Agenda of Regional Transport Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Regional Transport Committee

3 December 2018

Page No.

1. Apologies

Nil

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

4.1 Aaryn Barlow - Active Transport Forum

4.2 Peter Olorenshaw - Nelsust

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 3 October 2018 7 - 9

Document number M3801

Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Regional Transport Committee, held on 3 October 2018, as a true and correct record.

6. Chairperson's Report

7. Speed control 10 - 36

Document number R9333

Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Speed control (R9333) and its attachments (A2084572, A2081669, A2083995, A2083996, 2083999, A2084012); and

Notes the work undertaken by officers on speed related issues on Nelson City local roads.

8. Regional Land Transport Plan variation - Saltwater Creek Bridge 37 - 40

Document number R9768

Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Regional Land Transport Plan variation - Saltwater Creek Bridge (R9768);

Approves a variation to the Regional Land Transport Plan 2015–21 to include Saltwater Creek Bridge as a specific project.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the inclusion of $1.2 Million in the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015–21 for Saltwater Creek in the 2018/19 financial year.

9. Nelson Southern Link and Rocks Road Walking Cycling Project 41 - 56

Document number R9734

Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Nelson Southern Link and Rocks Road Walking Cycling Project (R9734) and its attachments (A1977693 and A2102066); and

Notes that updates will be provided to future Regional Transport Committee meetings on progress of the Detailed Business Case of the Nelson Southern Link and Rocks Road Walking and Cycling project.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Endorses the outline scope for the Nelson Southern Link and Rocks Road Walking and Cycling project (A2102066 of Report 9734) that will enable the Detailed Business Case to commence.

10. Proposed Champion Road underpass 57 - 66

Document number R9678

Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Proposed Champion Road underpass (R9678) and its attachment (A2079992); and

Approves, in principle, support for the Champion Road underpass (scheduled to commence in the 2019/20 financial year); and

Notes that the project will be managed entirely by Tasman District Council.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Commits to the allocation of a maximum of $470,000 as a grant payable to Tasman District Council for the Champion roundabout and underpass project as part of the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

Public Excluded Business

11. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Public Transport Cost Adjustment	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
2	Electronic Bus Ticketing	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Public Transport Cost Adjustment

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

· Section 7(2)(i)

To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Electronic Bus Ticketing

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(g)

To maintain legal professional privilege

· Section 7(2)(i)

To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Regional Transport Committee Minutes - 3 October 2018

Minutes of a meeting of the Regional Transport Committee

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

On Wednesday 3 October 2018, commencing at 10.07a.m.

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

In Attendance: Councillors I Barker, M Courtney, K Fulton, M Lawrey, B McGurk, S Walker, Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), New Zealand Transport Agency representatives (S Higgs, J Skinner and J Llewellyn), Nelson Consultant (N Cree) and Governance Adviser (J Brandt)

Apologies : Nil

1. Apologies

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 19 June 2018

Document number M3547, agenda pages 5 - 8 refer.

Resolved RTC/2018/028

That the Regional Transport Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Regional Transport Committee, held on 19 June 2018, as a true and correct record.

Her Worship the Mayor/Rutledge Carried

6. Chairperson's Report

There was no Chairperson’s Report.

7. Regional Land Transport Plan variation - Noise Reduction and Safety Enhancements Programmes

Document number R9473, agenda pages 9 - 18 refer.

The GM Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis presented the report.

Mr Steve Higgs from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) answered questions regarding the methodology applied by NZTA to identify the areas in Nelson requiring noise reduction treatment, noting that it was a desktop exercise.

Attendance: Mr Harland joined the meeting at 10.12a.m.

Attendance: Councillor Matheson left the meeting from 10.16a.m. to 10.18a.m.

Mr Higgs answered questions on implementation and consideration of noise reduction treatment of SH6 for new subdivisions, and noted the Committee’s concerns regarding potential oversights.

Attendance: Councillor Matheson left the meeting from 10.26a.m. to 10.28a.m.

It was noted that speeds and resulting safety issues remained a big community concern.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.36a.m. to 10.50a.m. during which Councillor Matheson left the meeting.

The officer recommendation was amended to include concerns discussed regarding noise reduction for future residential areas and consideration of a trial to lower speed zones.

Resolved RTC/2018/029

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Regional Land Transport Plan variation - Noise Reduction and Safety Enhancements Programmes and its attachment (A2061349); and

Notes that the New Zealand Transport Agency will be writing to Tasman District Council requesting it to include “Safe Enhancements Programme on the State Highway Network” into its Regional Land Transport Plan as a matter of urgency; and

Requests that the New Zealand Transport Agency, recognising current and future residential housing is close to SH6, provide further information to a future Regional Transport Committee meeting on possible future road treatments between Haven Road and Todd Bush Road; and

Requests that the New Zealand Transport Agency considers a reduced speed limit along SH6 between Haven Road and Todd Bush Road and report their findings back to a future Regional Transport Committee meeting.

Rutledge/Noonan Carried

Recommendation to Council RTC/2018/031

That the Council

Approves that the Nelson Regional Land Transport Programme 2015-21 be varied to include a total of $4.97M for “Noise Improvements” and $350,000 for “Safety Enhancements on the State Highway Network” spread over the 2018-21 financial years.

Rutledge/Noonan

There being no further business the meeting ended at 10.55am.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 7: Speed control

Regional Transport Committee

3 December 2018

REPORT R9333

Speed control

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To update the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) on speed control issues and mitigation on the local roading network.

2. Summary

2.1 At the 10 April 2018 RTC meeting, officers were asked to consider speed reductions for specific areas and bring back a report to a future RTC meeting. Officers reported back to the 11 May 2018 meeting that a speed limit review is planned to commence in 2018/19 and will be undertaken using the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) guidelines. Background information contained in this report, along with NZTA developed tools will guide that review and engagement with the community prior to the development of a Speed Management Plan.

2.2 This report provides information to the RTC about where the local speed “hot spots” are, what action has been taken to date, and what possible future options might exist to mitigate concerns. In compiling this list officers have engaged with local police, looked back through service requests from concerned citizens and studied crash and speed count data. It is worth noting that “hot spots” include areas where no crashes or excessive speeds are recorded but where residents are concerned about amenity, inappropriate and excessive speeds and perceived safety risk. On many occasions when pets, typically cats, have been run over the complainants are understandably distressed and are calling for action.

3. Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Speed control (R9333) and its attachments (A2084572, A2081669, A2083995, A2083996, 2083999, A2084012); and

Notes the work undertaken by officers on speed related issues on Nelson City local roads.

4. Background

4.1 The current default urban speed limit is 50km/h, however in selected locations higher and lower speeds exist. A map of the speed limits across the network is appended as Attachment 1.

4.2 NZTA has taken a relatively new approach to speed management in New Zealand. The aim is to have a consistent and evidenced-based approach that is supported by community engagement and better conversations on road safety risk. NZTA has developed resources and tools including the Speed Management Guide to support this new process, and to support Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs).

5. Discussion

Locations

5.1 Concerns about speed at a number of locations have come to officers’ attention through service requests, submissions and crash reports. A table is appended as Attachment 2 showing the location, nature of complaint, data and actions taken, including Police feedback over the last five years.

Safety

5.2 Nelson’s crash performance after a long term decline has been trending up since 2015. Increasing deaths and serious injury (DSI) crashes in Nelson is mirroring the upward national trend. Of the DSI crashes recorded on Nelson’s local roads in the last five years only 6.3% (actual number 13) were speed related. Failure to look, and failure to give way were the most common causes of our DSI crashes, followed by alcohol impairment.

5.3 National and international evidence suggests the safety performance of the network could be improved by lowering speed limits on the highest risk sections of the network. Most national work has focused on high speed crashes on open or rural roads and no local analysis been done to fully understand the relationship between lowered speed limits on urban networks and injury trends.

Mode shift

5.4 In line with the direction of the Government Policy Statement on Transport (GPS), NCC has a desire to deliver projects aimed at increased walking and cycling and lowering speeds that may encourage a greater numbers of walkers and cyclists. This active mode shift will in turn contribute towards reduced congestion, reduced environmental impacts of transport and improved user health.

Council response to speed complaints. When a concern or complaint comes to council officers, the following steps are followed:

5.5 Speed count data - Tube speed counts are taken at regular intervals across the City’s network, the frequency depending on the road hierarchy and history. When a speed complaint is received officers check when the last count was taken and if it was not within the last 12 months arrange for a new count to be done. These counts record volume and speeds giving a breakdown of the lowest, average, highest and the 85^th percentile speeds.

5.6 Enforcement - Speed count tube data is routinely shared with police to assist with enforcement. The data provides information on speed, direction of travel and time of day so enforcement can be targeted. Often speed count data indicates the legal speed limit is not being exceeded and speeds are generally compliant so no enforcement action can be taken.

5.7 Crash data - NZTA manages the Crash Analysis System (CAS) which is New Zealand’s primary tool for capturing information on where, when and how road crashes occur. The system provides tools to analyse and map crashes and enables users to identify high-risk locations and monitor trends and crash sites. This information helps inform transport policy, design and prioritise road safety improvements, (such as speed limit changes) and monitor their effectiveness. A summary of CAS data for speed related crashes on the local network in the last five years is appended as Attachment 3.

5.8 Community action and education

· Complainants are invited to take “community action” by using Council supplied high quality vinyl stickers to display on their recycling bins or letter boxes. These stickers convey a message that speeding drivers are not welcome in their street. Often complainants will distribute these stickers to their neighbours.

· Stopping Distance demonstrations are held across the city every two years, usually outside schools. The next demonstrations will be held in March 2019. These demonstrations and publicity surrounding them raise awareness about the risks of driving at an inappropriate speed.

· Examples of community action and education are shown in Attachment 4.

5.9 Feedback Signage - Driver feedback signs can be temporarily erected across the network. These electronic signs detect a vehicle’s approach speed and provide immediate feedback indicating compliance or the need to slow down if required. In previous years Council owned two digital driver feedback signs and they were rotated around the network at specific locations for three months at a time. Council has purchased an additional five electronic signs which will enable greater coverage for longer periods at each location. These signs also record data. Analysis of that data has demonstrated they have an effect of slowing traffic. Photographs of driver feedback signs are appended in Attachment 5.

5.10 Infrastructural changes - In some cases changes to roading infrastructure is required to make the road more “self-explanatory” and to control speeds to an appropriate level for the form and function of the road location. These traffic calming measures may take the form of speed humps, chicanes or lane narrowing. Examples of measures taken in various locations around the network are shown in Attachment 6.

5.11 Speed limit changes - Where it is clearly demonstrated that a posted speed limit is inappropriate and engagement indicates there is community support for a speed limit change the limit can be included in a formal speed limit review as per the NZTA guidelines and process.

Next steps in Speed management

5.12 In the past the process to change speed limits and/or trial reduced speed limits has been a very protracted process and has been identified as a major constraining issue by most RCA’s. The Nelson 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”. In a recent conversation with Ministry of Transport officials the RTC Chair made this point again and was advised that a speed reference group has been developed to work on an alternative approach. The Chair indicated NCC would be open to trialling any new approach.

5.13 NCC is preparing for a full speed limit bylaw review in 2019/20. Preliminary work undertaken this financial year will include developing an overlay of our road network and testing how the speed limits effect the amenity and liveability aspects of our streets with particular focus on how speed limits impact active transport users.

5.14 Under the Local Government Act a special consultative procedure is required to alter speed limits. It is anticipated that will be carried out early 2020.

6. Conclusion

6.1 This report is supplied for information only to advise committee members of where issues of excessive or inappropriate speed have been identified. It outlines the approach Council has taken to mitigate speed risk and advises of the upcoming Speed Limit Bylaw review scheduled for 2019/20.

Author: Margaret Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2084572 Maps of Local Nelson Speed limits ⇩

Attachment 2: A2081669 Speed issues summary table November 2018 ⇩

Attachment 3: A2083995 Speed related crashes by street ⇩

Attachment 4: A2083996 Examples of Community action and education ⇩

Attachment 5: A2083999 Driver feedback signage - examples ⇩

Attachment 6: A2084012 Examples of Infrastructure to influence speed ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Setting of speed limits fits with how Council meets the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

The Council as Road Controlling Authority is required to set speed limits that are safe and appropriate and give effect to nationally consistent and evidence based speeds through the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2017, Rule 54001/2017.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Speed appropriate limits meet the following Community Outcomes:

· “Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed”.

· “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”.

3. Risk

This report is for information only

4. Financial impact

This report is for information only

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This report is of low significance as it is provided as information only and no decision is required.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori were not consulted in the preparation of this report.

7. Delegations

The Regional Transport Committee has the following delegations:

Functions:

· To prepare a Regional Land Transport Plan, or any variation of the Plan, for the approval of Council

· To provide Council with any advice and assistance Council may request in relation to its transport responsibilities

Specific Delegations:

· To develop a Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP)

· To undertake any variations or changes to the RLTP

· To develop any Regional fuel tax scheme authorised by the legislation

· To approve submissions to external bodies on policy documents likely to influence the content of the RLTP.

Item 8: Regional Land Transport Plan variation - Saltwater Creek Bridge

Regional Transport Committee

3 December 2018

REPORT R9768

Regional Land Transport Plan variation - Saltwater Creek Bridge

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve a variation to include Saltwater Creek Bridge (bridge) in the Regional Land Transport Plan 2015–21 (RLTP) as a stand-alone project to enable access to the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF).

2. Summary

The construction of the new bridge and additional funding to allow a tender to be awarded was approved by the Works and Infrastructure Committee in September 2018. 2.2 The project attracts funding from the Urban Cycleway Fund (UCF) of $500,000 with the balance of the funding provided by Nelson City Council (NCC).

2.3 The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has advised that NLTF funding is potentially available, which will reduce the impact on Nelson ratepayers. To gain access to the NLTF the project needs to be included in the RLTP.

2.4 The project was originally included in the Nelson RLTP under the Low Cost/Low Risk category. Because the value of the project is now in excess of $1 Million (the limit for the Low Cost/Low Risk category), the project needs to be included as a stand-alone project.

3. Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Regional Land Transport Plan variation - Saltwater Creek Bridge (R9768);

Approves a variation to the Regional Land Transport Plan 2015–21 to include Saltwater Creek Bridge as a specific project.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the inclusion of $1.2 Million in the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015–21 for Saltwater Creek in the 2018/19 financial year.

4. Background

4.1 The existing Saltwater Creek Bridge is a narrow pedestrian facility that offers a very poor level of service to cyclists. Upgrading the bridge will enable cyclists to access the new pathway connecting the City to the sea without the need to negotiate the Haven Road roundabout.

4.2 The Saltwater Creek Bridge will be an integral part of the SH6 Rocks Road walking and cycling facility. It has relevance in a future arterial corridor that will eventually make connection to the Great Taste Trail.

4.3 The total estimated cost of the bridge is $1.2 Million and additional funding of $300,000 was approved by the Works and Infrastructure Committee in September 2018 to allow the award of a tender.

4.4 NZTA have indicated that in addition to the UCF funding that funding from the NLTF may be forthcoming but that to gain access to the fund, will require the project to be included in the RLTP as a stand-alone project.

5. Discussion

5.1 Gaining access to the NLTF will reduce NCC’s share of the cost and potentially reduce the impact on Nelson’s ratepayers. By placing this in the RLTP, NCC will be eligible for a 51% Funding Assistance Rate up to $1 Million, reducing the ratepayer’s contribution. Anything in excess of $1 Million is 100% NCC funded.

Funding source	Funding split if project not included in RLTP	Funding split if project included in RLTP
UCF fund	$500,000	$500,000
NZTA FAR subsidy (on the balance up to $1M)	nil	$255,000
NCC contribution	$700,000	$445,000

6. Options

6.1 There are two options open to the RTC – Include in the RTLP or not include in the RLTP.

Option 1: Include in the RLTP
Advantages	· Access to funding from the NLTF reduces local share.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Do not include in the RLTP
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Additional cost to Nelson ratepayers.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee has approved additional funds towards the Saltwater Creek Bridge that will allow a tender to be approved. NZTA have indicated that in addition to the UCF funding (provided the project is included in the RLTP as a stand-alone project,) that further funding could be forthcoming from the NLTF.

7.2 Officers support including this project in the RLTP which will potentially allow for reducing the cost to Nelson’s ratepayers.

Author: Paul D'Evereux, Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This project meets the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The project is included in the LTP and meets the following Community Outcomes:

· “Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed”

· “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”.

3. Risk

Including this project in the RLTP potentially reduces the financial impact on Nelson residents.

4. Financial impact

Including this project in the RLTP could attract further funding from the NLTF and reduce impact on Nelson ratepayers.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because Saltwater Creek Bridge was included in the RLTP as a project within the Low Cost Low Risk programme prior to the mid-term review. Consultation was carried out as part of the process of adopting the RLTP. Cost escalation necessitates the project moving from being part of a programme to become a separate line item in the RLTP. No further consultation is planned.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori were not consulted in the writing of this report.

7. Delegations

The Regional Transport Committee has the following delegations:

Areas of Responsibility:

· To prepare a Regional Land Transport Plan, or any variation of the Plan, for the approval of Council

· To provide Council with any advice and assistance Council may request in relation to its transport responsibilities

Powers to Decide:

· To undertake any variations or changes to the RLTP

Item 9: Nelson Southern Link and Rocks Road Walking Cycling Project

Regional Transport Committee

3 December 2018

REPORT R9734

Nelson Southern Link and Rocks Road Walking Cycling Project

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the outline scope that will allow the commencement of the Detailed Business Case (DBC) for the Southern Link/Rocks Road Walking Cycling project (SLI/RR). Note that a glossary of terms is appended as Attachment 1.

2. Summary

2.1 Following completion of the Programmed Business Case (PBC) for the SLI/RR project, NZTA have committed to commencing the DBC and the RTC now need to make the decision to endorse the outline scope that will allow the DBC to proceed.

3. Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Nelson Southern Link and Rocks Road Walking Cycling Project (R9734) and its attachments (A1977693 and A2102066); and

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Endorses the outline scope for the Nelson Southern Link and Rocks Road Walking and Cycling project (A2102066 of Report 9734) that will enable the Detailed Business Case to commence.

4. Background

4.1 This Council has been a strong supporter of the SLI/RR project and this was signalled in its recently adopted LTP.

4.2 The PBC was undertaken and approved by NZTA under the previous GPS. The new GPS has a different focus than the previous GPS and there is a need to re-fresh the scope of the project to guide the DBC.

4.3 NZTA have committed to commencing the DBC and working collaboratively with the NCC on developing a scope for the investigation. Following a briefing to councillors on 4 September 2018, officers and their consultants met with NZTA and its team in Wellington on 9 November to develop a scope to guide the DBC that will enable the project to move forward.

4.4 NZTA has set aside $4.5M in the 2018-21 NLTP for development of the DBC ($3M of which remains). Funding has not been allocated by NZTA to implement any recommendations that may arise from the DBC in the 2018-2021 NLTP. Implementation funding, including any cost share arrangements that may be required with investment partners such as Council, will be considered collaboratively as part of the DBC process.

5. Discussion

5.1 The draft scope is appended as Attachment 2 and members of the project team will be at this meeting to present to the RTC.

6. Options

6.1 The options are to approve or not approve the scope for the DBC. Officer’s support approving the scope.

Option 1: Approve the scope for the DBC
Advantages	· Will allow the DBC for the project to continue. · Aligns with Council’s support of the project.
Risks and Disadvantages	· None
Option 2: Not approve the scope for the DBC
Advantages	· None
Risks and Disadvantages	· Will not enable the project to move forward · Does not align with Council’s support of the project

7. Conclusion

7.1 The next phase, following the approval of the outline scope of the SLI/RR project is for the DBC to commence.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1977693 - Glossary ⇩

Attachment 2: A2102066 - Draft Nelson DBC scoping document ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Progressing with the DBC will allow forward planning to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local/regional infrastructure and local/regional public services.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The commencement of the DBC will contribute to the following community outcomes:

· “Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed”

· “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”

· “Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient”

· “Our communities have opportunities to celebrate and explore their heritage, identity and creativity”

· “Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement”

· “Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy”.

3. Risk

The risk of not proceeding with the DBC is that uncertainty will remain on the future form and function of the transport system within Nelson, making future planning for Nelson and the region difficult. This will constrain growth, not address congestion on the city’s roads, not address the key GPS pillars or provide for safe walking and cycling.

4. Financial impact

NZTA has set aside $4.5M in the 2018-21 NLTP for this work ($3M of which remains). NZTA has agreed to fund Council’s specialist consultant.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of significance as the ratepayers and transport users have a high level of interest Nelson’s transport system. Consultation with ratepayers will take place as part of the DBC.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Delegations

Operation of the Regional Transport Committee is governed by the Land Transport Management Act 2003.

“6.13.1 Functions:

• To prepare a Regional Land Transport Plan, or any variation of the Plan, for the approval of Council

• To provide Council with any advice and assistance Council may request in relation to its transport responsibilities

6.13.2 Specific Delegations:

• To develop a Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP)

• To undertake any variations or changes to the RLTP

• To develop any Regional fuel tax scheme authorised by the legislation

• To approve submissions to external bodies on policy documents likely to influence the content of the RLTP”.

Item 10: Proposed Champion Road underpass

Regional Transport Committee

3 December 2018

REPORT R9678

Proposed Champion Road underpass

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek endorsement from the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) to support the Champion Road underpass.

2. Summary

2.1 Council has previously committed $150,000 through the Long Term Plan (LTP) in 2019/20 towards a contribution to intersection roundabout improvements at the Salisbury Road and Champion Road roundabout. As the work is within the Tasman District Council (TDC) boundary it will be a loan funded grant made to TDC.

2.2 The cost of the proposed intersection upgrade was initially estimated at $900,000 and was jointly funded by TDC, New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Nelson City Council (NCC) and Progressive Enterprises (Progressives), the developer of the site on the corner of Champion and Salisbury Roads. Progressives subsequently added a financial contribution of $325,000 and a land contribution of $100,000. These contributions from them have reduced the contributions from NCC, TDC, and NZTA.

2.3 A renewed focus on safety and accessibility has resulted in TDC proposing an underpass on Champion Road to meet the needs of vulnerable road users. Construction of the underpass will need to be undertaken at the same time as the roundabout capacity improvements to maximise contribution from Progressives, to ensure wise spend of money and to minimise disruption.

2.4 The NCC is also planning shared pathway improvements along the Saxton Field side of Main Road Stoke and how this connection integrates with the proposed underpass is important in order to allow NCC officers to progress the works.

2.5 The revised estimate for the entire intersection upgrade, including the roundabout and underpass is $3.354M. This price has a 30% contingency built in to the underpass component of the project. TDC notes that this will be funded by them (28%), NZTA (44%) and Progressives (14%) but is seeking support/approval from NCC for a contribution to the underpass in addition to the contribution already committed to the intersection upgrade. The value it now seeks as an NCC contribution is $470,000 (14% of the total cost and $320,000 more than the commitment already from NCC).

2.6 TDC will project manage all construction work and no NCC staff resource is required.

2.7 If the RTC supports this project, recognising the cross boundary issues, then NCC will need to fund this through the 2019/20 Annual Plan process.

3. Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

Receives the report Proposed Champion Road underpass (R9678) and its attachment (A2079992); and

Approves, in principle, support for the Champion Road underpass (scheduled to commence in the 2019/20 financial year); and

Notes that the project will be managed entirely by Tasman District Council.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Commits to the allocation of a maximum of $470,000 as a grant payable to Tasman District Council for the Champion roundabout and underpass project as part of the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

4. Background

4.1 There has been significant growth in traffic in the area of Champion and Salisbury Roads near the boundary of NCC and TDC over the last few years.

4.2 A project exists to undertake an upgrade of the roundabout at the intersection of Champion Road and Salisbury Road to improve intersection delay and to meet demand for current and future commercial and residential growth. This is funded party by TDC, NCC, NZTA and Progressives. NCC’s LTP includes an amount of $150,000 as a grant to TDC for this project in 2019/20.

4.3 Growth in the region is not only generating vehicular traffic, but is also creating additional pedestrian and cycle traffic, especially in this area which is adjacent to seven schools.

4.4 Progressives has been granted a plan change to allow development of a Countdown supermarket complex at the corner of Salisbury and Champions Roads – including a 3,200m² supermarket, a 200m² retail space and 600m² community space. Potential uses for this spaces are a gym, a day care facility a medical practice and a café. A transportation assessment of the development has indicated that the development is likely to generate 400 vehicles/hour. A condition of the plan change approval is that the existing low level of service at the roundabout regarding capacity is addressed by 2020.

4.5 The roundabout intersection has a crash record where active transport users are over represented. Over the past 10 years there have been eight recorded accidents on or near the Salisbury/Champion Road roundabout. All these crashes involved cyclists, pedestrians or smaller slow moving vehicles such as mopeds. The original capacity improvements proposed for this intersection do not address the safety risks to active users and would make the roundabout more challenging for pedestrians and cyclists.

4.6 The Government Policy Statement (GPS) on transport released in April 2018 demonstrates a strong commitment to safety and access. In line with this both NCC and TDC have strategies in place to improve safety and increase active transport, including improvements planned either side of this intersection.

4.7 TDC have assessed the potential options to make active transport improvements at this intersection and favour an underpass on Champion Road (refer to Attachment 1 for layout sketch). Many options were considered and whilst some were at a lower cost they did not provide the same level of assurance of safety for vulnerable users. The underpass would also provide benefits to the residents of Nelson South seeking to gain access to the facilities in the area.

4.8 The project has a high strategic fit with the GPS and is likely to be eligible for a Targeted Enhanced Financial Assistance Rate (TEFAR) from NZTA. A TEFAR would raise the NZTA contribution from 51% to 75% and would reduce the contribution from NCC and others. TDC would progress the application for TEFAR.

5. Discussion

5.1 The project has two parts:

5.1.1 The construction of the roundabout at the intersection of Champion Road, and Salisbury Road valued at $999,000; and

5.1.2 The construction of the underpass. The underpass includes a concrete culvert beneath Champion Road on the eastern side of the roundabout. Concrete ramps, aligning with the shared paths either side will be formed and access steps, (closer to the opening to the culvert) will be provided to allow a more direct route for pedestrians as shown in Attachment 1.

Roundabout

5.2 The roundabout is to be funded by Progressives, TDC, NCC and NZTA. The cost for the roundabout upgrade is summarised in the chart below. The chart below reflects a smaller NCC contribution ($93,753) now than requested initially by TDC and included in the NCC’s LTP as the $150,000 was based on an initial concept cost estimate and Progressives have now also included both financial and land contributions of $325,000 and $100,000 respectively.

Underpass

5.3 The underpass has a proposed cost of $2.355 Million and is distributed as per the chart below. It is noted that Progressives is not required to contribute to the underpass as part of their consent. They have however provided an extra contribution in land to ensure the required approach grades to the underpass.

Roundabout and underpass

5.4 The total cost of the intersection upgrade and the underpass have been assessed as $3.354M (including a 30% contingency) and TDC now seek a larger grant contribution from NCC. The revised estimate for the NCC contribution is $470,000, representing an increase of $320,000 from what has previously been approved in the Long Term Plan (LTP). The relative contributions from each party is shown in the chart below. NCC’s contribution will be around 14% of the total project cost.

5.5 TDC will be responsible for the management of the project through its Project delivery team within its Engineering Services division.

5.6 TDC, NZTA and Woolworths are currently negotiating a commercial agreement for an in-principle funding proposition which will be subject to the agreement of all parties.

5.7 The Ministry for the Environment has released a guideline called Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). CPTED is a crime prevention philosophy based on proper design and effective use of the built environment leading to a reduction in the incidence and fear of crime, as well as an improvement in quality of life. It is expected that as part of the detail design of the underpass, the philosophies of the CPTED will be considered.

5.8 A business case will be developed by TDC over the next 6 months for submission to NZTA to secure the 51% subsidy and the TEFAR.

5.9 TDC plan to commence detailed design and funding applications now and will need a commitment from NCC on their contribution.

6. Options

6.1 There are two options available to the committee. Option 2 is the preferred option.

Option 1: Do not support the underpass in principle and progress with the roundabout capacity improvements only
Advantages	· No additional cost to NCC
Risks and Disadvantages	· Upgrading the intersection, without making improvements for pedestrians and cyclists will make the intersection less safe for those users. The upgrade will create double lane entries to the roundabout which will speed up traffic going through the intersection and require users of the footpaths (or shared paths) to cross three traffic lanes instead of the current two lanes. · Does not reduce the severance between Nelson and Tasman cycling infrastructure · Does not meet Nelson and Tasman strategic objectives · Does not align with new GPS.
Option 2: Support the underpass in principle and endorse request for grant increase through the 2019/20 Annual Plan process
Advantages	· Reduces risk profile for vulnerable users · Takes advantage of Progressives funding as construction for the roundabout / underpass will take place in 2019/20 as per planning condition · Meets Nelson and Tasman Strategic objectives · Meets GPS strategic objectives
Risks and Disadvantages	· Higher capital cost

7. Conclusion

7.1 Current and future growth in the Stoke/Richmond area is putting pressure on and creating conflict between vehicular traffic and active transport users on key routes. The Champion/Salisbury Road intersection is a key route that links NCC and TDC.

7.2 A review of the planned upgrade of the Champion/Salisbury Road intersection has resulted in a preferred option being identified by TDC to install an underpass on Champion Road. The underpass provides the best fit to meet strategic goals of safety and access set out by the GPS and both councils Regional Land Transport Plans (RLTP’s). There is considerable benefit to Nelson residents in progressing the project.

7.3 The project has been budgeted to be undertaken in the 2019/20 financial year with contributions from NCC, NZTA and Progressive Enterprises. Exact amounts are yet to be determined depending on the outcome of application for TEFAR but a maximum grant of $470,000 is sought from NCC, representing an increase of $320,000 over previously approved LTP funding.

Author: Margaret Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2079992 Champion Road Roundabout and underpass ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This proposal provides significant safety benefits for Nelson residents and is a cost effective approach as it spreads costs across a number of partners. The works meets the current and future needs of the community for good-quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The following community outcomes are addressed:

• “Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably. Good urban design and thoughtful planning create safe, accessible public spaces for people of all ages, abilities and interests”.

• “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs — The community is proud of the many active transport options available”.

3. Risk

TDC has advised that a 30% contingency has been applied to costings to mitigate any unknown construction risks. Endorsement from the RTC may minimise delays to funding decisions which will impact on overall delivery programme and will result in a risk that construction will not be complete in 2019/20.

4. Financial impact

Council has approved a grant of $150,000 for intersection improvements. An additional budget of $320,000 is sought by TDC assuming a 51% FAR. However provision of an underpass may attract TEFAR so the exact amount of the required grant is not final and could be less. Whilst this will be a grant to TDC, it will be loan funded and the impact on rates will be minimal.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This decision is of low significance because budget was included for intersection improvements in the LTP and the project has already been consulted on. Additional funding will be sought through the Annual Plan process which will be consulted on.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Delegations

Operation of the Regional Transport Committee is governed by the Land Transport Management Act 2003.

Functions:

· To prepare a Regional Land Transport Plan, or any variation of the Plan, for the approval of Council

· To provide Council with any advice and assistance Council may request in relation to its transport responsibilities

Specific Delegations:

· To develop a Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP)

· To undertake any variations or changes to the RLTS or RLTP

· To develop any Regional fuel tax scheme authorised by the legislation

· To approve submissions to external bodies on policy documents likely to influence the content of the RLTP.