel white lines are appropriate?
Please explain.
47. We
are proposing future guidance for additional treatments. Is there any guidance that you
would like to see or recommend? Please explain.
✔
This will likely need a careful introduction to ensure safe integration into our road environment
so ensure there are no tragic consequences. Best practice may require additional treatments
once experience is gained from design testing.
Example 4 C as described in the consultation guidance document as well as national
guidance and best practice design standards to ensure the "truck blind spot" concern can be
adequately addressed.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Proposal 7: Mandate a minimum overtaking gap for motor
vehicles passing cycles, transport devices, horses, pedestrians
and people using mobility devices on the road
48. We are proposing a mandatory minimum overtaking gap for motor vehicles of 1 metre (when
the speed limit is 60km/h or less), and 1.5 metres (when the speed limit is over 60km/h) when
passing pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, and users of other devices.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was your reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments about the proposal?
Proposal 8: Clarify how road controlling authorities can restrict
parking on berms
49. We are proposing that road controlling authorities should be able to restrict berm parking
without the use of signs and instead rely on an online register.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was your reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments about the proposal?
50. Would it be helpful if information on berm parking restrictions was available in other places, like
at a local library, i-SITE, or a local council?
✔
The separation for horse riders should be 2m.
✔
Yes
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Proposal 9: Give buses priority when exiting bus stops
51. We propose that road users should give way to indicating buses leaving a signed bus stop on a
road with a speed limit of 60km/h or less.
How much do you agree or disagree with this proposal?
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
I don’t know
What was your reason for your rating? Do you have any other comments about the proposal?
52. Sho
uld traffic give way to buses in other situations? For example, when a bus is exiting a bus
lane and merging back into traffic lanes?
Yes
No
In what situations should traffic give way to buses? What was your reason for your response?
Do you have any other comments?
Thank
you for making a submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package.
Visit www.nzta.govt.nz/accessible-streets-consultation
for updates or if you have any questions
please email us at accessible.streets@nzta.govt.nz
✔
Overdue if we want to make public transport options a more desirable transport choice.
✔
Download
Save PDF to desktop
Email
Email completed PDF
Send for Signing
Email for others to sign
Print
Print document
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it
Want to add a signature?
You can add a signature field
and assign it to someone else
to sign
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it

ACCESSIBLE STREETS CONSULTATION Submission form The Ministry of (Kapiti Coast District Council New Zealand)

This document is locked as it has been sent for signing.

You have successfully completed this document.

Other parties need to complete fields in the document. You will recieve an email notification when the document has been completed by all parties.

This document has been signed by all parties.

Completed 21 January 2021

Message

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document