Item 9: Supplementary
Information
Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan - Deliberations
Report
|
|
Regional Transport Committee
10 April 2018
|
REPORT R9274
Supplementary
Information
Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan - Deliberations
Report
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To
provide the Regional Transport Committee with additional information following
deliberation of submissions at the 10 April 2018 RTC meeting.
1.2 To
approve the lodging of the Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public
Transport Plan with Council for adoption.
2. Glossary
AMP – Asset Management
Plan
EBT – Electronic Bus
Ticketing
FAR – Financial Assistance
Rate
GPS - Draft Government Policy
Statement 2018 on Land Transport
IAF – Investment
Assessment Framework
LTMA – Land Transport
Management Act 2003
LCLR – Low Cost/Low Risk
LTP - Long Term Plan
MoT – Ministry of
Transport
NCC – Nelson City Council
NDS UDC – National Policy
Statement on Urban Development Capacity
NLTP – National Land
Transport Programme
NOF – Network Operating
Framework
NPS – National Policy
Statement
NSLI – Nelson Southern
Link Investigation
NTLF - National Land Transport
Fund
NZTA - New Zealand Transport
Agency
PGF – Provincial Growth
Fund
RCA – Road Controlling
Authority
RLTP - Regional Land Transport
Plan
RPTP - Regional Public Transport
Plan
RTC - Regional Transport
Committee
SHIP – State Highway
Investment Proposal
SH6 RR -SH6 Rocks Road Walking
and Cycling Project
SHA - Special Housing Area
TAIP – Transport Agency
Investment Proposal
TDC
– Tasman District Council
TIO -
Transport Investment Online portal
UCF
– Urban Cycleway Fund
3. Recommendation
|
That the Regional Transport
Committee
Receives the report
Supplementary Information
Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan -
Deliberations Report (R9274)
and its attachments (A1950026, A1950026, A1960630, A1960633, A1962452,
A1964626, A1962674 and A1964311); 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 (A1962674 of Report R9274), based on feedback from this meeting, to Her
Worship the Mayor and the Chair of the Regional Transport Committee.
Approves
lodging the amended Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021 (Mid-Term
Review) and 2018 Regional Public Transport Plan (A1962674 of Report R9274) with Council for approval with the
following changes:
· Rename the “Hill Street Extension project”
the “Saxton Growth Area project” and re-phase the budget to
$16.05M (as shown in Item 8.4 of Report R9274); and
• Highlight as a separate
item, the travel demand management and technology enabling budget that has
been allowed for within Table 7 of the Regional Land Transport Plan and
increase the budget from $182,000 to $250,000 over each of the first three
years; and
• Addition of budgets
for footpath maintenance of $150,000, footpath renewal of
$400,000 and new footpath construction of $350,000 into Table 7 of the
Regional Land Transport Plan to enable New Zealand Transport Agency subsidy
to be applied for and reflect those changes in the Draft 2018-28 Nelson Long
Term Plan noting the Transport Agency subsidies; and
· Increase the budget for the bus terminus as shown in Item
7.1.3 of Report 9274 from $270,000 to $2.4M phased over 5 years; and
· Increase the Nelson City Council Low Cost/Low Risk budget
from $6M to $10M; and
· Increase the Tahunanui Cycle Network budget from $2M to
$2.8M spread out over three years as shown in Item 7.1.1 of Report 9274; and
· Change the priority of the projects in Table 4 (Top of
the South Significant Activities), as requested by the Tasman Regional
Transport Committee, specifically moving “SH60 Richmond to Upper Takaka
Safety and Resilience Improvements” from priority 7 to priority 4 and
moving “Nelson and Richmond Urban Optimisation Framework (NOF)”
from priority 4 to priority 7; and
· Inclusion of capital funding of $310,000 (Y1) for
Electronic Bus Ticketing and additional operational funding of $42,000 (Y1)
and $72,000 (Y2 onwards); and
· Inclusion of $10,000 over the next 3 years as the Nelson
Regional Transport Committee’s contribution to the South Island Regional
Transport Committee Chair Group initiatives; and
· Inclusion of the Activities identified by the New Zealand
Transport Agency as part of the recently released Draft Transport Agency
Investment Proposal:
- Noise Wall and
Improvement Programme ($4.97M over Y2 and Y3); and
- SH6 Nelson to Richmond
Safe Systems Enhancements ($2.8M over Y1, Y2 and Y3); and
Agrees
to re-consult with the public in the new financial year on the “Active
Road User Corridor Programme – Nelson Safer Corridor” project,
noting that this has triggered the Regional Transport Committee’s
Significance Policy for consultation; and
Advises
both the Tasman and Marlborough Regional Transport Committees of those
decisions that impact Table 4 (Agreed Top of the South Significant
Activities) of the Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021 (A1962674 as per Report R9274).
|
Recommendation to Council
|
That the Council
Approves
the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021 (Mid-Term Review) and 2018
Regional Public Transport Plan (A1962674 as per Report R9274) for submission to the New Zealand
Transport Agency prior to 30 June 2018; and
Considers as a result of approving the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan
2015-2021 (Mid-Term Review) and 2018 Regional Public Transport Plan (A1962674
as per Report R9274), the additional funding and
corresponding New Zealand Transport Agency income as part of the Long Term
Plan deliberations.
|
4. Summary
4.1 The
RTC deliberated on submissions on the RLTP and RPTP on 10 April 2018. At
that meeting officers were asked to consider a number of questions and bring
back supplementary information that would allow the RTC to recommend that the
Council approve the RLTP and RPTP.
4.2 At
the same time, central government and central government agencies have issued
several policy documents for feedback; these include the GPS, IAF and TAIP (for
information). The RTC has made, or is in the process of making, submissions to
these policies. Section 14 of the LTMA requires the RTC to be satisfied that
the RLTP contributes to the purpose of the Act and that it is consistent with
the GPS before it is submitted to the Council for approval.
4.3 This
report accordingly recommends a number of changes to Council’s work
programme, and consequently to the RLTP, RPTP and Council’s LTP
2018-28. The net effect of the proposed changes would increase rates by 0.18 (Y1); 0.21% (Y2); 0.23% (Y3). If
the proposed changes were implemented Council would still remain within its
rates and debt caps.
4.4 There
are a number of opportunities for Council to work with central government to
implement our RLTP. This includes funding from the NLTF and potentially the
PGF.
5. Background
5.1 The
RTC deliberated on submissions on the RLTP and RPTP on 10 April 2018. At
that meeting officers were asked to consider a number of questions and bring
back supplementary information that would allow the RTC to recommend that the
Council approve the RLTP and RPTP.
5.2 The
hierarchy of documents that guide each RTC is summarised below:
· The GPS, the
Government’s Strategic Priorities that provide the national picture of
transport funding.
· The IAF which is the
framework that NZTA uses to assess and prioritise activities for investment
from the NLTF.
· The TAIP which sets out
the 10 year programme of activities, by way of National Priority rankings, for
inclusion in the NLTP that are then funded from the NLTF.
5.3 The
IAF, TAIP and RLTP are required to give effect to the GPS to be eligible for
funding from the NLTF. Each RLTP has to be submitted to the NZTA no later than
30 June 2018.
6. Draft
GPS
6.1 The
draft GPS has set a new strategic direction with two key Strategic Priorities
of Safety and Access, supported by the Strategic Priorities of Value
for Money and Environment.
6.2 Central
Government funding is based on how programmes and projects contribute to the
objectives of each Strategic Priority (see diagram appended to Attachment 8).
This funding can be allocated to one or more activity classes. The draft GPS
proposes to add two new activity classes – Rapid Transit and Transitional
Rail.
6.3 Overall
the objectives have been defined to provide a transport system that:
· Is a safe system, free
of death and serious injury;
· Provides increased
access to social and economic opportunities;
· Enables transport choice
and access;
· Is resilient;
· Reduces the adverse
effects on the climate, local environment and public health;
· Delivers the right
infrastructure and services to the right level at the best cost.
6.4 The GPS has signalled that a second stage GPS (in 2019) is
likely to be required in order to fully realise Government direction for
transport investment.
6.5 A
submission to the Draft GPS was approved by the RTC on the 26 April 2018 and by
Council on the 4 May 2018 and both have been sent to the MoT (refer to Attachments 1 and 2). These submissions highlight issues
that both the RTC and Council feel are critically important to ensure that
Nelson is not disadvantaged in any way through funding from the NLTF.
6.6 The
main issues addressed in both the submissions are summarised below.
· That the GPS
acknowledges that transport form and function is a key aspect in creating a
safe environment; and
· That a logical hierarchy
of the road network be developed in a context of land use and growth patterns;
and
· That the touring nature
of the visitor economy in regional New Zealand is recognised in the GPS; and
· That the GPS
acknowledges the importance of transport systems to support an active older
population; and
· That the GPS provides
for the establishment of “model communities for active older
person”; and
· That the GPS provides
for all medium growth areas under the NDS UDS be eligible for funding and
also recommends that housing affordability be a measure of establishing
priority areas; and
· That the GPS supports
alterative passenger and freight transport options for regions that will not be
able to benefit from increased investment in rail; and
· Other recommendations to
the MoT included:
- Assistance
to the RTC/Council in delivering its place shaping mandate; and
- That
the GPS align its timing with other significant planning and funding
documents.
Timeline
6.7 The process that RTCs have to follow this year is very
different to the one that would have been followed if there were not a change
in Government, and a subsequent change in strategic priorities through the
latest Draft GPS. The 2017 Draft GPS was released in February 2017 and that
allows the RTC and officers the necessary time to progress a Mid-Term review of
the RLTP and RPTP in a timely fashion.
6.8 As noted above, the new Government has exercised its
prerogative to set a new direction through the Draft GPS, and whilst they
signalled their high level direction through letters to all RTCs in November
2017 and February 2018, the revised Draft GPS was only received in early April
2018. Furthermore, the Draft IAF and Draft TAIP have also been issued to all
RTCs by the NZTA with very tight timelines to digest the content and/or make
submissions and decisions. In essence what would have been done in 12 months
has been squeezed into 2 months.
6.9 In
recognition of the difficulties that these changes have placed on RTCs and
Councils, NZTA have advised that they are available to assist in business case
assessments. They have also stated that if RTCs are unable to fully
reassess their proposals for inclusion in RLTPs before 30 June 2018, then there
is an opportunity to reassess proposals for funding, when they are brought
forward. In addition, new proposals may be developed and considered through an
application to vary the RLTP and consequently the NLTP. This variation can be
carried out at any stage. Notwithstanding this, NZTA confirmed that it is
essential that Councils submit their RLTPs no later than 30 June
2018.
7. Discussion
7.1 The
RTC, after deliberating on the submissions on 10 April 2018, asked officers to
investigate the following issues further. The officer response is provided in
italics after each item:
7.1.1 To review the proposed NCC works programme in
the RLTP in relation to the Draft GPS’s priorities, with a view to
ascertaining if any projects could be brought forward in terms of timing.
Officers have reviewed Table 6 (Activities proposed within Nelson City) in the
RLTP (refer to Attachment 3 for the analysis). In
summary, all the projects are commencing in one form or another in 2018/19,
therefore no change to the programmed timelines are proposed. However, the
budget figures for two items have been revised as follows:
- UCF Tahunanui Cycle Network increased from $2M (in the
LTP) to $2.8M phased as - 2018/19 ($200k); 2019/20 ($800k); 2020/21 ($1.8M). A
separate report will be coming to the June 2018 Works and Infrastructure
Committee. This report will enable the Committee to consider feedback
from the latest community consultation that was facilitated through the Tahuna
Stakeholders Group. The revised cost for the preferred option, should the
Committee approve that option, has been estimated to be more than the current budget,
therefore it would be prudent to allow for the revised amount. It is envisaged that
work on the preferred option will take up to three years to implement.
The community consultation also identified potential additional wider network
improvements which will also be discussed at the Works and Infrastructure
Committee meeting. Due to the timing, any future connection work will be
considered as part of the next LTP and the RLTP (which is due for a full review
in three years’ time).
- Increase in the NCC Low Cost/Low Risk (LCLR – also
known as the Minor Improvements budget) from $6M over three years to $10M (see
item below for more detail).
7.1.2 To consider, in light of the strategic
priorities signalled in the Draft GPS, whether any work currently in the
non-subsidised work programme (in both the Transport and Parks and Reserves
AMPs) could be included in the subsidised work programme and RLTP.
Officers have assessed the two
AMPs to determine whether there are any potential projects that could be
included in the RLTP. This assessment is appended as Attachment 4. In summary,
there are a number of projects already in the LTP, that when applying the Draft
GPS priorities, could be included in the RLTP as either stand-alone projects
(>$1M) or as part of the Minor Improvement Programme (<$1M). This
assessment increases the Minor Improvement Programme from $6M to $10M with phasing as shown in Attachment 4.
There will be no rates impact to this change. No
change to the timing of any of these works is recommended.
7.1.3 The bus
terminus.
The RTC queried the status of
the proposed bus terminus. Officers advised that funding was included in the
Draft 2018-28 Transport AMP) over three years ($20,000 Y1, $41,000 Y2 and
$209,000 Y3) and that this project was also included (but not as a separate
line item) in the Public Transport Minor Improvements budget in the RLTP.
The RTC also queried the low
figure of $209,000 in the Transport AMP for the implementation of a new
terminus. No business case or options have been
considered at this stage, and the funding in Y1 and Y2 is earmarked to
undertake the business case, including options. At this stage officers do not
have any view as to what the implementation costs might be (as neither the site
nor the design of a proposed bus terminus is known), but do agree that $209k is
light. The implemented solution will depend on the location, and supporting
infrastructure.
The options available to the RTC are to either:
- Leave the budget figures as they are and update these once
the Business Case has been undertaken (and greater certainty has been
determined). Any change in budgets would then be addressed through the Annual
Plan process; or
- Increase the budget to a more realistic value now.
Officers
suggest that the figures be updated now to reflect a more realistic scenario as
shown below, with place holder figures in Y4 and Y5 of $1M each.
· Y1 - $50k
· Y2 - $50K
· Y3 - $200k
· Y4 - $1M
· Y5 – $1M
7.1.4 To canvas residents as to why they
don’t use public transport.
Officers are developing
questions for inclusion in the Annual residents’ survey (which has a
sample size of 400). This telephone survey, which is random
and weighted to match Nelson’s demographics gives an unbiased spread of
residents. The RTC could decide to extend that sample size, but that could
potentially cost in the order of $5,000 - $10,000. Given that the majority of
Nelson residents do not use public transport, the survey of 400 residents is
considered sufficient to obtain an overview of this question. It may be prudent
to survey Richmond residents and officers will make contact with TDC and assess
the best way to facilitate this.
7.1.5 For a report on the Upper
Trafalgar Street closure.
A report will be coming to a future Council meeting on this matter.
7.1.6 To write to NZTA asking them to
consider an Open Graded Porous Asphalt (OGPA) for the sealing of Whakatu Drive
when next NZTA consider re-sealing.
A letter has been sent to NZTA,
but at time of preparing this report a response had not been received.
7.1.7 A supplementary question was asked
by the RTC as to whether there are any other roads where OGPA could be used
where there are noise and slippery surface issues.
Council has received noise
complaints (mainly with respect to chipseal), but the cost of replacing
chipseal with asphalt concrete (AC) is estimated to be an additional $150M.
Whilst OGPA does provide increased noise reduction it costs on average six
times more again than chipseal.
The
criteria for AC is generally for roads in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day or
on high stress environment corners. Officers have not had the time to assess
the viability of using OGPA on any part of the network, but will
work with NZTA to investigate where opportunities exist in the
network.
7.1.8 To write to NZTA requesting
reasons why the Days Track pedestrian refuge should not be progressed in light
of the Draft GPS’s top Safety priority.
A letter has been sent to NZTA
and the reply is appended as Attachment 5. Officers note in relation to the
NZTA reply that whilst Rocks Road is a sub-standard state highway that it is
still used by cyclists and that the current road design forces safety
trade-offs between users and that this is far from ideal.
7.1.9 To write to both NZTA and the
Tasman RTC requesting more detail as to why they have requested a change in
priorities in Table 4 of the Agreed Top of the South Significant Activities of
the RLTP, specifically their request to move “SH60 Richmond to Upper
Takaka Safety and Resilience Improvements” from priority 7 to 4 and
moving “Nelson and Richmond Urban Optimisation Framework (NOF)”
from 4 to 7.
Council’s
expert advisor (Mr Neil Cree from JustAddLime), who will be at the meeting to
answer any questions, has advised that he does not believe that changing the
priority order within Table 4 of the RLTP would have any material impact on
funding risk. His rationale being that NZTA is obliged to give effect to the
GPS which it does so by applying its own ranking through the IAF mechanism
irrespective of where the projects sit in the Table.
7.1.10 To consider speed reductions for specific
areas.
A speed limit review is planned
to commence in 2018/19 and will be undertaken using the NZTA guidelines.
Officers are working with NZTA in this matter. Following completion of the
review, a Speed Management Plan will be produced which identifies specific
streets for speed reductions. Funding has been
provided for this work in the LTP and RLTP.
The
current process to change speed limits and/or trial reduced speed limits is a
very protracted process and has been identified as a major constraining issue
by most RCAs. The RTC included a suggestion in the submission to the
Draft GPS that, central government consider a “streamlined process
free of regulatory barriers which will enable Councils to adjust speed limits
including allowing for Councils to trial speed zones”.
7.1.11 Whether,
given the Draft GPS’s focus on walk/cycling, and Council’s view of
being a model community for older active persons, if additional funding could
be included in the RLTP?
Increasing
the level of service across the transport infrastructure will not only meet the
need of older active persons, but will also benefit a larger group such as
children travelling to school and commuters travelling to work by active modes.
Having
better footpaths is part of the process of increasing the number of people
travelling by active modes. Funding of $400,000 for
footpath renewals, $150,000 for footpath maintenance and $350,000 for new
footpath construction has been included in the Draft LTP, and has been
recommended by NZTA to be included in the RLTP commencing in 2018/19. This
reflects that the NLTF can now be accessed for maintenance, renewal and
construction of new footpaths.
Assuming a match by NZTA of
NCC’s local share, Council’s total budget for footpath renewals
would then be in the order of $800,000 p.a. and new footpaths would be $700,000
p.a. Should NZTA not co-fund this work, as a result
of say budgetary constraints, then Council would only spend the portion in the
current Draft LTP – ie $400,000 and $350,000 respectively and therefore
there will be no additional cost to ratepayers.
Increasing these budgets will
depend on the capacity of Council’s maintenance contractor and initial
discussions suggest that this additional work is possible, but that this would
need to be signalled well in advance.
7.1.12 Consideration of including specific funding
for the e-Bike project.
Funding of $48,000 is already
included in the Transport AMP and RLTP (2020/21 and 2021/22) for an in-town hub
that could accommodate e-bikes. Officers believe that this funding is adequate
and that this supports both the RTC and Council’s drive to embrace new
technology and innovation (including e-bikes and electric vehicle/bike
charging).
Corresponding
work proposed under TDM, will encompass the use of promoting several
initiatives as an alternative to single occupancy vehicle travel. Officers have
already commenced early discussions with various providers to move this matter
forward. This work will be given a high priority under the TDM
7.1.13 Whether TDM funding can be increased?
Officers previously recommended
that Table 7 (Maintenance Operations and Renewal Activities proposed within
NCC) of the RLTP separate the current allocated travel demand management budget
and technology budget of $182,000 p.a. from the larger budget line. This
would increase visibility of this investment. NZTA have subsequently advised
officers that travel demand management should move into an alternate activity
class, which will maintain the intent of increasing visibility of travel demand
management activities. Officers support this suggestion.
Officers
are of the opinion that funding of $250,000 is required over the first three
years of the plan (compared to the $182,000 in the budget) as it is envisaged
that to get the programme up and running, an additional resource will be
required. Currently the organisation does not have the capacity, or
specialised knowledge, to give the works envisaged under this programme
appropriate attention. Not adequately resourcing this work would mean that this
important initiative will not have the momentum that it requires to deliver the
RTC’s objectives.
Officers
recommend an additional $68k p.a for the first three years be included in the
budgets.
8. Other
significant items
Saxton Growth
Area
8.1 The
City Development team has identified that the Saxton area is the most feasible
area that will grow, with an expected yield of 900 household units. This will
alleviate the projected shortfall infrastructure for housing capacity in years
8-10 of the LTP which was identified as part of the Council’s Urban Development
Capacity assessments under the NPS.
8.2 Four SHAs have been
approved by Council, and two of these are now gazetted by the Government, and
the Council is now processing one further expression of interest. Once all
these SHAs have all been gazetted, they would provide approximately 320 housing
units within this growth area.
8.3 Council
is aware of local transport constraints, and is sourcing the data needed to
make decisions around the best projects to address these constraints via the
NOF currently underway in partnership with TDC and the NZTA. The specific
projects to be undertaken in years 4-8 of the LTP will be identified in detail
by the NOF and business cases processes within the next three years, and
officers expect the LTP will be updated to reflect this in the 2021-31 LTP.
8.4 The
Hill Street extension was previously removed from the Transport AMP and
Nelson’s Draft LTP, but it still remains in the RLTP. Officers suggest
that, the specificity of this project be removed (namely Hill Street
extension), and that the project be renamed as the “Saxton Growth Area
Transport Project” and that $150k funding for up front work be included
in the budgets for the first 3 years, and physical works be increased from $10M
to $15.6M (in today’s terms), phased as below:
· Year
1 (18/19) $ 150k
· Year
2 (19/20) $ 150k
· Year
3 (20/21) $ 150K
· Year 4 (22/23) $1.17M
· Year 5 (23/24) $1.17M
· Year 6 (24/25) $4.42M
· Year 7 (25/26) $4.42M
· Year 8 (26/27) $4.42M
8.5 These
figures will attract NZTA subsidy of 51% and Development Contributions of 17%,
and the overall impact per year will be less than $2M. These figures will need
to be considered by Council during the LTP deliberations and if approved, the
Transport AMP will be updated accordingly.
Bus Services
8.6 The
submissions to the RLTP covered a wide range of issues with respect to public
transport. The recommendations and budgets in the RLTP align with the general
feedback that supports an additional $230,000 per annum proposal to provide for
the following improvements:
· 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 will be 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.
· Slight alterations and optimisation of the local services to accommodate
the revised Stoke Loop service.
8.7 The current bus contract allows for a
further 2x2 years rollover before the re-tendering of the contract. Officers
are currently negotiating with the incumbent for the first two year roll-over
and are of the view that continuing with the above initiatives, at a cost of
$230k p.a. will provide Council with the time necessary to further research
service improvements. This would include the use of electric/hybrid
buses, and learn from the experiences of the Greater Wellington Regional
Council who are trialling both electric buses and clean burning diesel buses.
The two year contract renewal would also put Council in an improved position to
prepare and negotiate a future contract.
8.8 Officers would also use this time to
undertake a detailed public transport review (already budgeted for), exploring
coverage, growth and frequency of the public transport services to be provided
for in the new contract.
8.9 In addition, the following items will be considered in
the next public transport review:
· Fare reduction during peak hour to encourage patronage when the arterial
roads are at their busiest; and
· The introduction of electric/hybrid buses; and
· Reconsideration of an airport bus service.
Electronic Bus Ticketing (EBT)
8.10 An
improved bus ticketing system has been a priority for several years. The
current system is out-of-date. It does not provide Council with the
information it needs to, analyse the use of public transport, and then to use
this information to improve services and value for money, to both public
transport users and ratepayers.
8.11 Accordingly, in 2014 Council resolved to join a
Regional Consortium of nine other Councils to develop an integrated ticketing
solution for public transport (report A1216077). At that time
Council’s share of the project was estimated to be $147,000 with an NZTA
subsidy of approximately 58%. This figure was based on information available at
that time, and before the project was scoped in detail and prices sought
through a tender process.
8.12 The Otago Regional Council (ORC) was the lead agency for
managing the project. Most of the work in 2015 and 2016 was to scope out the
project, and to prepare for the tenders for the Information technology required
to support the EBT.
8.13 In April 2017 the following milestones were achieved:
· NZTA agreed
to a targeted enhanced FAR of 65% for the project.
· Tenders were sought to deliver the information technology
portion of the project.
· A contract was awarded to Innovations in Transport Inc
(INIT), an international transport technology provider, with more than 30
years’ experience in ticketing and transport solutions
worldwide. At that stage the service was schedule to commence in
May 2018. This has subsequently been revised to November 2018. This later
date will reduce the operating funding that is needed for the 2018/19 year,
compared to subsequent years.
8.14 As part of the contract, Council’s share of the
project increased to $370,000 in capital costs, with operating costs of $57,000
p.a. These figures and the project should have been included in
Council’s Transport AMP, RLTP and subsequently in the draft LTP
2018-28. Unfortunately, these steps were overlooked and the
original budgets from 2014 were carried forward. Furthermore, the 2014 figures
were entered as net of the NZTA subsidy, and then the subsidy rate was applied
again. Accordingly, the figures in the draft LTP 2018-28 budget are
notably understated.
8.15 Earlier this year officers did write to TDC requesting that
they consider increasing their public transport contribution to this project as
part of the LTP process. We have not received a response to this request.
8.16 The amount spent to date on this project is:
· $90,000 capital ($31,500
after 65% subsidy);
· $35,000 operating expenditure – staff time outsourced
due to staff vacancy (eligible for 49% subsidy)
8.17 The majority of this expenditure has been made to the ORC.
There has been some difficulties obtaining information from the ORC on the
project expenditure. This is because, in order to reduce officer time, we, like
some of the other Consortium members, appointed an ORC staff member to
represent Council at the project governance board. To improve management of Council’s
interests we are now proposing to appoint a NCC staff member to this board.
8.18 The RTC now needs to decide whether it will recommend to
Council to increase the budget for this project.
8.19 The draft LTP 2018-28 budgets include $65,000 capital
(including $30,000 proposed carry forward from 2017/18 to 2018/19) and $16,500
p.a. operating expenditure.
8.20 The latest forecast costs are that the total cost for NCC
will be $370,000 for capital and $72,000 in annual operating costs. After
the subsidy is applied this would be $128,000 capital and $27,450 p.a.
operating costs. However the $370,000 might increase and therefore we are
recommending that this be increased to $400,000 ($157,000 after subsidy).
8.21 Officers will continue to work towards obtaining a
contribution from TDC towards the operating costs of this project. Given
the benefits to Tasman residents, an increase in TDC’s annual
contribution to the Nbus service, from $85,000 p.a. to $95,000 p.a. is
proposed.
8.22 Officers are recommending that Council continue with the
project. The benefits of improving services to the public, and obtaining data
on public transport, are important to Council’s and central
government’s objectives of increasing the use of public transport.
8.23 The alternative, withdrawing from the project, is not
recommended. The main reason for this is that the current ticketing
system is out of date and if continued with would not enable Council to meet
its objectives of improving services and patronage of public transport. There
are a number of learnings from the outsourcing of our part of the governance of
this project that will be taken on board, as well as improvements to internal
budget setting processes.
8.24 Officers recommend that the following budgets be included
in the RLTP, Transport AMP and the final Long Term Plan 2018-28:
· Capital - 2018/19 - $310,000 ($108,500 after NZTA subsidy - $400,000
less $90,000 spent to date)
· Operating
- 2018/19 - $42,000 ($18,000 after NZTA subsidy); and
- 2019/20 onwards - $72,000 ($22,500 after subsidy
and proposed $10,000 p.a. increase in TDC contribution)
Freight and coastal shipping
8.25 Officers recommend that allowance of
$10,000 over the first three years be included in the RLTP as part of
Nelson’s RTC support for the South Island Regional Transport
Committee Chair Group “Freight Mode Shift” and the “Visitor
Numbers and Flows Desktop Study” projects.
9 NZTA
IAF
9.1 Following
the release of the Draft GPS, NZTA have redrafted the IAF and opened that up
for sector engagement, with submissions closing on 18 May 2018. The Draft IAF
submission is the subject of a separate report on this agenda.
9.2 As
a result of the Draft IAF, all references in the RLTP need to be changed to
reflect the new criteria set in the Draft IAF (specifically the two Tables in
Appendix 4 of the RLTP document).
10 TAIP
10.1 The
TAIP (previously known as the SHIP) was approved by the NZTA Board on 20 April
and all Councils were advised of the outcome on the 27 April 2018.
10.2 There
are a number of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the TAIP that need to be
brought to the attention of NZTA and a letter to NZTA has been drafted for the
RTC’s approval. That letter is the subject of a separate report on this
agenda and it includes commentary on the items raised below.
10.3 The
TAIP has included three new projects (summarised below) for Nelson that, unless
they are included in the RLTP, will not be eligible for inclusion in the NLTF.
NZTA has advised that these projects need to be included in the RLTP. These
projects relate to State Highways and will not affect the Draft LTP. At time of
writing NZTA could not provide exact details as to the detail of the projects,
other than what is in the TIO, and this is reflected in the last column in the
table below.
|
Activity Name
|
GPS alignment & National Priority
|
Indicative 3 year funding
|
Comments from the TIO
|
|
Active Road User Corridor Programme – Nelson Safer
Corridor
|
Safety
1
|
$13.875M (triggers the RTC significance policy)
|
Delivering of Safer Corridor treatments to reduce
pedestrian & cyclist road trauma. Currently in High Risk Active Rd User
Programme
|
|
Noise Walls & Improvement Programme
|
Environment
4
|
$4.9M
|
To address health effects of high noise on SH
|
|
SH6 Nelson To Richmond Safe System Enhancements
|
Safety
6
|
$2.8M
|
To install median barriers & other treatments on high
collective risk roads (within quick-win median barrier programme)
|
10.4 Officers
draw to the RTC’s attention that the RTC’s Significance Policy
(Appendix 2 of the RLTP) states that activities are deemed
“significant” if:
“Improvement
activities that are large or complex. These are activities with an estimated
construction cost, including property, exceeding $5M and/or are of high risk
and may have significant network, economic, and/or land use implications for
other regions”
10.5 The
trigger level of $5M has been reached for the “Active Road User Corridor
Programme – Nelson Safer Corridor” project. Council has sought
legal advice which is not available at time of writing, but will be available
for the meeting.
10.6 The
TAIP also clarifies expenditure for the next 3 years on “SH Low Cost/Low
Risk projects” currently in Table 6 of the RLTP as summarised below.
|
Activity Name
|
GPS Strategic Priority and National Priority
|
Comment
|
|
SH Low Cost/Low Risk improvements 2018-21
|
All - 3
|
Currently $4,110,000 over 3 years in RLTP. TIO shows
$210,000 over 3 years.
Officers have requested details from NZTA of this change
and at time of writing no details had been provided
|
11 TAIP
- NSLI and SH6 RR
11.1 The NSLI attracted a high number of submissions (out of the
total 258 submissions received) as part of the RLTP Mid-Term Review as
summarised in the table below:
|
Support the continuation of the NSLI
|
Does not support the continuation of the NSLI
|
|
100 (39%)
|
41 (16%)
|
42 submitters favoured progressing the Rocks Road walking/cycling facility.
11.2 These
two projects which feature in Table 4 of the RLTP, have been profiled by NZTA
in the TAIP as having very low National Priorities and place those projects at
risk of funding from the NLTF. The table below shows the previous profiling,
the revised profiling by NZTA and Council’s expert adviser’s
profiling and priority rating.
11.3
Our expert adviser notes that the RTC could make valid arguments to NZTA to
have them re-assess the profiling and the National Priority ranking as shown
below.
|
Activity Description
|
Previous IAF profile
|
Profiling by NZTA using Draft IAF & National
Priority
|
Independent assessment using Draft IAF
|
|
SH6 RR
|
H,L
|
M,L - 6
|
H,L - 5
|
|
NSLI
|
H,L
|
L,H - 7
|
M,L - 6
|
11.4 A question was asked of our expert adviser as to the
potential benefit of combining these two projects into one project. Their
advice was that there are benefits in considering combining the activities as
one package for the purposes of development, as this would enhance the
understanding of the overall effectiveness and potential synergies between the
two projects, and would likely lead to a more robust business case for
investment. However, deriving a single National Rating would be very
difficult, as each project is funded from two
different activity classes.
11.5 If
the RTC supported combining Rocks Road and the NSLI into one project, then this
would need to be signalled as a change to Table 4 of the RLTP. However, keeping
project delivery separate within the RLTP provides for greater transparency and
flexibility for future implementation.
11.6
Officers have sought, and received, confirmation from
NZTA that whilst the NSLI currently has a low National ranking, funding has
been committed in the TIO, for the Detailed Business Case (DBC) to proceed.
The Programmed Business Case completed by NZTA notes
that the DBC will include the DBC for improvements on Rocks Road. Funding has
been included in the RLTP in years one and two for the detailed business case and
this corresponds to the funding in the TIO.
NSLI and the NOF
11.7 The
NOF is a project that NCC is working collaboratively on with TDC and NZTA. The
project seeks to better understand the network so that the existing transport
network can be optimised. The NOF was previously referred to in section 8. The
project is at the data collection stage with analysis to follow. That analysis
will be used to inform the next steps of
Council’s Stoke Foothills project (and place Nelson in a better position
to identify the shortfall in the network impacting on the liveability and
inadequacies of the form and function of Nelson’s arterial network), as
well as the DBC for the NSLI.
11.8 Whilst the NOF is not listed in the TAIP,
NZTA have advised officers that funding is committed to complete the NOF. The
next steps on completion of the NOF will include the assessment of any projects
highlighted by the NOF. Council’s expert adviser notes further that a
greater prospect for giving effect to the intent of the NOF activity is through
the ongoing work by Council and NZTA on the NSLI DBC which will include
understanding and implementing intermediate optimisation activities
12 Financial
Implication
12.1
Any changes to the RLTP need to align with the Draft LTP and will need to be
considered by Council as part of the LTP deliberations.
12.2 The proposed changes are summarised in the table below.
|
Item
|
RLTP
|
LTP
|
|
Saxton Growth Area project
|
Pre-work reduction from $800 to $450 (Y1 to 3)
Increase from $10M to $15.6M over 5 years (Y4 to 8)
|
Currently not in LTP.
Add $150k Y1 to Y3
Add $15.6M over 5 years
|
|
Travel Demand Management
|
Increase from $182k to $250k Y1, Y2 and Y3
|
Increase from $182k to $250k Y1,
Y2 and Y3
|
|
Footpath
|
Adding to RLTP - $150k maintenance; $400k renewals; $350k
new
|
Already in LTP, but needs to
reflect NZTA subsidy.
|
|
Bus Terminus
|
Increase budget to $2.3M over 5 years
|
In LTP - increase in funding
over 5 years.
|
|
NCC Low cost/Low risk
|
Adding to RLTP
|
Already in LTP as unsubsidised
|
|
Tahunanui cycle network
|
Increase from $2M to $2.8M over Y1 to Y3 additional
funding of $100k Y1 and $700k Y3
|
In LTP - increase from $2M to
$2.8M over Y1 to Y3 additional funding of $100k Y1 and $700k Y3
|
|
Electronic Bus Ticketing
|
Capital - Add (18/19) - $310,000
Operating - Add
1. 2018/19
- $42,000 ($18,000 after NZTA subsidy); and
2. 2019/20
onwards - $72,000 ($22,500 after subsidy and proposed $10,000 p.a. increase
in TDC contribution)
|
Capital - Add (18/19) - $310,000
Operating - Add
1. 2018/19
- $342000 ($18,000 after NZTA subsidy); and
2. 2019/20
onwards - $72,000 ($22,500 after subsidy and proposed $10,000 p.a. increase
in TDC contribution)
|
|
South Island RTC Chairs Group
|
Not in RLTP – add $10K over 3 years
|
Not in LTP – add $10K over
3 years
|
|
Addition of projects based on TAIP
|
Added to RLTP other than “Active Road User Corridor
Programme”
|
No effect on LTP as State
Highway works
|
12.3 The
changes and implications for the Debt Cap and effect on rates (interest and
depreciation) are appended as Attachment 6. That
shows an increase in rates for the first three years as 0.18% (Y1); 0.21% (Y2);
0.23% (Y3) and neither the debt cap nor rates cap is breached by the potential
changes.
13. Conclusion
13.1 This
report provides supplementary information to the RTC following the
deliberations of submissions by the RTC on 10 April 2018.
13.2 Officers have made recommendations that affect the RLTP
budget and as a consequence the LTP. Those changes will need to be considered
by Council as part of its LTP deliberations.
13.3 A revised copy of the RLTP showing all the proposed changes
as discussed in this report is appended as Attachment 7.
Margaret
Parfitt
Manager
Roading and Utilities
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1950026
- RTC GPS submission letter 01 May 2018 ⇩
Attachment 2: A1950026
- Council GPS letter 03 May 2018 ⇩
Attachment 3: A1960633
- Assessment of Table 6 ⇩
Attachment 4: A1960630
- Assessment of New Projects ⇩
Attachment 5: A1962452
- Day's Track NZTA reply ⇩
Attachment 6: A1964626
- Finance Review ⇩
Attachment 7: A1962674
- Revised RLTP ⇩
Attachment 8: A1964311
- GPS 2018 Strategic Direction ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
Providing a Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) and
Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) is a requirement of the Land Transport
Management Act 2003
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
The development of a RLTP and RPTP contributes to
the community outcome “our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective
and meets current and future needs”. The RLTP must align with the Draft
GPS.
|
|
3. Risk
The changes to the RLTP
and RPTP are consistent with the Draft GPS. It is essential that all projects
are included in the RLTP to be eligible for National Land Transport
Funding.
|
|
4. Financial impact
The proposed changes in
the report need to be reflected in the NCC Draft 2018-2028 LTP and the Draft
Transport AMP. The changes suggested in the report do have implications on
the LTP and need to be considered as part of the LTP deliberations.
|
|
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. Further consultation is envisaged as a result
of the release of the TAIP.
|
|
6. Inclusion
of Māori in the decision making process
No specific consultation has been undertaken with
Maori.
|
|
7. Delegations
The RTC has the responsibility for preparing the
RLTP and RPTP in accordance with the requirements of the LTM Act 2003. The
Regional Transport Committee functions include:
“To prepare a Regional Transport Plan, or
any variation of the Plan, for the approval of Council”.
|
