Agenda of Regional Transport Committee

Regional Transport Committee Minutes - 26 April 2018

Minutes of a meeting of the Regional Transport Committee

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

On Thursday 26 April 2018, commencing at 2.02pm

Present: Councillor G Noonan (Deputy Chairperson Presiding), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillor M Rutledge and Mr J Harland (NZTA representative)

In Attendance: Councillors M Lawrey and B McGurk, Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis) and Governance Adviser (E Stephenson)

Apologies: Councillor Matheson

1. Apologies

Resolved RTC/2018/007

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives and accepts an apology from Councillor Matheson.

Rutledge/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of items.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 10 April 2018

Document number M3407, agenda pages 4 - 8 refer.

It was noted that the numbering of the minutes in the agenda was incorrect. However, the numbering on the actual minutes that were confirmed and signed was correct.

Resolved RTC/2018/008

That the Regional Transport Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Regional Transport Committee, held on 27 November 2017, as a true and correct record.

Rutledge/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

6. Submission on the Draft Government Policy Statement 2018 on Land Transport

Document number R9239, late items agenda pages 2 - 11 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis answered questions and discussion took place regarding refinements to the submission. The following issues were discussed, noting that the Mayor and Deputy Chair would be delegated authority to finalise and sign the submission:

· the submission needed to be clearer on what recommendation the RTC was making, differentiating with the ‘other suggestions’

· recognition and acknowledgement in the GPS of local government’s place-shaping democratic mandate. Central government’s commitment to partner with local government should be highlighted

· concern regarding areas being disadvantaged as they had no system other than road-based transport for freight. The RTC would like the GPS to acknowledge areas of the country where rail was not available and would not meet the cost benefit test and provide reassurance that they would not be disadvantaged by this

· the need to make clear that the change in accounting policies and the increasing data gathering and monitoring requirements of the NZTA meant so much more opex work, which was the hardest thing for Council to fund. Recognition of the burden on the ratepayer was required and projects being able to receive central government funding on opex. The challenge to make a step change was staff availability to do that thinking. An extra bullet-point was required – “increased financial support for transport strategic planning and thinking”

· The RTC was endorsing the Government’s approach on safety to reduce road death and injury. Safety was a strategic priority and should be given greater weighting. Nelson was constrained regarding safety because of the focus on travel time

· setting standards which would achieve a high level step change. Over time consistency would be achieved in what secondary collectors looked like across the country

· the challenge with the ONRC classification was that it had missed the factor of the environment around the road. The GPS should encourage thinking about the environment; residential areas should be safe, slow zone environments. It was transport driven, rather than land use driven

· Nelson wanted planning close to the city for liveability, with a focus on walking and cycling. A review of classifications based on liveability and safety was required. A suggestion was made to support and expand the classification, specifically recognising the impact of roading on place-making to reinforce that

· lack of rail – Council did not want to miss out on funding, Nelson may not be the only place in country that had its rail taken out and should not be disadvantaged. It should be looked on kindly for other forms of public transport

· in the absence of a rail network, Nelson needed some sort of compensation. As a major exporter and with a significant port that freight needed to get to, it needed a notional railway equivalent – this could be a point at the end of the submission

· local government in New Zealand would like to collaborate with the Ministry – a minor amendment in the submission to show ‘local government NZ and local authorities’

· was the GPS the right forum to ask for changes regarding state highways, speed limits and buses? The Associate Transport Minister had indicated that she wanted to hear about those. It was unlikely whether those points would change the GPS, but could be included as RTC’s other suggestions which related to the GPS

· Model Communities for Ageing Populations should be changed to ‘model communities for active older populations’ in lower case, quotation marks and italic

· making a recommendation to Council provided an opportunity to focus on alignment and for Council to say the submission fitted well with Council’s Transport AMP, with a focus on safety, walking and cycling and a step change in public transport. This was not required but would be helpful.

Resolved RTC/2018/009

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Submission on the Draft Government Policy Statement 2018 on Land Transport (R9239) and its attachment (A1950026); and

Delegates authority to approve any minor changes to the submission on the Draft Government Policy Statement 2018 on Land Transport submission (attached as A1950026 to report R9239), based on feedback from this meeting, to Her Worship the Mayor and Deputy Chair of the Regional Transport Committee; and

Approves for signing, by the Her Worship the Mayor and Deputy Chair of the Regional Transport Committee and lodging with the Ministry of Transport, the submission on the Draft Government Policy Statement 2018 on Land Transport (attached as A1950026 to report R9239); and

Forwards the approved submission (attached as A1950026 to report R9239) on the Draft Government Policy Statement 2018 on Land Transport to the full Council with the purpose of giving Council the option to either endorse the submission from the Regional Transport Committee or to submit a separate submission directly to the Ministry of Transport.

Her Worship the Mayor/Harland Carried

Recommendation to Council RTC/2018/010

That the Council

Considers whether it wishes to either endorse the submission on the Draft Government Policy Statement 2018 on Land Transport from the Regional Transport Committee or to submit a separate submission directly to the Ministry of Transport; and

Delegates authority to sign Council’s endorsement of the Regional Transport Committee’s submission on the Draft Government Policy Statement 2018 on Land Transport submission (attached as A1950026 to report R9239), or Council’s separate submission, based on feedback from this meeting, to Her Worship the Mayor.

Her Worship the Mayor/Harland Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 3.01p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Regional Transport Committee Minutes - 10 April reconvened 11 May 2018

Minutes of a meeting of the Regional Transport Committee

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

On Tuesday 10 April 2018, commencing at 9.01am deliberations of submissions to RLTP and RPTP

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

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

Apology: Councillor Matheson

1. Apologies

Resolved RTC/2018/002

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives and accepts an apology from Councillor Matheson.

Her Worship the Mayor/Rutledge Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business, however the Chairperson advised that the meeting would be adjourned to allow a workshop to take place on the Draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport.

It was noted that staff responses should not have been included in the agenda as no debate had taken place.

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register. The Chairperson noted that she would not participate when the submission of Ms Robyn Lankshear was discussed.

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 7 March 2018

Document number M3329, agenda pages 6 - 6 refer.

It was noted that the minutes had been amended to show Councillor Noonan returning to the meeting and the spelling of a submitter’s name had been corrected.

Resolved RTC/2018/003

That the Regional Transport Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Regional Transport Committee, held on 7 March 2018, as amended, as a true and correct record.

Rutledge/Harland Carried

6. Chairperson's report - South Island Regional Transport Committee Chairs Meeting 28 March 2018

Document number R9185, agenda pages 20 - 23 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure Services, Alec Louverdis answered questions regarding the Hope Bypass and transportation modelling.

Resolved RTC/2018/004

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Chairperson's report - South Island Regional Transport Committee Chairs Meeting 28 March 2018 (R9185) and its attachment A1941591; and

Notes the work that has been undertaken by the South Island Transport Committee Chairs which the Chairperson of the Regional Transport Committee has endorsed.

Her Worship the Mayor/Harland Carried

The meeting was adjourned at 9.13a.m. and reconvened at 9.53 a.m.

The meeting was adjourned at 9.53a.m. for a workshop on the Draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport. Following the workshop, the meeting reconvened at 11.25a.m.

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

Document number R8850, agenda pages 24 - 181 refer.

The Committee considered each submission in turn and advised staff in relation to responses to submissions and further information required.

Discussion included:

· multi modal access and the need to work through investigation constraints

· Council was fortunate to secure urban cycleway funding, the RLTP had significant funding included for the next stage

· safety issues - given the Draft GPS focus on safety, officers should consider which projects to bring forward

· staff to provide a response on the shared pathway safety issue

· the direction on safety in the RLTP was aligned with the Draft GPS as a key deliverable and should be given suitable weighting

· a need to look at the severance impact of Waimea Road

· a suggestion that Council look for funding for people to deliver projects and the need to collaborate with TDC

· significantly increased residential areas close to state highways

· public consultation on a speed limit review

· potential outcomes of the Blenheim to Nelson route, which was still in the logical mapping stage. The project was being driven by the NZTA

· integrated planning for state highways should not be seen as separate, the Council was responsible for representing the community

· consideration of projects that had previously sat with the Parks and Recreation Committee but had a clear link with the GPS to promote cycling – officers to check the Parks Asset Management Plan (AMP)

· the need to take Council’s Traffic Asset Management Plan into account

· cycleways – retrofitting was not easy, Nelson was starting from a well advanced position, the challenge was Council could only deliver $40m of Infrastructure

· condition of buses – Council was satisfied with the service and the overall quality was increasing over time

· officers to reflect on opportunities to create further change in contract KPIs, a high quality product was necessary if public transport was going to be a viable alternative

· the Southern Link Investigation included the form and function of transport, bus lanes

· the need for public education of how to treat buses on the road

· the effect of traffic congestion on bus timetables, people would take buses if they were reliable

· the LTP had an option to look at a functional bus terminal in the CBD, with scoping in years 1-3

· NZTA funding for bus shelters – before final decision-making, staff to report back on:

o how it would work

o what were the barriers

o how could they be overcome

o how could Council work with the NZTA

· transport as an enabler, land use planning and the role of the NZTA - Council had a statutory mandate of place making, which was recognised better in the Draft GPS

· the Council could not ignore the Resource Management Act

· the public transport network linking into areas beyond our borders – NCC supported this, there had been some analysis, staff to re-approach Council’s neighbours to gauge support post the release of the Draft GPS

· climate change and flood modelling work needed to be undertaken, this was an issue Council was dealing with right now, the RTLP needed to be live, Council needed to think how it approached mitigation and defence

· wheelchair access on buses. It was noted that Mr Simon Horrocks’s name was the wrong way around on the submission and that this should be corrected in the response letter

· how to grow public transport patronage

· introduction of electronic ticketing had been delayed until November, patronage would be reviewed on a quarterly/half yearly basis

The meeting was adjourned at 12.26p.m. and reconvened at 12.28p.m.

· the government was looking for integrating transport solutions

· fare reductions will happen and should be publicised, the review process should be mentioned

· Council was working with an existing contract, which should be reviewed in terms of the Draft GPS

· modal shift was a constant process

· discussion needed to take place regarding a fare structure where there were significant numbers of people, for example large employers or institutions, where the actual employer or destination partly funded fares

· it was too early to answer the bike stands issue, however infrastructure was necessary for a choice to happen, submissions on this issue should be encouraged to be put into the LTP process

· conversation had been reopened with the Airport regarding a shuttle bus

· airport to city transport options - the service should be a shared transport solution with NZTA funding before ratepayer funding

· feedback on Trafalgar Street should go to the LTP, the direction of the Nelson Plan and the LTP would focus on the pedestrian experience

· what was going to create the best pedestrian environment? Possible extension of pedestrian zones. Officers needed to think about speed limits within the CBD, the aim was to get the public to park and walk about the CBD

· a report was requested on the closure of Trafalgar Street

· the GPS had given a clear indication that Council needed to think how it was going to pick up an increasing road safety focus

· Council’s approach to parking around schools, road safety was critically important and Council made no excuses for having parking wardens around schools, there was a need to stress why it was important for drivers to slow down and follow parking rules

· Integrated transport – there had been a number of submissions in this vein, which highlighted the challenge of having an integrated community with village communities. Council had some ability to influence in part but not all, integrated transport was challenging and needed an ongoing conversation with TDC re public transport funding, there had been a submission asking the councils to amalgamate, that was a discussion to be had with the Local Government Commission

· a large amount of subdivisions south and west of Richmond with hundreds of houses and the closest public transport was three kilometres away, most of those people worked in the CBD which emphasised the real need for joined-up thinking

· there was a real impact of people of living in Richmond and working in Nelson. Connectivity was required, the problem would not go away, deep conversations with TDC were required

· the need for a proactive campaign on bus transport to maximise success

The meeting was adjourned at 1.02p.m. and reconvened at 1.43p.m.

· Park and Ride facilities were not one of the most viable options. This was only attractive if it saved time, it worked in big cities but needed dedicated infrastructure. A survey had been undertaken in 2013 which gave Council some data, however more data would be needed

· a proposal to reschedule Saturday buses meant they would run slightly later in the evening

· in the future when it became an option, there would be three smaller buses over four routes

· incentive cards for buses – electronic tickets had 20% discount. Council also had a promotional budget which could be used to further promote partnerships with inner city businesses etc

· Stoke Bus Loop, minor changes to the route to accommodate where elderly flats were located were required

· the Arterial Study 2009-11 concluded different results, Council now had Bluetooth data and better data collection, the outcome was to continue with future investigation work

· the Blenheim to Nelson corridor management project - speed limit expectations and consistent traffic flow, this required good safety messaging, technology and journey planning

· there was a land use crossover with the transport network, creating green spaces that were enjoyable to walk and cycle

· Council was preparing to use a new app ‘Smart Travel’, it had signed up but had no capacity to incentivise it as a webmaster would be required

· Carpooling numbers were static. Kerr Street was not running at optimal capacity, it was functioning on a first-in first-served basis, dedicated car parks for car poolers would come up in Smart Travel talks

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting at 2.32p.m. and returned at 2.35p.m.

· educational material about road classification, for example what a regional distributor looks like

· the lack of bus terminal toilets was a simple aspect that stopped significant numbers using public transport

· smart little city vision, Council should take good ideas from its population and see if it could translate those concepts into its vision

· crossing point at Basin Reserve and Day’s Track - NZTA initially indicated that plans were feasible, then it said internal processes did not support that location at that point in time and that it needed to be part of the bigger picture

· safety and access outcomes could be further discussed as part of the deliberations

· a bus route to Monaco was a future possibility

· speed limits could not be reduced below 50 kms per hour on state highways by law

· Council was looking at a pedestrian refuge on Nayland Road

· the dangers of drivers avoiding main roads and zero tolerance for speeding through residential streets. Traffic calming could produce even more frustration

Extension of Meeting Time

Resolved RTC/2018/005

That the Regional Transport Committee

Extends the meeting time beyond six hours, pursuant to Standing Order 4.2.

Her Worship the Mayor/Rutledge Carried

The meeting was adjourned at 3.17p.m. and reconvened at 3.27p.m.

Attendance: Member Harland left the meeting at 3.34p.m. and returned at 3.35p.m.

· the lack of shady spots for truck drivers taking statutory breaks

· would the increase in the Whakatū maintenance budget mean the possibility of resealing in OGPA (Open Graded Porous Asphalt)? Mr Louverdis to pursue this with NZTA and bring back in a supplementary report

· the need for ‘look bike’ campaigns and e-bike solutions

· the need for collaborative projects with a lead and equal partnership

· the need for school corridors and pedestrian crossings. It was noted that submission #17293 should say Mr Tama Easton, not Mrs, this was to be corrected in the response

· staff were in conversation with the DHB on work which was supporting bikes in schools. There was some budget/staff capacity to work on this

· policy on electric powered vehicles was being was being worked on. The GPS was taking a lead in technology. This was a whole new mode of transport

· a safe cycling network was vital, e-bikes meant speed, bulk and momentum and riders going faster with less capability. Cycling on footpaths was common, Nelson could be a good pilot for e-bikes

· light rail required dense settlements at any station. Mr Harland said that he could find out the minimum viable number of people that trains would need to be carrying as that would be useful. He noted that operator costs were large and encouraged the committee to think outside of the square, for example, gondolas

· the constraints of an arterial network were damaging the economy. Council needed concrete steps working with the new government, carrying on was not acceptable

· pre and post audits on pedestrian refuges has been undertaken, there was a need to check the standard procedure

· low branches on street trees was a safety issue, obstructing views across the intersection

· the detailed business case for the Southern Link was a two-year project beginning in 2018 to 2020

· this was the first time that Council had seen a number of businesses and large organisations submit, Council needed to ensure it engaged adequately with the business community

· the focus on access and regional prosperity in the GPS

· secure cycle storage at the airport would be a good idea as cycle routes are connected

· the bus stop located halfway between Caltex and the SPCA was historic, some work was being done on better locations for that catchment, and a request had been received for a stop on the other side of the road

· Co² reduction and mitigation should be looked at as a whole, this required a commitment as a Council to climate change – ways to develop a carbon neutral transport link, e.g. solar generation bypass barriers, energy generation roading corridors and planting

· work needed to be done on a workplace travel planning exercise, Mr Harland noted that this existed for Christchurch and would give Council the basis for the start of a project. Staff were asked to provide Mr Harland with contact details and he would pass on the information

· staff reassured the committee that the intention was there, and noted that staff had the tools; there was funding for targeting institutions and that the delay had been approval of funding to employ the resource

· Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, said that TDC was seeking approval from NCC to move some of its projects around, and this would be addressed in a supplementary report as questions to needed to be asked of the NZTA to understand any financial risk to topics already in the list

· staff to advise if other projects should be moving forward and given greater emphasis.

Adjournment of Meeting

Resolved RTC/2018/006

That the Regional Transport Committee

Adjourns the meeting until 11 May 2018 at 10.00a.m. in the Council Chamber.

Her Worship the Mayor/Rutledge Carried

The meeting was adjourned at 5.30p.m.

Minutes of a meeting of the Regional Transport Committee

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

On Tuesday 11 May 2018, commencing at 10.09a.m. deliberations of submissions to RLTP and RPTP

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

In Attendance: Councillors B McGurk, I Barker, M Lawrey, Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis) and Governance Adviser (J Brandt)

Apology: Councillor Matheson

Apologies

Resolved RTC/2018/007

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives and accepts an apology from Councillor Matheson .

Her Worship the Mayor/Noonan Carried

The meeting adjourned at 10.11am and reconvened at 10.17am.

The Chairperson noted the change in chairmanship of the Regional Transport Committee as decided at the 3 Council 2018 meeting.

Interests

No interests were raised.

Order of Business

It was noted the meeting time had been extended and that a light lunch would be served.

Late Items

Resolved RTC/2018/008

That the Regional Transport Committee

That the Regional Transport Committee

Considers the item regarding Submission on the Draft Investment Assessment Framework for the 2018-21 National Land Transport Programme at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable a timely decision to be made; and

That the Regional Transport Committee

Considers the item regarding Transport Agency Investment Proposal 2018-27 at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable a timely decision to be made.

Rutledge/Noonan Carried

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

Group Manager Infrastructure Alec Louverdis spoke to his report and noted changes to the officer recommendations on page 7 of the agenda. Some changes were a result of further investigation of work currently in the Transport AMP non-subsidised work programme for inclusion in the RLTP.

For the Marsden Valley Ridgeway Upgrade it was noted that whilst no detailed business case had been carried out that a change in phasing was appropriate to allow more realistically for future development requirements in the valley.

The inclusion of the recommendation to have Nelson Travel Demand Management/Active Travel as a separate activity was to put due focus on these matters.

Mr Louverdis further answered questions about the Tahunanui cycle network, its consistency with the Rocks Road walkway and the Nelson Southern Link Investigation; constraints on the network limiting housing in areas such as Marsden Valley.

The meeting was adjourned at 11.10am and reconvened at 11.25am.

Team Leader City Development Ms Gibellini answered questions about the growth areas Marsden Valley, Toi Toi and Saxton, as well as the Tasman Heights area, Waimea Road/ Princes Drive connection.

Attendance: Mr Harland left the meeting at 11.29am, returned at 11.31am, and left the meeting again at 11.41am.

Bus Services

The meeting noted the increased focus on public transport in the Draft Government Policy Statement 2018 on Land Transport and felt that a targeted survey to identify barriers to Nelson and Richmond residents using bus services was required and that funds needed to be set aside for this. Acting Senior Strategic Advisor Mark Tregurtha answered questions about the survey methodology.

It was noted that Tasman District Council was undertaking investigations into a collector service, including a study to explore routes and bus stops for Richmond.

Attendance: Mr Harland returned to the meeting at 12.08p.m.

Officers answered questions regarding processes required and options available to introduce speed reductions. The committee noted its preference not to wait for the development of a Speed Management Plan under the NZTA timelines, but wanted those areas identified as having current speed issues prioritised and brought back to the Regional Transport Committee for discussion.

The meeting discussed inclusion of funding for the e-bike project and noted that secure lock up facilities, and the inner city bike hub needed to be considered alongside e-bikes.

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.47pm and reconvened at 1.19pm.

The meeting agreed to include additional funds of $250,000 in each of Y2 and Y3 to get some projects under way to achieve Nelson City Council’s vision to be leaders in e-bikes and travel demand management. It was noted that the funding would sit under the Low Cost/ Low Risk budget.

Electronic Bus Ticketing

Electronic Bus Ticketing was discussed, in particular changes to fares in Y1. The committee asked officers to investigate in Y1 possible fare reductions with the consortium, as well as the possibility of a trial, and how easily fare changes can be made after the introduction of the electronic ticketing system, and report back to a future Regional Transport Committee meeting.

Attendance: Her Worship Mayor R Reese left the meeting at 1.48p.m.

Transport Review

It was noted that the next public transport review was to occur in Y2. The committee asked to bring the transport review forward to Y1 as this was considered a priority. Mr Dougherty noted that this amendment would require an additional resource in form of a transport planner and this was endorsed by the Committee.

Transport Agency Investment Proposal (TAIP)

Mr Harland noted that while he had some detail on the additional projects NZTA had signalled in their TAIP that he did not have the full detail. More information was required for the committee to make a decision as to whether to include the Noise Wall and Improvement programme, the SH6 Nelson to Richmond Safe System Enhancements and the Active Road User Corridor Programme – Nelson Safer Corridor project. It was noted that an independent legal opinion was that these projects could not be included in the RLTP, not even as a placeholder.

Mr Harland was advised that in regards to ‘SH Low Cost/ Low Risk improvements 2018-21’, the committee needed clarification as to what the proposed changes in funding (reduction) meant. The Committee requested that detail relating to these four projects be brought back to the RTC prior to 30 June 2018.

Attendance: Her Worship Mayor R Reese returned to the meeting at 2.14p.m.

Nelson Southern Link Investigation

Council’s expert transport advisor Neil Cree from JustAddLime answered questions regarding priority order and thresholds.

It was agreed to leave further discussion on the matter of the Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan - Deliberations Report to lie until later in the meeting.

9 Submission on the Draft Investment Assessment Framework for the 2018-21 National Land Transport Programme

In response to a question regarding the online submission format, Mr Harland advised that it would be acceptable to provide the feedback in a form that works for Nelson City Council. He further noted that where examples as to why the format works against Nelson in regards to weightings, the submission should make that clear and ask that this is taken into consideration.

In answer to a question, Mr Harland noted that there were different options to pursue funding and recommended that arterial network constraints be presented to NZTA.

The meeting adjourned from 2.49pm to 2.51pm.

The meeting noted that despite envisaged amendments to the, there would be no changes to the recommendations. Mr Louverdis confirmed he would change the format of the submission to a letter format and implement other amendments as discussed.

Resolved RTC/2018/009

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Submission on the Draft Investment Assessment Framework for the 2018-21 National Land Transport Programme (R9265) and its attachment (A1960691); and

Delegates authority to approve any minor changes to the submission on the Draft Investment Assessment Framework for the 2018-21 National Land Transport Programme (A1960691 of report R9265), based on feedback from this meeting, to Her Worship the Mayor and the Chair of the Regional Transport Committee; and

Approves for signing, by the Mayor and Chair of the Regional Transport Committee, and lodging with the New Zealand Transport Agency, the submission on the Draft Investment Assessment Framework for the 2018-21 National Land Transport Programme (A1960691 of report R9265).

Her Worship the Mayor/Rutledge Carried

10 Transport Agency Investment Proposal 2018-27

Mr Louverdis presented the report.

Mr Harland noted that whilst he had some Active Road User Corridor programme information to share with Nelson City Council and asked that Mr Louverdis amend the letter to NZTA to reflect this before it was finalised.

Resolved RTC/2018/010

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Transport Agency Investment Proposal 2018-27 (R8850) and its attachments (A1959942); and

Delegates authority to approve any minor changes to the draft letter to the New Zealand Transport Agency on the recently released Transport Agency Investment Proposal 2018-27 (TAIP) attached as A1959942 to report R9273, based on feedback from this meeting, to Her Worship the Mayor and Deputy Chair of the Regional Transport Committee; and

Approves for signing, by the Mayor and Chair of the Regional Transport Committee and lodging with the New Zealand Transport Agency, the letter on the Transport Agency Investment Proposal 2018-27 (TAIP), attached as A1959942 to report R9273.

Rutledge/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

The meeting adjourned at 2.57pm and reconvened at 3.30pm without Her Worship the Mayor R Reese present.

11 Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan - Deliberations Report (supplementary agenda item 8)

	Resolved RTC/2018/011 *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* in principle the amended Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021 (Mid-Term Review) and 2018 Regional Public Transport Plan (A1962674 of Report R9274) for Council 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* · *Include $10,000 in Y1 to undertake a survey to gauge why ratepayers do not use public transport (including canvassing Richmond residents); and* · *Include a separate item “Nelson TDM/Active travel” with a capital budget of $250,000 in each of Y2 and Y3; and* · *Change the phasing of the Marsden/Ridgeway intersection project commencing in 2018/19 with budget and phasing of:* *2018/19 $50,000* *2019/20 $100,000* *2020/21 $500,000* *2021/22 $50,000* *Agrees* to investigate in Y1 fare reduction during peak hour to encourage patronage when arterial routes are at their busiest, and report the implications back to a future Regional Transport Committee that would allow, if required, a variation to the Regional Land Transport Plan; and *Agrees* *to bring forward the public transport review to Y1; and* *Agrees* *that officers report back to a future Regional Transport Committee meeting prior to the end of June 2018 with more information relating to the following:* - *Noise Wall and Improvement Programme; and* - *SH6 Nelson to Richmond Safe Systems Enhancements; and* *- Active Road User Corridor Programme – Nelson Safer Corridor; and* *- SH Low Cost/ Low risk improvements 2018/21.* *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).* Noonan/Harland Carried
	Resolved RTC/2018/012 *That the Council* *Includes* *in the Long Term Plan (LTP) the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) work programme and budget as proposed by the Regional Transport Committee on 11 May 2018.* Noonan/Harland Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 3.49pm.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 7: NZTA Proposed Projects for inclusion in the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan

Regional Transport Committee

19 June 2018

REPORT R9325

NZTA Proposed Projects for inclusion in the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider additional information with respect to New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) State Highway (SH) projects, currently in the Transport Agency Investment Proposal (TAIP), and to assist the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) in its deliberations to either include or not include these projects in the Draft Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) to be lodged with NZTA by 30 June 2018.

1.2 To approve the lodging of the RLTP and Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) with Council for approval.

2. Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan - Proposed NZTA State Highway Projects (R9325) and its attachments (A1977693 and A1962674); and

Approves inclusion of the following three New Zealand Transport Agency State Highway projects into the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021 (Mid-Term Review), with the words as detailed in item 3.6 of Report R9325:

· Noise Wall and Improvement Programme;

· SH6 Nelson to Richmond Safe Systems Enhancements;

· Active Road User Corridor Programme – Nelson Safer Corridor; and

Notes that these three projects will be consulted on separately as a variation to the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021 (under section 18D of the Land Transport Management Act 2003); 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; and

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.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the revised Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021 (Mid-Term Review) and 2018 Regional Public Transport Plan (A1942674 as per Report R9325) for submission to the New Zealand Transport Agency prior to 30 June 2018.

3. Background

3.1 A glossary of terms is appended as Attachment 1.

3.2 The RTC deliberated on submissions to the RLTP and RPTP on 11 May 2018 and resolved as follows:

“Agrees that officer’s report back to a future Regional Transport Committee meeting prior to the end of June 2018 with more information relating to the following:

· Noise Wall and Improvement Programme; and

· SH6 Nelson to Richmond Safe Systems Enhancements; and

· Active Road User Corridor Programme – Nelson Safer Corridor; and

· SH Low Cost/ Low risk improvements 2018/21”.

3.3 As a result, the RLTP was not lodged with Council for approval pending more information on these projects.

3.4 A process exists to include new proposals post June 2018 through an application to vary the RLTP and consequently the NLTP. This variation can be carried out at any stage. NZTA have confirmed that it is essential that Council submit its RLTP to them no later than 30 June 2018 to enable all programme of works to be considered in the NLTP and funding from the NLTF.

3.5 The RTC’s uneasiness at not including these three projects into the RLTP on 11 May was based on:

3.5.1 The lack of specific detail of these projects in both the TAIP and TIO; and

3.5.2 The quantum of the dollars assigned to those projects where the RTC’s Significance Policy of $5M has been triggered; and

3.5.3 Independent legal advice sought by Council (which was distributed to all RTC members before the 11 May meeting), that the RTC should complete its RLTP mid-term review without including the three projects in question as they have not been part of the consultation process to date.

3.6 Council’s legal counsel has since confirmed their previous advice (refer 3.5.3), but have suggested that the following words be inserted into the document (with no indication of dollars) as part of the Nelson Foreword:

“After the mid-term review consultation processes had been completed, NZTA advised that three further projects (Noise Wall and Improvement Programme; SH6 Nelson to Richmond Safe Systems Enhancements and Active Road User Corridor Programme – Nelson Safer Corridor) might receive funding under its revised draft Transport Agency Investment Proposal. The RLTP does not have details of these projects and they are not part of the RLTP, as reviewed. Once details of the projects are known they will be assessed together with any implications for projects already in the RLTP. Any necessary changes to the RLTP to include those projects and any consequential changes will be processed in due course in accordance with section 18D of the Land Transport Management Act 2003”.

3.7 All other changes agreed to by the RTC on 11 May 2018 and Council on 17 May 2018 have been included in the Draft RLTP attached to this report (Attachment 2).

3.8 NZTA’s legal counsel agrees with the latest view from Council’s legal counsel.

4. Discussion – New programme of works

4.1 The current details of the three new programme of works, as provided in the TAIP and TIO, is summarised in the following table:

Activity name	GPS alignment and National Priority	Indicative three year funding	Comments from the TIO
Active Road User Corridor Programme – Nelson Safer Corridor	Safety 1	$13.875M	Delivery of Safer Corridor treatments to reduce pedestrian and cyclist road trauma. Currently in High Risk Active Rd User Programme
Noise Walls and 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 and other treatments on high collective risk roads (within quick-win median barrier programme)

4.2 At time of writing this report, the detail provided by NZTA for each of these projects, is as follows:

Active Road User Corridor programme – Nelson Safer Corridor

4.3 This is one of a number of similar projects across the country and targets making urban SHs safer for active mode users. The opportunities targeted are those corridors with an abnormal number of Detailed Site Investigations involving active road users including Nelson, but at this stage the details are yet to be identified. The types of works envisaged in projects like this across the country include:

· Potentially signalised crossings or similar to make conflicting journeys safer;

· Speed management devices;

· Separated facilities for active users.

4.4 As there is no programme of works, NZTA are not yet able to identify locations, and the budget is a provisional item for specific works. Because the treatments selected should be part of the urban transport system of Nelson, they should be developed with the city and will likely require community engagement of a specific nature for each prospective project in the programme.

Noise Walls and Improvement Programme

4.5 This is a representation of a nationwide approach to mitigating road noise reflected in the nationwide programme business case. Solutions (surfacing treatments are in the mix of potential solutions), where identified, will be developed in conjunction with Nelson and any affected parties. Where proposed solutions are shown not to be practicable they may be removed from the programme.

SH6 Nelson to Richmond Safe System Enhancements

4.6 This project contemplates activities associated with mitigating the occurrence and consequences of crashes, eg wide flush medians, side barriers etc. The work to date is a risk based “desktop” investigation of sections of the State Highway network that demonstrated a high crash rate. The programme was developed based on the potential for these types of treatments to be implemented to achieve a marked change in safety outcomes.

5. Discussion – SH Low Cost/ Low Risk Improvements

5.1 This programme of works (with a national priority of three) is already in the RLTP but the TAIP has signalled a decrease in spending for the Nelson area from $4,110,000 over three years to $210,000 over three years.

5.2 The detail provided by the NZTA at time of writing this report is that:

5.2.1 The provision for Nelson is just that, a provision and will vary as specific opportunities are developed into proposals with sufficient nationwide priority to proceed. Projects will be nationally prioritised according to safety, resilience and efficiency and will be subject to the nationwide budget/affordability cap.

5.2.2 The budgets for Nelson and elsewhere have been carried forward to 2019/20 and beyond at the 2018/19 rate because no details of the programmes have been developed beyond 2018/19 in complete detail across the country. These provisions will change as the specific projects for “out years” are developed and the cost of high priority projects in each region become apparent, limited by the nationwide budget.

6. Options

6.1 The RTC has three options with respect to the three new programmes of work. Either:

6.1.1 Option 1 - Include in the RLTP (with budgets and no detail) before 30 June 2018 and proceed to consultation as a variation to the RLTP; or

6.1.2 Option 2 - Include in the RLTP as a general note (as suggested by Council’s legal counsel and agreed to by NZTA’s legal counsel) before 30 June 2018 with no budgets and proceed to consultation as a variation to the RLTP; or

6.1.3 Option 3 - Do not include in the RLTP before 30 June 2018 and proceed to consultation as a variation to the RLTP.

Option 1: Include in the RLTP with budgets
Advantages	· Would meet NZTA’s funding requirements.
Risks and Disadvantages	· High risk of legal challenge.
Option 2: Include in the RLTP with conditions
Advantages	· Would signal the intention to include the projects in the RLTP through a variation, which would assist NZTA’s case for NLTF. · Signals to public the potential to add projects to the RLTP subject to further consultation. · Signals that these projects are eligible for national funding subject to consultation. · Falls within RLTP variation process.
Risks and Disadvantages	· None
Option 3: Do not include in the RLTP
Advantages	• Reflects the RLTP document Council consulted on.
Risks and Disadvantages	• Would not meet NZTA’s funding requirements. · No signal that these are eligible for NLTF, but can be added as an RLTP variation.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The RTC has requested specific detail on several projects included in the TAIP, but at time of writing NZTA does not have any detail relating to these projects.

7.2 Council’s legal counsel advice is that these projects should not be included in the RLTP with funding lines, but have suggested wording that can be added into Nelson’s section of the RLTP. This will allow for further consultation to be undertaken once details are known. Council and NZTA officers support this approach.

7.3 This will then allow the RTC to lodge the RLTP/RPTP to Council for approval and for these to be lodged with NZTA by 30 June 2018.

Alec Louverdis

Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1977693 -Regional Transport Committee - Glossary - 24May2018 ⇩

Attachment 2: A1962674 - Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2018 Mid Term Review ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Providing a RLTP and RPTP is a requirement of the LTMA 2003.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The development of an 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 risk of legal challenge of including the three NZTA projects into the RLTP at this stage is high. However, legal counsel has suggested a process of including appropriate words in the RLTP to mitigate the risk.

4. Financial impact

All other changes agreed to by the RTC on 11 May 2018 have been included in the RLTP and LTP. The three projects in question are NZTA State Highway projects and will have no effect on the LTP and rates. Any necessary changes to the RLTP to include those three projects and any consequential changes will be processed in due course in accordance with section 18D of the Land Transport Management Act 2003 which will ensure that these projects are included in the NLTP and NLTF.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The matter is of high significance because it involves the future form and management of the transport network. Should the advice from Council’s legal counsel be followed, any necessary changes to the RLTP to include those three projects and any consequential changes will be processed in due course in accordance with section 18D of the Land Transport Management Act 2003. That will include comprehensive consultation.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation has been undertaken with Māori.

7. Delegations

The RTC has the responsibility for preparing the RLTP and RPTP in accordance with the requirements of the LTM Act 2003. The RTC functions include:

“To prepare a Regional Transport Plan, or any variation of the Plan, for the approval of Council”.