Agenda of Regional Transport Committee

Regional Transport Committee Minutes - 7 March 2018

Minutes of a meeting of the Regional Transport Committee - hearing of submissions to RLTP and RPTP

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Wednesday 7 March 2018, commencing at 9.00a.m.

Present: Deputy Mayor P Matheson (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors G Noonan (Deputy Chairperson), and M Rutledge and Mr J Harland

In Attendance: Councillors I Barker, M Lawrey, B McGurk, S Walker and Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis) and Governance Advisers (E Stephenson and R Terry)

Apologies : Nil

1. Apologies

There were no apologies.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.

Late Submissions

Resolved RTC/2018/001

That the Regional Transport Committee

Accepts the late submissions to the Regional Land Transport Plan – Mid-Term Review.

Matheson/Noonan Carried

4. Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan Hearings

Document number R8849, agenda pages 4 - 17 refer.

4.1 Mr Alasdair Macdonald (submission 16861)

Mr Macdonald spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· requested including an intention to create a uniform speed limit on the Nelson to Blenheim road, reducing speed to 80km per hour in the Atawhai region.

· the Atawhai region in Nelson has changed in the last decade with higher traffic flows, new developments and more families in the area. This combined with a speed limit of 100km per hour presents a significant hazard.

· a uniform speed limit (of less than 100km per hour) along this route would help to reduce the issue as it would quickly control the hazard, reducing fatalities, but now slowing transport. It would also allow more options for walking, cycling or waiting for buses safely.

4.2

Ms Jenny Easton (submission 16874)

Ms Easton spoke to her submission. Points she covered included:

· Concerns regarding climate change and the need for coastal protection

· Too soon to implement the Plan – needed consistent citywide planning and taking into account the speed of regional growth and new technologies

· More emphasis needed on rivers, cycle ways and surrounding areas.

Attachments

1 A1928848 - Jenny Easton - Supporting Information

4.3 Mr Jonas Muru (submission 16917) – did not attend.

4.4 Mr Dean Walker (submission 16981) – did not attend.

4.5

Mr Peter Riley (submission 17106)

Mr Riley spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· requested lowering the speed limit around the Atawhai area to 80km per hour and lower around schools

· the congestion that occurred at school times and how there needed to be a better incentive for people to use buses and bicycles such as free bus rides for the first year

· implementing a clearway/priority lane for buses similar to that used for ambulances and police

· traffic to and from the Port was a problem and suggested a Port at Clifford Bay and a truck stop in an industrial area, limiting truck traffic to two times per day.

Attachments

1 A1928838 - Peter Riley - Supporting Information

4.6 Mr Mark Lile and Kent Gibbons speaking on behalf of Raine Estate Oaklands Limited (Raine Estate) (submission 17554), Summerset Villages Richmond Limited (submission 17556) and GP Investments Limited (submission 17557)

Mark Lile and Kent Gibbons spoke on behalf of Raine Estate, Summerset Villages and GP Investments Limited. Points they covered included:

· supported the Southern Link and the optimisation project

· the Hill Street extension would not add value and a better option would be focussing on the Southern Link and Gladstone Road improvements.

· increase in congestion, particularly around Vanguard Street

· the recent storms identified the need for alternative routes in and out of Nelson and Richmond and improved infrastructure.

Mr Lile and Mr Gibbons responded to questions and said they supported both sustainable transport and the Southern Link as our local industrial and commercial activities relied on good transport options.

4.7 Mr Paul Anderson (submission 17218)

Mr Anderson spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· supported the Southern Link but felt that a tunnel would never be achievable due to cost-benefit ratio

· supported the walkway around Rocks Road but noted the road widths were not up to Council standard and would need to be reinforced after the recent flooding and storms.

4.8 Mrs Christine Tuffnell, Bob Hancock and George Truman speaking on behalf of Nelson Grey Power Association (submission 17265)

Mr Hancock spoke to the submission. Points he covered included:

· traffic density had been an issue for several years and there were significant levels of dissatisfaction in an informal survey he had conducted

· the increasing numbers of tourists to the region putting pressure on infrastructure

· a soft seal could help to reduce road noise in residential areas.

George Truman spoke to the submission. Points he covered included:

· in favour of the revised Stoke bus proposal

· suggested changing the bus route to come down Pascoe Street and using the back roads in Tahunanui (but still stopping at the Library)

· having a sign on the back of the bus to remind drivers to let the buses merge with the traffic.

Christine Tuffnell spoke to the submission. Points she covered included:

· in favour of the Southern Link in general but felt more thought needed to be given to mobility and accessibility issues in the CBD area, including allowing people assisting those with mobility issues to park in the designated accessibility parking spaces.

4.9 Mr Jeremy Matthews (submission 17280)

Mr Matthews spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· in favour of the Southern Link but would like to see cost comparisons between this and other alternatives.

· Nelson was the second fastest growing region, a primary producer and tourist focussed and the area relied heavily on trucks.

· options needed to maintain a secure and robust city heart and maintaining the waterfront

· Victory Square was an opportunity for diverse and affordable housing options

4.10

Mr Allan Kneale (submission 17149)

Mr Kneale works at the Automobile Association but was speaking in a personal capacity.

Mr Kneale spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· while growth in the region was welcome, traffic issues need to be addressed

· Brisbane and the Gold Coast were good examples of how to manage traffic congestion

· that the current New Zealand Transport Association business case would support the Southern Link.

Attachments

1 A1928842 - Allan Kneale - Supporting Information

4.11 Dr Nick Smith (submission 17399)

Dr Smith spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· transport is one of the biggest issues facing the region with the current level of growth

· need for investment in transport, noting a huge increase in the numbers of vehicles registered.

· infrastructure was needed urgently as there were real safety issues and risky driving as people tried to get into the traffic flow (noted that safety had increased in Stoke and Ruby Bay since the bypass had been put in)

· economic impact this is having on retail growth in Nelson due to the difficulty in getting into Nelson, comparable with the recent growth in Richmond

· ex-Cyclone Fehi and ex-Cyclone Gita had exposed vulnerable areas, particularly around Rocks Road and while cycle ways and walkways were a great idea, the current truck volumes wouldn’t allow for this.

· acceptable level of vehicle pollution was 1% of what was allowed 20 years ago and less black smoke was visible now.

Dr Smith answered questions and comments were made regarding the practicality of having a cycleway and walkway along Rocks Road while it remained a state highway and the need to develop this as part of an integrated project. Questions were also answered regarding congestion and road user charges, particularly for heavy use vehicles.

During questions, Councillor Rutledge raised a Point of Order, citing disrespectful language from Councillor Lawrey to Dr Smith. The Point of Order was not upheld by the Chairperson.

The meeting was adjourned at 10.50am and reconvened 11.03am. Councillor Rutledge was not present when the meeting reconvened.

4.12 Mrs Jane Morrison (submission 17295)

Mrs Morrison spoke to her submission. Points she covered included:

· her quality of life had been compromised due to the heavy traffic in her area and she was moving house as a result

· the road surface accentuated the traffic noise and she was unable to have her windows open

· a state highway was needed (Particularly in the St Vincent and Victory Street area).

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge returned to the meeting at 11.06am.

4.13 Mrs Annette Vercoe (submission 17335)

Mrs Vercoe spoke to her submission. Points she covered included:

· spoke in favour of the Southern Link, particularly for the cycle ways

· her family had started cycling in order to decrease congestion, however with cars going too fast and without the supportive infrastructure needed for safe cycling, her family had stopped cycling to school and back

· would like to see door opening zones for cars, separate cycle pathways, more speed bumps and a double lane roundabout at Haven Road.

4.14 Mr Tony Stallard (submission 17343)

Mr Stallard spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· cycling on Rocks Road is dangerous due to the overhang of foliage and the tankers on the right hand side

· he was not against the Southern Link, but felt there could be more practical solutions

· an engineering review is required.

4.15 Dr Monika Clark-Grill (submission 17348)

Dr Clark-Grill spoke to her submission. Points she covered included:

· in favour of increased cycle and walkways to be integrated into any transport plans

· concerned that the health benefits of walking and cycling had not been factored in as well as the negative impacts of car travel. She noted that many of the current health problems facing society are due to a lack of activity and the huge financial cost of these health problems

· no current incentive to cycle due to badly maintained cycle pathways

· look at other cycle-friendly places in Europe such as Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands.

4.16 Pic Picot – submission 17353

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 11.47am

Mr Kent Fergusson and Matthew Dodd spoke on behalf of Pic Picot. Points they covered included:

· move to lower emissions and driverless technology, ride-sharing and smart city development

· ride sharing needs to be promoted with Council involvement. Suggested car parks in the city fringe for people to park and ride or walk into the city centre. Cars could then be used for driving tourists or non-drivers to appointments.

· tunnel would work well with driverless technology

· important to future-proof and get ahead of the technology

During questions, Her Worship the Mayor advised that the Asset Management Plan incorporated supporting autonomous vehicles.

4.17 Renata Schrader (submission 17387) speaking on behalf of the Nelson City Business Group

Ms Schrader spoke to her submission. Points she covered included:

· the need to keep people coming into the city centre and supporting the retailers with parking and other strategies to increase the vibrancy of the city centre

· concerned that a proposed increase in parking would impact on the number of people visiting the city and retailers.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor Reese left the meeting at 12.02pm and returned at 12.05pm.

4.18

Mrs Kate Malcolm (submission 17383)

Mrs Malcom spoke to her submission. Points she covered included:

· the need to keep people coming into the city centre by protecting and enhancing the three existing arterial roads

· an underpass would provide a safe option for crossing Waimea Road

· promote ride sharing, introduce congestion charges and an express bus.

Attachments

1 A1928844 - Kate Malcom - Supporting Information

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting at 12.18p.m.

4.19 Mr Rob Stevenson and John Gilbertson (submission 17551) Tahunanui Business Association (PowerPoint)

Mr Stevenson spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· there was an urgent need for a third for a third route in and out of the city

· opposed to clearways in Tahunanui Drive and the waterfront as this wouldn’t enhance safety or traffic volumes

· the water flooding onto Rocks Road during high tides or floods makes this road unusable

· Rocks Road was not wide enough to accommodate a number of over-width vehicles passing each other and this was not compatible with cycling on this road.

Mr Stevenson played a video that showed the water flooding over Rocks Road at high tide during the recent storm and emphasised the need for resilient highways.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge returned to the meeting at 12.19pm.

4.20 Mr Grant Kerr (submission 17402) – on behalf of Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce.

Mr Kerr spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· the current transport infrastructure was inadequate and congestion needed to be addressed to support economic growth

· the current traffic congestion was impacting the way and speed that Nelson did business. Freight and tourism were critical to the economic vitality of Nelson

· did not support the Southern Link as this will just move the problem but supported investigation into other long-term solutions including connected cycle networks and improved public transport

· Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council need to work together to try and ease congestion

Mr Kerr answered questions and comments were made regarding attracting people to live and work in Nelson, the impact that travel time may have and the ability for businesses to do their work easily. Mr Kerr said he had seen other regions growing due to robust plans, noting that Taranaki was a good example.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor left the meeting at 12.46pm.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan returned to the meeting at 12.47pm.

The meeting was adjourned at 12.50pm and reconvened 1.08pm.

4.21

Mr Matthew Grainger – Progressive Enterprises Ltd (submission 17139)

Mr Grainger tabled a supporting document and spoke to the submission regarding the Champion Road/Salisbury Road roundabout. He said that current traffic operation was at or near its capacity. Mr Grainger felt that the proposed supermarket would increase traffic by 10 – 15%. He said that the roundabout sat on the boundary between Nelson and Tasman and there was shared responsibility with the road with TDC implementing the upgrade and NCC making a contribution to the works.

Mr Grainger answered a question regarding the proposal for cycle lane paths on Champion Road and funding being made in the Regional Land Transport Plan.

Attachments

1 A1928834 - Progressive Enterprises - Supporting Information

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor returned to the meeting at 1.12p.m.

4.22

Mr Lindsay Wood (submission 17405) Resilienz Ltd. on behalf of Braemar Eco Village and (submission 17407) Personal submission

Mr Wood provided a PowerPoint presentation. In speaking to the submissions the points he covered included:

· transport and cities were the make or break of climate change

· a long-term plan was required for infrastructure, implemented incrementally, integrating infrastructure with finance and other factors was important

· responses should be accelerated, especially mitigation

· the Plan fell short of addressing climate change and was silent on mitigation and adaptation

· coastal shipping was part of the requirements of the land transport management act

· Council needed to be ready for changes

· climate change was a massive challenge, Council should consider getting someone to help with climate change

· there was a need for more public consultation.

Attachments

1 A1924974 - Lindsay Wood - Resilienz Ltd - Supporting Information

4.23 Mrs Julie Nevin (submission 17350)

Mrs Nevin spoke to her submission. Points she covered included:

· the submission was from an environmental studies perspective

· this was a reasonable logical plan if one assumed business as usual, however Council should be encouraged to reconsider its assumptions and to think about the future

· European cities were designing transport systems considering the health impacts of air pollution

· sales of e-bikes were higher than car sales

· resilience was required in times of climate change.

4.24 Mrs Julie Nevin (submission 17534) Green Party - Nelson Branch

Mrs Nevin spoke to the submission, noting that it was based on the Green Party’s policy on transport. Mrs Nevin said that she was a member of the Policy Committee, and that it was the role of MPs in the Green Party to champion this policy. Mrs Nevin answered questions regarding rail networks and e-bikes being a separate category of transport.

4.25 Ms Justine McDonald (submission 17148) did not attend.

4.26 Mr Alec Woods (submission 17440)

Mr Woods spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· support for a waterfront boulevard

· the conflicting needs of heavy transport using Rocks road, which he felt had reached capacity

· he had spent time over the years chairing different groups, all taking an interest in the road

· the alternative was the Southern Link, the land had been purchased for a future highway, and it was time that this happened

· Rocks Road should be returned to Council’s control, as it was a valuable asset.

Mr Woods answered questions regarding the maintenance of Rocks Road, climate change, cycling and walking on Rocks Road, and the southern route.

The meeting was adjourned at 1.58pm. and reconvened at 2.32pm. Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor Noonan were not present.

4.27 Mr Peter Jones (submission 17444) did not attend.

4.28 Mr John-Paul Pochin – speaking on behalf of Bicycle Nelson Bays (submission 17555)

Mr Pochin introduced Natalie, a Bicycle Nelson Bays member who had moved here from France last year and was working on Tahunanui Pathways. Mr Pochin spoke to the submission. Points he covered included:

· the need for Council to show leadership

· the stigma attached to catching a bus or cycling and the need for Council to show initiative and be seen to take the bus and ride bikes

· public transport creates a blending of society, and provides social interaction

· integration of transport planning and better urban planning

· social connections and wellbeing, the relationship between property and transport, access to activities equals well being

· it would be nice if young people wanted to stay in Nelson

· we should be using research done overseas to save time and money, Copenhagen had made changes to shift to a more sustainable system

· there was an opportunity for Nelson to be a leader.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor returned to the meeting at 2.47pm.

Mr Pochin answered questions on cycle plans, towns where public transport works, the importance of economic growth and exportation and making public transport more appealing than car travel.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan returned to the meeting at 2.55pm.

4.29

Mr David Jowett (submission 17454)

Mr Jowett tabled supplementary notes and spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· the Paris agreement had achieved a reduction in net emissions

· the implication for road traffic in Nelson

· transport emissions need to be fairly represented

· the figures meant a reduction in traffic volumes, with congestion ceasing to be a problem

· a road based transport system would be unviable by 2050

· the cost of manufacturing and replacement of lithium batteries

· the cost of carbon credits.

Mr Jowett answered questions regarding technology solutions to attending meetings, disincentives such as congestion charges, park and ride facilities, use of rail to move freight, depreciation of electric vehicles relating to battery deterioration, whole of life costs and CO2 emissions for different countries.

Attachments

1 A1923844 - David Jowett - Supporting Information

4.30 Ms Joanna Plows (submission 17547)

Ms Plows spoke to her submission. Points she covered included:

· Nelson had the best patronage cycling to and from work in the country

· Rocks Road was one of the main areas, and was not safe for children, it should be considered separately from any arterial road, Council should see what difference that made before building another road

· concerns regarding mobility scooters having to use the road as footpaths were not wide enough and Nelson had an aging population

· express buses and park and ride facilities encouraged people to get out of cars and there were more people working from home

· there were more people using electric bikes, they needed safe storage facilities

· cars should be discouraged from the CBD, the temporary closure at the top of Trafalgar Street should be permanent

· 60% of emissions were from transport, Ms Plow attended a Science Society lecture by Mr Lindsay Wood on his trip to Hamburg

· Council should explore electric buses with increased weekend/evening services.

4.31 Mr Jace Hobbs (submission 17422)

Mr Hobbs spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· Mr Hobbs worked on Auckland Council’s 30 year transport plan

· technology was changing, change was not linear, it was exponential

· an example was projections of solar power in 2002, the actual installed was 400 times greater

· assumptions made regarding transition technology were obsolete by the time infrastructure was built, this led to limited parking and road corridors, solutions were not about building greater capacity, this had never worked

· in the future would be interconnected transportation which was much safer, there would be a lack of having to build new capacity, transportation technology would open doors to design communities better for social, ecological and public health

· Council should not design for technology on the brink, things will radically change.

Mr Hobbs answered questions regarding heavy transport in the future and autonomous vehicles.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting at 3.39pm and returned at 3.41pm.

4.32 Mr Chris Allison (submission 17483)

Mr Allison spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· economic returns in the region - data gathered on the arterial project showed congestion was a threat to freight, freight suffered from privileging individual use of private cars

· the problem was how to juggle various agendas, the cost was liveable cities and cycling, Nelson had ratepayers who loved cars and wanted to use them

· this was an interesting opportunity for the Council

· there was a need to look at what value and hidden costs were impacted by three-laning and two-laning some roads, it was a useful way of targeting congestion but a lot of values got hit by that

· the incentives to make that shift were age demographic issues, more younger people were needed to make up for that shift in population

· American Planning Association figures stated affordable, alternatives to cars were important when deciding where to live and work, to make a more viable region.

Mr Allison answered questions and comments were made regarding fiscal and prudent responsibility for intersections, using the network efficiently, public transport in the future, liveable cities, using the capacity we have more efficiently, potentially pushing more traffic on arterial routes, understanding of NZTA roles, connective journeys, customer values, focus on future technology, public transport fees, investment to get a step change, and how people would use autonomous vehicles.

4.33 Mrs Kelly Harris (submission 17513) did not attend.

4.34

Mr Peter Olorenshaw (submission 17558)

A presentation was provided. Mr Olorenshaw spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· Steven Joyce had resigned, the new government would not be picking up the Southern Link tab

· the Environment Court had said that the Southern Link would not reduce the severance of Tahunanui, nor would it increase safety, it was an inundation zone

· the project might be justified if a benefit to cost ratio showed sufficient economic benefit.

· Auckland’s Waterview Tunnel savings had been lost in extra traffic

· the new Government GPS would not be aligned to new arterial routes, it would favour the Rocks Road Esplanade

· Rocks Road needed to be to a state highway standard, whether it was a state highway or not, it needed to be four metres wide

· the Nelson Plan should allow more people to live closer to Nelson by allowing two dwellings as a right in an inner development zone, with no development contributions

· congestion charging could work here.

Mr Olorenshaw answered questions regarding viable solutions, sea levels and single occupancy vehicles, peak traffic times, volunteers, lone women not feeling safe, funding for Rocks Road and the Southern Link and intensive housing.

Attachments

1 A1931718 - Peter Olorenshaw - Powerpoint Presentation

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 3.56pm.

4.35 Mrs Jan Head - speaking on behalf of Mrs Rosemary Page (submission 17381) did not attend.

4.36 Mrs Rachel Boyack (submission 17533)

Mrs Boyack spoke to her submission. Points she covered included:

· frustration regarding congestion in the region and Council’s unsuccessful bids for public transport

· solutions that were not about building more roads, but about a change in technology

· the free buses for Opera in the Park were fantastic, a culture change and approach to transport was needed, with provision of more regular buses and more at night

· public transport had to be more accessible, bus stops with shelters and concrete standings, fares needed to be reasonable

· taking the vehicles off Rocks Road was not feasible, something had to be done, if Council proceeded with the Southern Link, Rocks Road would fall to ratepayers

· the vision was good roads and networks between towns, within cities the focus should be on walking, cycling and public transport

· Tasman and Nelson did not always share views, the message to Tasman was that it needed to be more progressive about public transport, a lot of congestion was coming in from Tasman, supportive of amalgamation, a region-wide plan was need.

Mrs Boyack answered questions regarding solutions for heavy traffic, improving congestion, policy development, cost benefit analysis, support for money in the plan to continue investigation into arterial network, Nelson-Tasman amalgamation and drivers’ targeted tax.

4.37 Mr Graeme O'Brien (submission 17279)

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor left the meeting at 4.28pm. and returned at 4.31pm.

[RT1] Mr O’Brien spoke to his submission. Points he covered included:

· whether there was a congestion problem in Nelson

· most Nelson residents did not travel down Waimea road, most were Tasman residents

· he had lived in Japan for 12 years, where there was a fantastic transport system

· even with a great public transport system, traffic jams occurred if everyone wanted to use the road at the same time

· public servants should take public transport to work

· a survey should be conducted on how many people were coming in to Nelson from out of town

· Trucks accounted for 6% of the traffic volume on Rocks Road, he would not expect an increase on that figure

· the addition of more trucks and cars would affect air quality.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 4.36pm.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 7: Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan - Deliberations Report

Regional Transport Committee

10 April 2018

REPORT R8850

Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan - Deliberations Report

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide information to assist the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) in its deliberations on the Draft Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021 – Mid-Term Review (RLTP) and Draft Nelson Regional Public Transport Plan 2018 (RPTP).

1.2 To approve lodgement of the amended RLTP and Draft RPTP with Council for approval.

2. Summary

2.1 The RTC is required to prepare, consult and lodge the RLTP and draft RPTP with Council for approval.

2.2 Once approved, the RLTP and RPTP both have to be submitted to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) by June 2018.

2.3 Both documents have been out for consultation and hearings held. Officers recommend minor changes to the RLTP as below:

2.3.1 Remove the Hill Street Extension project.

2.3.2 Highlight the travel demand management and technology enabling budget that has been allowed for within Table 7 of the RLTP.

2.3.3 Add footpath maintenance and renewal allocations currently in the Draft Nelson Long Term Plan 2018-28 into table 7 of the RLTP to enable subsidy to be applied for.

2.4 Officers recommend no change to the items considered in the draft RPTP, but are supportive of a note in the Draft RPTP stating that the next public transport review scheduled for 2020 considers:

2.4.1 Fare reductions during peak hour to encourage patronage when the arterial roads are at their busiest; and

2.4.2 The introduction of electric/hybrid buses; and

2.4.3 Reconsideration of an airport bus service.

2.5 In addition, it is recommended that an allowance of $10,000 be made in the RLTP as Nelson’s contribution towards several South Island Regional Transport Committee Chairs initiatives.

3. Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan - Deliberations Report (R8850) and its attachments A1942116, A1942118 and A1941288 and A1942938; and

Approves lodging the amended Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021 (Mid-Term Review) and 2018 Regional Public Transport Plan (A1942938 of Report R8850) with Council for approval with the following changes:

· Removal of the Hill Street Extension project;

· Highlight the travel demand management and technology enabling budget that has been allowed for within Table 7 of the RLTP;

· Addition of footpath maintenance and renewal allocations currently in the Draft Nelson Long Term Plan 2018-28 into table 7 of the RLTP to enable subsidy to be applied for; and

Delegates authority to approve any other minor changes to the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021 (Mid-Term Review) and 2018 Regional Public Transport Plan based on feedback from this meeting to Her Worship the Mayor and the Chair of the Regional Transport Committee.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021 (Mid-Term Review) and 2018 Regional Public Transport Plan (A1942938 as per Report R8850) for submission to the New Zealand Transport Agency prior to 30 June 2018.

4. Background

4.1 On 27 November 2017, the RTC approved a Statement of Proposal for public consultation on the Mid-Term review of the RLTP including the Draft RPTP.

4.2 Public consultation, using the special consultative procedure, was undertaken from 16 December 2017 to 9 February 2018, with 258 submissions received. Hearings were held on 7 March 2018. A copy of the submissions with the officer response is appended as Attachment 3.

4.3 The RLTP is a joint document with Tasman District Council, Marlborough District Council and the NZTA to identify the key transport objectives and policies and to provide a joint voice when competing for central government funding. A section is also included in each respective Plan for the objectives and policies that are relevant to each local authority. This joint approach was endorsed by the RTC on 1 August 2014 and approved by Council on 28 August 2014.

4.4 The RLTP also includes a foreword endorsed by the South Island Regional Transport Committee Chairs group of which Nelson is a member.

4.5 Council is required to submit the RLTP and draft RPTP to the NZTA by the 30 June 2018 so that activities and projects can be funded from the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF).

4.6 The Land Transport Management Act 2003 (Act) requires the RTC to develop the RLTP in line with the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS). The GPS sets out national land transport objectives and the results the Government wishes to achieve from allocation of the NLTF.

5. Government Policy Statement

5.1 A draft GPS was received late on 3 April 2018 and Officers have not had time to digest the content nor discuss the content with the Top of the South technical advisory group. However, Officers will ensure that comment on the draft GPS in relation to the RLTP will be ready for the 10 April 2018 RTC Meeting

5.2 A place holder workshop is scheduled for the 10 April 2018 to allow officers an opportunity to brief Councillors on any implications on the new GPS.

5.3 The final GPS will still need to be approved by Cabinet and this is still likely to take some time. Council will need to finalise the RLTP prior to the release of the final GPS. This is placing a very tight timeframe on all RTC’s across the country. This was also confirmed by all attendees at the South Island Regional Transport Committee Chairs group in Christchurch on the 28 March 2018 (attended by officers and the Chair of the RTC) especially if final documents have to be submitted to the NZTA by 30 June 2018.

5.4 Most, if not all RTC’S, have proceeded with their RLTP consultations to try and keep ahead of the looming deadlines.

5.5 The new Government has signalled the following strategic investment priorities necessary to deliver a transport system as per attachments 1 and 2:

· A safe system, free of death and serious injury; and

· A system that improves access to move towards more liveable cities and thriving regions; and

· A system that ensures the land transport system enables better environmental outcomes; and

· A system that delivers the best possible value for money.

5.6 The Government has also included themes that will influence how the results should be delivered to ensure the best transport solutions for New Zealand:

· A mode neutral approach to transport planning and investment decisions;

· Incorporating technology and innovation into the design and delivery of land transport investment;

· Integrating land use and transport planning and delivery.

6. Discussion

6.1 An amended RLTP with the officer recommendations detailed in this report is included as Attachment 4. The changes from the draft RLTP are highlighted in green.

6.2 This report proposes that Her Worship the Mayor and the Chair of the Regional Transport Committee be delegated authority to make any further minor changes to the RLTP as a result of the RTC meeting and prior to Council approval.

Submissions

6.3 A total of 258 submissions (including late submissions) were received.

6.4 A range of feedback was received broadly summarised in the following table:

Feedback	Number of written responses
Support continuation of Nelson Southern Link	100
Do not support continuation of Nelson Southern Link	41
Support proposed bus service improvements including Stoke loop bus service.	33
Request better bus services and/or infrastructure	54
Progress Rocks Road Walking and Cycling Facilities	42
Support increase in walk and cycle investment	29
Support increased road capacity via optimising existing arterial network (e.g. 3 laning Waimea Road)	23
Support increased road capacity via travel demand measures (e.g. parking charges, educations and promotion, vary school and start and end times)	21
Support construction of Hill Street Extension project	4
Do not support construction of Hill Street Extension project	3
Request greater measures to reduce green-house gas emissions	10
Request an airport bus service	9
Support reduction of speed limit through Atawhai on State Highway 6 to 80km/h	5
Request decoupling of the Rocks Road walking and cycling project from the Southern Link Investigation	4
Request facilities to enable coastal shipping	6
Request park and ride facilities	8
Do not support proposed Stoke loop bus service	2

6.5 Many submitters gave feedback across a variety of topics and these have been captured as multiple entries in the table above.

6.6 The full submission set was circulated to all RTC members separately. The key areas of the submissions (with officer recommendations) are discussed in detail hereafter.

Nelson Southern Link Investigation and SH6 Rocks Road Walking and Cycling Project

6.7 Following publication of the programme business case (PBC) by NZTA last year, the completion of the investigation and design of the Nelson Southern Link and the SH6 Rocks Road Walking and Cycling project was included in the draft RLTP to seek investment from the NLTP.

6.8 Council has also signalled in its 2018-28 LTP Consultation document that it supports the Nelson Southern Link Investigation continuing and that it is essential that progress be made on the project if Nelson is to address problems in the transport network to make the most of the opportunities to support businesses, residents and visitors.

6.9 In addition, Council has signalled very strongly that it is seeking progression of the both the Southern Link Investigation and the SH6 Rocks Road walking and cycling project.

6.10 100 responses supporting the Southern Link were received, with 41 responses opposed to a new route. 42 responses specifically supported progressing the SH6 Rocks Road walking and cycling project. Generally, the responses that opposed the Southern Link did request projects or activities that either increase arterial transport capacity or reduce demand.

6.11 Progressing the Nelson Southern Link Investigation and the SH6 Rocks Road Walking and Cycling Project responds to all 4 strategic priorities signalled by the new Government in February 2018 as detailed below:

§ Is a safe system, free of death and serious injury - One of the key issues identified in both the stakeholders key objectives and the data in the PBC shows a safety problem for active users on the arterial routes within Nelson;

§ Improves access to move towards more liveable cities and thriving regions - Land use integration, increasing walking and cycling options and being an enabler of smart technology are all options retained in the PBC that could support a shift to increased public transport and active mode use;

§ Ensures the land transport system enables better environmental outcomes – An efficient fit for purpose arterial transport network will deliver positive environmental benefits by efficiently providing Port access to maximise sea freight opportunities, resilient transport infrastructure and the ability to consider bus priority measures that incentivise patronage.

§ Delivers the best possible value for money - Nelson and Tasman’s rapid recent population and business growth has exceeded the growth assumptions used in the PBC in 2015. Refining the model based on more recent growth data, our ageing population and their likely future travel patterns, recent traffic volumes and the vulnerability of the State Highway route to sea level rise as highlighted by recent weather events will ensure infrastructure and services are delivered at the right level and at the best cost taking into account the full range of benefits and costs over the whole life of the investments.

6.12 Officers recommend no change to the RLTP in this area (see section 6.11 above). This is consistent with the draft LTP and NZTA’s State Highway Investment Proposal.

6.13 Once the GPS is finalised, and the NLTF announced in August 2018 Council will work with NZTA on the next steps.

Hill Street to Suffolk Road Link

6.14 Funding for the Hill Street to Suffolk Road link was removed from the NCC transport programme during the development of the LTP 2018-28 as the road was deemed to be a sub-collector road serving only those adjacent residents and not deemed to be a major through route and would be built by developers of the adjacent land as part of the any future subdivision work.

6.15 Three submitters with adjacent property interests highlighted the potential for a Hill Street Extension to become a ‘rat run’ route seeking that it not be constructed until capacity improvements to the State Highway network are made.

6.16 Officers support the link’s removal from the RLTP.

Travel demand management and activities

6.17 Travel demand management and activities associated with technological advances in transport were included within a funding line of the draft RLTP but not expressly discussed within the document as a separate project or activity.

6.18 21 submitters made comment that enough was not being done in relation to a greater focus on technology and travel demand management.

6.19 The 2018-2028 NCC Transport Asset Management Plan that has informed the LTP and RLTP includes an increase from the current budget of $57,000 per year to $250,000 per year in the 2018-2028 period to enable greater focus on technology, intelligent transport solutions and travel demand management. In the short term, activities such as real time bus tracking, increased emphasis on ride sharing, and workplace travel plans are programmed to be implemented, with a medium to long term strategy to position Nelson as a national technology leader in autonomous vehicles.

6.20 Officers propose that Table 7 of the RLTP separates out the currently allocated travel demand management and technology budget of $250,000 per annum from the larger budget line to increase visibility of the investment.

Bus Services

6.21 54 submitters requested improved bus services and/or infrastructure with specifics including an airport bus service, more frequent services, cheaper fares, park and ride and electric/hybrid buses being common requests.

6.22 The draft RPTP included the following changes at a total cost of $225,000 per annum. These provisions align with the submissions and officers recommend that these be confirmed in the RPTP.

· New low floor buses on local routes to make the services more accessible to those with mobility challenges;

· Fare zone changes – four zones will be reduced to three;

· Student/Community Services card fare reduction – children over 5 years, students and community service card holders will all pay the same fare;

· Weekend services on the arterial routes rescheduled to allow buses to run later in the afternoons;

· Revised Stoke Loop service introduced – operating off-peak and via a route based on community feedback; and

· Slight alterations and optimisation of the local services to accommodate the revised Stoke Loop service.

6.23 Officers, at this stage, do not support the introduction of electric/hybrid buses because battery technology is still in its development stage and not reliable enough.

6.24 Whilst there was initial support from the airport, officers, at this stage, do not support the implementation of an airport bus service as the business case indicated that it is currently not financial viable.

6.25 Officers recommend that the next public transport review scheduled for 2020 considers:

· Fare reductions during peak hour to encourage patronage when the arterial roads are at their busiest;

· The introduction of electric/hybrid buses; and

· Reconsideration of an airport bus service.

Footpaths

6.26 The importance of footpaths in the transport system has been recognised in the recent changes to the NZTA Investment framework. The NLTF can now be accessed for both maintenance and renewals of footpaths. Officers recommend that the budgets allowed for these activities in Nelson’s draft LTP of approximately $270,000 per annum for footpath maintenance and $400,000 per annum for footpath renewals be added to Table 7 of the RLTP.

Freight and coastal shipping

6.27 Six submitters requested greater consideration of coastal shipping in the RLTP and the signals from the new Government also supports this. One of the key shared objectives of the South Island Regional Transport Collaboration Charter (endorsed by the Nelson RTC) is to look at integrated freight network improvements across the South Island. The South Island Regional Transport Committee Chairs have endorsed a piece of work (Freight Mode shift project) to look at exactly this issue and an RFP has been called for. NCC’s proposed contribution towards this and several other initiatives (refer to the Chairs report on this agenda for more detail) is $10,000 – proportionate to population across all seven contributing South Island RTC’s.

6.28 Officers recommend that an allowance of $10,000 be made toward these initiatives.

Changes proposed as a result of the Revised State Highway Investment Proposal (SHIP)

6.29 The SHIP is NZTA’s programme of projects and activities and is scheduled to go to the NZTA Board for approval on 20 April 2018.

6.30 The NZTA have been unable to advise the scale of changes to the SHIP at the time of writing this report.

6.31 If changes to the SHIP are more than minor then a further RTC meeting may be required before the RLTP is approved by Council to consider changes as a result of the amended SHIP.

7. Options

7.1 The Committee has two options – Either lodge the RLTP and RPTP with amendments or not lodge the RLTP and RPTP.

Option 1: Lodge with Council
Advantages	· Meet statutory timeline for submission of RLTP and RPTP to NZTA by 30 June 2018 · Allows continuity with LTP currently out for consultation
Risks and Disadvantages	· NZTA SHIP changes may require more than minor amendments · Final GPS may differ in direction from draft GPS
Option 2: Delay Lodging
Advantages	· Document could take into account final GPS and SHIP.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Unable to meet any statutory timeframes.

8. Conclusion

8.1 The RTC is required to prepare, consult and lodge the RLTP and RPTP with Council for approval.

8.2 Consultation has been undertaken and hearings held. Officers recommend the following changes to the draft RLTP following public consultation:

8.2.1 Remove the Hill Street Extension project.

8.2.2 Highlight the travel demand management and technology enabling budget that has been allowed for within Table 7 of the RLTP.

8.2.3 Add footpath maintenance and renewal allocations currently in the Draft Nelson LTP into table 7 of the RLTP to enable subsidy to be applied for.

8.2.4 Include in the RLTP budget and amount of $10,000 as Nelson’s contribution towards several South Island Regional Transport Committee Chairs initiatives.

Paul D'Evereux

Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1942116 - GPS Letter 12 Feb 2018 ⇩

Attachment 2: A1942118 - GPS Letter 20 Nov 2017 ⇩

Attachment 3: A1941288 - RLTP Officer Feedback ⇩

Attachment 4: A1942938 - Revised RLTP ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Providing a Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan is a requirement of the Land Transport Management Act 2003.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The development of a Regional Land Transport Plan and a Regional Public Transport Plan sets the key objectives, measures and activities that contribute to the community outcome “our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”.

3. Risk

The changes recommended by the officers have no substantive change to the plan. There are risks if the draft GPS changes direction or if the SHIP changes are more than minor. However all RTC’s around the country are facing this same risk and the general approach adopted by the NCC is consistent with the approach of the South Island RTC’s.

4. Financial impact

The activities listed in this plan are consistent with the activities proposed in the NCC Draft 2018-2028 LTP and the Draft State Highway Investment Proposal for the NZTA.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of high significance because it involves the future form and management of the transport network. A Special Consultative Procedure in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 has been undertaken.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have had the opportunity to provide feedback as part of the consultation process.

7. Delegations

The Regional Transport Committee has the responsibility for preparing the RLTP and RPTP in accordance with the requirements of the Land Transport Management Act 2003. The Regional Transport Committee has delegations to hear and deliberate on submissions and then lodge the RLTP and RPTP to Council.