Agenda of Regional Transport Committee

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	Consideration of Public Transport Improvements to existing contract in Year 1 and 2 of Long Term Plan	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

Item 7: 2021-31 Regional Land Transport Plan - Deliberations Report

Regional Transport Committee

21 April 2021

REPORT R22719

2021-31 Regional Land Transport Plan - Deliberations Report

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide information to assist the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) in its deliberations on the Draft Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031 (RLTP).

1.2 To approve the lodging of the Regional Land Transport Plan with Council for adoption.

2. Summary

2.1 The RTC is required to prepare, consult on, deliberate on and lodge the RLTP with Council for approval. Once approved, the RLTP needs to be submitted to Waka Kotahi by July 2021.

3. Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

1. Receives the report 2021-31 Regional Land Transport Plan - Deliberations Report (R22719) and its attachments (A2609254, A2564747 and A2570814); and

2. Notes that consultation on the Regional Land Transport Plan and the Regional Public Transport Plan occurred simultaneously and that all submissions received have been included in the appropriate deliberations report regardless of which one they submitted to; and

3. Advises Waka Kotahi and the Tasman and Marlborough Regional Transport Committees of any amendments to the draft Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-31; and

4. Approves the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-31 (A2570814 of Report R22719) with the following changes:

· Amend the costings in the draft Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan to reflect the revised budgets in each Councils Long Term Plan and the Waka Kotahi Investment Proposal;

· Update the Significant Projects table to reflect Waka Kotahi removing the 'Motueka Upgrade Additional Scope' project from the investment proposal;

· Amend the Death and Serious Injury (DSI) ratings in the information reading significant safety projects;

· Update the table ‘Linking Transport Objectives and Significant Activities’ on page 56 of the draft Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan to reflect the review of the sustainability alignment of the listed projects, carried out by Council officers and Waka Kotahi;

· Update the strategic context section of the draft Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan to reflect the most up to date forecasts for aviation growth and to add commentary which identifies the assumptions on which these figures are based;

· Update the Tangata Whenua section on pages 14-15 of the draft Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan to clearly outline the special status of iwi as the tangata whenua of Te Tauihu, and how they will be involved in ongoing engagement with Council and Waka Kotahi to implement the Regional Land Transport Plan;

· Amends the Regional Land Transport Plan public transport budget in line with the draft Regional Public Transport Plan; and

5. Confirms that the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-31, amended as in clause 4 above, be lodged with the Council; and

6. Delegates authority to approve any changes to the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan consequential to the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 deliberations to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Regional Transport Committee.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031 (A2570814 of Report R22719) for submission to Waka Kotahi prior to 30 June subject to any changes made as part of the Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 process, and notes the delegation to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Regional Transport Committee.

4. Background

4.1 On 16 February 2021, the RTC approved a Statement of Proposal (SOP) for public consultation on both the Regional Land Transport Plan 2021–2031 (RLTP) and the Draft Regional Public Transport Plan 2021–2031 (RPTP). Some submitters made comment on both or submitted to the wrong plan. Officers have sorted submissions and can advise all those who wanted to be heard were provided with the opportunity, and all submissions have all been considered for the appropriate deliberation report

4.3 Each RTC is hearing submissions and deliberating on their RLTP separately.

4.4 NCC and TDC jointly heard submissions on the Draft RPTP on 9 April 2021, but are dealing with the matter separately at their respective RTCs. A separate report will deal with the public transport deliberations and is on the 21 April 2021 RTC agenda.

4.5 Public consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP), was undertaken from 17 February 2021 to 17 March 2021, and the RLTP hearings were held on 6 April 2021. A summary of the submissions is appended as Attachment One.

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

4.7 Council is required to submit the RLTP to Waka Kotahi by 30 June 2021 so that activities and projects can be eligible for consideration for funding from the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF).

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

5. Discussion

5.1 The Draft GPS was released by central government in March 2020 by central government. That GPS has five key transport outcomes - Inclusive Access, Healthy and Safe People, Economic Prosperity, Environment Sustainability and Reliance & Security and four strategic priorities - Safety, Better Travel Options, Climate Change and Improving Freight Connections.

5.2 The draft RLTP, taking into account the above, has the following five priorities - Mode Choice, Safety, Network Management, Economic Prosperity, Resilience and Environmental Outcomes.

5.3 An amended RLTP with the officer recommendations detailed in this report is included as Attachment Two. The changes from the draft RLTP are shown as tracked changes for ease of reading.

5.4 In addition to the proposed changes in response to public feedback, some changes have been made to reflect the costings particularly for the Nelson Future Access Project (NFA). As a result of the NFA Business Case running significantly behind schedule, no decisions on packages of activities could be made for either the draft RLTP or NCC’s Long-Term plan (LTP). As a result of this a general placeholder funding provision (aimed at providing safety and encouraging active travel) was provided for the NFA project over the next 10 years.

5.5 The placeholder funding in the LTP is $30.2M and includes a 51% Waka Kotahi Funding Assistance Rate (FAR). The figure in the RLTP on page 56 reflects an amount as $36M over 10 years. The revised figure was discussed with RTC members during the project ranking process, prior to the draft being released. This figure included projects for Washington Valley and Victory-Waimea which are separate projects in the RLTP.

5.6 It is acknowledged that once the NFA business case is completed that, depending on the significance of any additional funding requirements, that a separate consultation process may be required.

5.7 Whilst they have no effect on NCC, the following are brought to the attention of the RTC for information only:

5.7.1 Changes to costs allocated to the project titled SH1 Inland Alternative Route Maruia to Renwick will need to be made. This corridor included State Highway 63, State Highway 6 and State Highway 65. It was part of a broader corridor called the ‘alternative route’ between Renwick and Waipara. This route has now been split to cover the three regions it traverses, namely Marlborough/Tasman (this RLTP), West Coast and Canterbury. The anticipated project costs have been apportioned according to route length through each region. Project costs associated for the combined Marlborough and Tasman Regions will be amended to reflect a reduced cost from $5.1M to $2.8M;

5.7.2 Waka Kotahi has also advised that the SH60 High Street Motueka (Additional Scope) project should be removed from the significant projects table because the existing SH60 Motueka High Street Safety Improvements project which is currently being delivered has been reconciled with the Road To Zero safe system approach. As a result, the 'Motueka Upgrade Additional Scope' project can be removed from the Waka Kotahi Investment Proposal.

5.8 Waka Kotahi has advised that a calculation error was made in the Death and Serious Injury (DSI) ratings assigned to the significant safety projects resulting in incorrect figures in the draft document. These figures have been corrected. The revised figures do not affect the priority ranking of the projects.

5.9 The RPTP which was consulted on concurrently with the RLTP has a separate deliberations report. Officer recommendations on the RPTP require consideration at LTP and are a subset of the RLTP. Following LTP deliberations a final RPTP and RLTP will be prepared and bought back to a future RTC for approval.

Submissions

5.10 A total of 45 written submissions were received on the RLTP. Seven submitters spoke at the hearing on 6 April 2021 and a further six submitters spoke to their submissions on both the RLTP and the RPTP at the Regional Public Transport Plan hearing on 9 April 2021.

5.11 The key issues raised in the feedback that are broadly summarised in the following table and discussed in this report.

RLTP Feedback – key issues	Responses
Overall direction of the RLTP	11
Sustainability	23
Significant activities	36
Active transport	28
Freight	9
Waterfront	6
Strategic context	26
Engagement	6
Safety	12
Priority lanes	2
Footpaths and pedestrian crossings	2
Shipping	2
Car parking	2
Planning rules	3
Innovative Streets	1

5.12 The full submission set has been circulated to all RTC members separately. Key areas of each submission (with officer comments or recommendations) are discussed in detail hereafter.

6. Feedback on key issues

Overall direction of the RLTP

6.1 The RLTP includes the following objectives (RLTP page 38): mode choice, safety, network management, economic prosperity, resilience, and environmental outcomes.

6.2 Of the 11 submissions which commented on the overall direction of the RLTP, five were fully in support. One submission (the Automobile Association) supported the direction but was concerned that the RLTP was reliant on public transport being successful. One submitter said the RLTP was incomplete, given that the long-term decisions related to the NFA project and the outcomes from consultation on the Regional Public Transport Plan were not yet known. The submitter suggested delaying the RLTP until these outcomes were known.

6.3 Two submitters (Nelson Tasman Climate Forum Transport Subgroup and Nelsust) opposed Objective 4 for transport (of contributing to economic growth), arguing that the objective should be wellbeing rather than growth. The Road Transport Association considered that road transport/heavy transport interests had been overlooked in this RLTP.

6.4 Officers and Waka Kotahi are satisfied with the close alignment between the RLTP and the GPS and propose no changes to the objectives in the RLTP, or the timeframes for completion of the RLTP. Delaying the RLTP until after the NFA business case is complete would result in a significant loss of opportunity to access funding from Waka Kotahi over the next three years.

6.5 However, as noted in item 5.6, once the NFA business case is completed a separate consultation process may be required to update the RLTP, depending on the significance of any additional funding requirements.

Sustainability

6.6 Page 35 of the RLTP includes a target to align with the Government’s target of Zero Carbon 2050 (30% reduction in transport generated carbon emissions by 2030).

6.7 An assessment of the linkages between the GPS priorities and the RLTP objectives (RLTP page 56) reflected sustainability gains on three projects - InterIsland Resilient Connection Project, the Richmond Future Transport Project, and the Nelson/Tasman Public Transport Improvements.

6.8 A total of 23 points were made about sustainability (with some submitters making several comments, counted separately, as shown in the submission summary). There was strong support for the sustainability objectives, and eight submissions supported the public transport and active transport activities, recognising their contributions to reducing emissions. Two submitters requested that the target of 30% reduction in transport emissions by 2030 be increased to 50%.

Officer Comment - Officers support alignment with Climate Commissions draft report and propose altering the headline target in the Plan to 50% reduction accordingly.

6.9 Three submitters expressed concern that the words at the front of the document were focused on reducing emissions, but most of the budget is still allocated for road maintenance and road building. They wanted a different approach where Council invested most in the actions which would reduce emissions the most.

6.10 The Nelson Marlborough District Health Board pointed out that a high proportion of the significant activities do not have a sustainability ranking (on page 56 of the RLTP), and that consideration should be given to this, in order to align with Waka Kotahi’s Sustainability Action Plan.

6.11 Officers support amending the table on page 56 of the RLTP, to identify that several other projects contribute to sustainability objectives, particularly: NFA (local roads), Washington Valley Road Active Transport Route and the Victory-Waimea Road Active Transport Route. Council officers and Waka Kotahi acknowledge that some projects in the table on page 56 of the RLTP should be updated to align with sustainability.

6.12 In terms of the investment allocations, Waka Kotahi is working through the NFA project and Richmond Programme Business Case with NCC and TDC. Both investigations will look at options for improving the network to manage all modes of transport in Nelson’s metropolitan area.

Significant activities

6.13 The 13 Significant Activities are listed in Appendix B (RLTP pages 67 to 80). These include the following projects which are either fully or partially based in Nelson:

- Nelson Tasman Public Transport Improvements

- Nelson Future Access (local roads)

- Washington Valley Active Transport route

- Victory/Waimea Road Active Transport route

- SH6 Nelson to Blenheim (speed management).

6.14 A total of 36 points were made about the significant activities, with almost all of these in support of the proposed activities. As can be expected, the projects located in Nelson were of most interest to Nelson residents.

6.15 Three concerns raised by submitters are as below with officer comment:

- There is no provision for improvement of the cycleway between Stoke and Richmond.

Officer comment - Improvements to the Stoke to Richmond cycleway are currently underway as part of Stage 4 of the Saxton Creek Stormwater project, a crossing point at Champion Road is currently under construction and the Richmond Business Case Programme seeks to improve cycle facilities within Richmond.

- Many vehicles, cyclists and walkers travel from Princes Drive down Washington Valley to the CBD. How will the proposed Washington Road plan to structurally reduce traffic volumes cope with the existing use, let alone the growth with new subdivisions above this area?

Officer comment - The intention of the Washington Road upgrade is that the level of service is raised for active modes and safety is improved. The Washington Valley traffic flows from further up the catchment will be factored into the designs for this area.

- The potential impact of the new intersection on Waimea Road (at Bishopdale) on the protection of the southern link route.

Officer comment- The new intersection at Waimea Road and Clarence Drive, including the walking and cycling underpass, has been designed so as not to impede any future inland route in this area.

Active transport

6.16 There is a strong focus on investment in active transport in three of the five Significant Activities based in Nelson. In addition, the low-cost low risk programme includes minor projects that will improve local network safety and walking and cycling infrastructure (RLTP page 57).

6.17 A total of 28 submissions relate to active transport. Most of these submissions were in support of investment in cycleways, particularly where these are separated from motor vehicles.

6.18 Three submissions strongly advocated for additional investment. One submission outlines a case for a standalone commuter cycleway, the Nelson Tasman Cycle Trust urged Council to invest in cycleways beyond urban boundaries, and the Bike Nelson Bays submission includes a list of the ‘top 10’ projects to improve active transport.

6.19 Officers acknowledge that ongoing investment in cycling infrastructure will be needed. One submission pointed to a low level of service on the Wakatu Drive cycle path. There is currently no funding secured for an upgrade to this path, although Waka Kotahi is continuing to explore improvement options and funding opportunities.

6.20 Both NCC and TDC are developing Active Transport/modal shift plans to integrate projects. The project list will be confirmed over the next 2 years with investment budgets available from 2021. There will be future opportunities to consider additional projects, such as those outlined in these submissions, but no changes are recommended for this RLTP, which prioritises improving active transport options for residents of all ages living in Nelson’s urban areas, close to schools and the CBD. There are also additional aspects of the Plan which support active transport such as speed limit reductions, and public transport

Freight

6.21 The RLTP (page 28) states that the majority of freight will likely continue to be transported by road, especially on SH6 and SH60, and that access across these routes will need to be modified to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists are not cut off from social and economic opportunities.

6.22 Most of the nine freight-related comments focused on forestry, and one discussed the practice of transporting wine from Blenheim to Port Nelson.

6.23 Tasman Pine Forests is concerned that traffic congestions between Nelson south and Port Nelson are not being addressed in the RLTP. However, OneFortyOne (formerly Nelson Forests Ltd) advises that it is working with Port Nelson on a proposal to open 24-hour delivery to the Port in order to increase freight route ‘separation’ in the short-term using delivery timing. This would allow freight to be delivered at times that reduce the overlap with the peaks of road use and transit by the general public.

Officer comment – Officers support OneFortyOne’s cost-effective initiative to reduce logging trucks on urban roads during peak traffic periods by changing opening hours at the Port, which is a good example of working within the existing network constraints to achieve better outcomes.

6.24 Nelsust has provided a log barging proposal within its submission for consideration by Council.

Officer comment - Officers support exploring options for shipping rather than road transport of freight, but note the GPS only provides funding for investigation of Coastal shipping through the NTLF. Officers support a multi-agency approach to progress opportunities for coastal shipping but acknowledge a lack of deepwater ports in Tasman Bay.

6.25 One submitter questioned whether the benefits actually outweigh the costs of Port Nelson transporting wine from Marlborough to Nelson – as the cost of damage to the road could be greater than the profit from this arrangement. The submitter suggests this wine freight should be going by rail from Blenheim to Lyttleton instead.

Officer comment - The issue of wine transport by truck to Nelson rather than by train to Lyttleton has been noted, but this is a commercial decision which is not within Council’s ability to influence.

Waterfront

6.26 The RLTP (page 32) states that the NFA Project “will help plan a transport system that works for Nelson by identifying an investment programme that supports the community’s aspirations for a thriving CBD, a people-focussed waterfront and a healthy environment. However, at the time of writing this RLTP, Waka Kotahi had not completed the business case. Completion of the NFA business case which includes consideration of walking and cycling around the waterfront still requires careful consideration of the environmental factors relating to working within the coastal marine area, as well as the feedback from residents, transport system users and other stakeholders and partners.

6.27 Council received six comments related to the waterfront. Nelsust is concerned that nothing appears to be planned for the Rocks Road esplanade for 3-4 years. Rachel Boyack (MP for Nelson) wishes to see continued work to unlock the potential of the Nelson waterfront being treated as one of the top priorities in the RLTP (alongside the short-mid-term activities in the NFA, the Richmond Future Transport Project and the Berryfield/Lower Queen Street Intersection Upgrade).

6.28 Three submissions requested removal of freight trucks off the waterfront through development of an inland route.

6.29 Waka Kotahi is continuing to work closely with NCC to develop more detail around the preferred package which includes consideration of walking and cycling around the waterfront. The NFA preferred package will identify a range of activities (and their timing) that will make the most effective improvements to Nelson’s transport system and provide options for all modes of transport, including public transport, the movement of freight, and people walking and cycling between Annesbrook in the south and the Port to the north . The intention is for Waka Kotahi to further engage with the community in May 2021.

Strategic context

6.30 The strategic context section of the RLTP (pages 11–34) summarises the influences and demands on the Te Tauihu transport system related to geography, population, economy, and freight routes. It also includes future scenarios and opportunities.

6.31 Council received 26 comments on the strategic context and framework. A number of these comments were about the assumptions in the strategic context section – such as how the population might or might not grow, whether aviation trends will return to pre-COVID levels, and the need to include the significant role of the professional, scientific and technical sector (14.9%) which is digitally based, and therefore not heavily reliant on transport routes.

6.32 The majority of the requested changes to the strategic context and strategic framework sections of the RLTP were made by the New Zealand Walking Access Commission. The most significant of these related to setting additional targets as follows:

· double the use of active travel mode share by 2030

· double the use and public transport mode share by 2030.

Officer comment - The additional targets suggested by New Zealand Walking Access Commission are ambitious but at this stage the RLTP seeks an increasing trend rather than a specified target. For the first term of this RLTP improved data collection and counting methodology will be developed and setting a specific target will be considered at the mid- term review in 2024.

6.33 Officers acknowledge some inherent uncertainties around population growth, tourism and aviation trends post COVID-19, and how the economy may evolve. Aviation projections have been amended to reflect the most recent data available.

Engagement

6.34 On 17 February 2021 the Summary of the Statement of Proposal for the RLTP was directly mailed to a number of parties in Nelson and Tasman as outlined in Attachment 4 of Report R22558 (appended to this report as Attachment three for ease of reading). In addition, the wider community was informed about the consultation process through Council media channels including Our Nelson, Newsline, community newspapers, Facebook and Council websites and social media. Iwi partners were provided preliminary information by way of a pre-recorded PowerPoint presentation covering the draft RLTP content in late November 2020. At that time the draft document was still being prepared but early feedback was invited.

6.35 Alongside development of the RLTP, work on the NFA and the Richmond Programme Business Case has, and continues to, involve engagement in the form of surveys, workshops, and informal discussions with a wide variety of stakeholders.

6.36 Six comments related to the engagement with iwi and the community on the draft RLTP.

6.37 Te Atiawa Mana whenua Ki Te Tau Ihu Trust requested more recognition of iwi involvement in the NFA Project, and wanted to see a similar, high level of iwi involvement in the development of the RLTP. A delay to the RLTP process was requested to allow for this engagement.

6.38 The Trust also noted that the difference between iwi as Treaty partners and tangata whenua in Te Tauihu, and stakeholders, needs to be reflected in the RLTP.

6.39 The New Zealand Walking Access Commission recommended that page 14 of the RLTP be amended to state “that Te Tauihu tangata whenua be consulted on Land Transport policies and encouraged to participate in planning for active modes of transport/cultural trails etc.”

6.40 The Ministry of Education requested engagement on projects proposed in the RLTP in the early phases of development to better understand the potential impacts on schools (especially the work on the Victory-Waimea Road Active Transport route).

6.41 The Automobile Association was concerned that Council would only receive feedback on the RLTP from larger, more resourced groups – and smaller groups or individuals may not submit – due to the complexity of the RLTP, with so much information to digest.

6.42 One submitter was concerned that innovative streets projects were being carried out with limited engagement with affected residents.

6.43 Waka Kotahi and Council officers acknowledge the need to continually improve engagement with iwi. There is work underway by Waka Kotahi through it’s Māori Strategy to develop a more inclusive process.

6.44 Officers support changes to the RLTP to reflect the special status of iwi as the tangata whenua of Te Tauihu, as well as ongoing engagement on implementation of the RLTP, including the approach suggested by the New Zealand Walking Access Commission. However, a delay is not recommended, due to the significant potential loss of funding from Waka Kotahi this would entail.

6.45 Officers also support ongoing engagement with the Ministry of Education, and with affected residents when works are proposed to improve the safety of their streets.

6.46 Officers acknowledge that the RLTP is a complex document which is not easily accessible for people short on time to provide feedback to Council. However, as noted already, earlier engagement in the form of surveys and informal discussions in 2020 have informed much of the content in this RLTP. This includes past and ongoing workshops held on the NFA and Richmond Programme Busines Case done with the community and partners.

7. Other topics raised in submissions

Safety

7.1 Council received twelve comments about the importance of improved road safety for cyclists and pedestrians. In particular, Nelsust commented that it hopes the crossing changes in Tahunanui include an over-bridge from Tosswill Road, over the road onto the school berm noting that this would improve safety for active transport people but also improve efficiency for motor vehicle traffic as there would be one less place for them to get held up.

Officer comment – no overbridge is proposed.

7.2 The New Zealand Walking Access Commission noted the significantly higher number of fatal and serious injury crashes involving vulnerable users and suggested that these statistics are not adequately addressed in the Te Tauihu Draft RLTP.

Officer comment - Officers support retaining the safety initiatives in the RLTP.

Priority lanes

7.3 Two submissions commented on the value of priority lanes to support public transport, with one suggesting these priority lanes should also be made available for essential trucks and vehicles containing at least four passengers.

Officer comment - Officers support the development of priority lanes as a contribution to an effective and efficient public transport service. However, officers note that if this does emerge as the preferred option it will take time to develop as part of the staged NFA package. Bus priority at signals is discussed in the Regional Public Transport Plan.

Footpaths and pedestrian crossings

7.4 The Boathouse Community Trust commented that pedestrians seem to be the losers in the race for space on crowded pathways. Bikes, scooters and skateboards are getting faster but increasingly, a blind eye seems to be being turned to their use on footpaths.

Officer comment - Officers acknowledge that national regulations related to the use of footpaths, as well as increasing uptake of micro-mobility options, is changing the use of footpaths. In 2020 Waka Kotahi engaged on an Accessible Streets package which proposed several rule changes in this area and Council awaits the outcome of that work. In the interim, ongoing work is being carried out to promote safe use of shared pathways and widening of footpaths where possible.

7.5 Nelson Youth Councillors expressed support for the colourful pride crossing and suggested other crossings would be safer if they were painted in brighter colours (eg on a red strip) to be more visible to drivers.

Officer comment – Officers recognise the significance of the pride crossing as a way to welcome and celebrate diversity in the City, but in all other cases support a nationally consistent use of pedestrian crossing markings in accordance with the Traffic Control Devices Rule.

Shipping

7.6 Two submissions requested more focus on coastal shipping as an alternative to transport of freight by road.

Officer comment – See 6.24

Car parking

7.7 Two submissions commented on the importance of making it more difficult for cars to access the CBD, and to park on the periphery, to increase the attractiveness of walking and cycling options.

Officer comment - A Parking Strategy will be developed in 2021/22 and will guide the review of the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw in 2023.

Planning rules

7.8 Three submissions commented on the value of urban intensification (rather than urban expansion) in reducing the need to commute.

Officer comment - Officers recognise the value of urban intensification to contribute to transport objectives, and this is being guided by the Government Policy Statement on Urban Development and actioned through the Future Development Strategy, Intensification Action Plan and the Draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan.

Innovative streets

7.9 One submission asked Council to stop beautifying and making streets safer by putting garden boxes and picnic tables on the roadside.

Officer comment - Officers recognise that changes to street design can be disruptive for residents, which is why Council is carrying out trials of different approaches and gathering feedback on those.

8. Options

8.1 The Committee has two options. Officers support option 1.

Option 1: Lodge the RLTP with Council
Advantages	· Meets statutory timeline for submission of RLTP to Waka Kotahi by 30 June to provide eligibility for national funding (NLTF)
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Delay lodging the RLTP with Council
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Unable to meet statutory timeframes · Not eligible for NLTF consideration

9. Conclusion

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

9.2 Consultation has been undertaken and hearings held. Officers recommend changes as outlined above.

10. Next Steps

10.1 Subject to approval, the Council will consider recommendations of the RTC, arising as a consequence of consultation, as part of the LTP deliberations.

10.2 Following LTP deliberation and subject to any decision this committee approves, the Chair and Deputy Chair will be delegated authority to make consequential changes to the RLTP

10.3 Staff will reflect the decisions of the RTC (subject to approval from the Council) in responses to submitters.

10.4 The RLTP will be lodged with Waka Kotahi on 30 June 2021.

Author: Margaret Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2609254 Summary of Submissions ⇩

Attachment 2: A2570814 Connecting TeTauihu RLTP draft document with tracked changes ⇩

Attachment 3: A2564747 Consultation Plan for SoP from previous report ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Providing a Regional Land Transport Plan is a requirement of the Land Transport Management Act 2003. This deliberations report will inform the LTP and final RLTP.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

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

3. Risk

The changes recommended by the officers have no substantive impact on the plan. There are risks if Waka Kotahi financial constraints result in many projects not being subsidised to the anticipated and requested level. However, all RTC’s around the country are facing this same risk and the general approach adopted by the NCC is consistent with the approach of the South Island RTC’s.

4. Financial impact

Some changes recommended by the officers have an impact on costs to NCC and require consideration as part of the LTP.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

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

6. Climate Impact

The RLTP recognises that the transport network we have traditionally relied upon may not be appropriate for the future. This is in part due to vehicle usage effects on our natural environment and that our communities are susceptible to losing access in more frequent weather events. The plans propose a number of adaptation and mitigation measures that have a significant role to play in meeting Council’s goal of reducing transport emissions by 30% by 2030.

Sea level rise has been considered in the Nelson Future Access Project.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori have had the opportunity to provide feedback as part of the consultation process. All iwi of Te Tauihu were sent a presentation that provided an overview of the document in early December 2020.

8. Delegations

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

Item 7: 2021-31 Regional Land Transport Plan - Deliberations Report: Attachment 1

ATTACHMENT ONE: A2609254 Summary of Submissions on the Regional Land Transport Plan

Name	Category	Details
Robin Whalley	Strategic context – economic drivers	Table 3 on page 13 of the RLTP does not include the professional, scientific and technical sector – which contributes 14.9% of the regional economy and doesn’t need transport, due to being digitally based.
	Strategic context - Freight	Opposed to Port Nelson transporting wine from Marlborough to Nelson – cost of damage to the road is greater than the profit from this arrangement. Instead, this wine freight should be going by rail from Blenheim to Lyttleton.
Ralph Hetzel	Nelson Future Access (local roads) - Waterfront	Please make the waterfront a slower, safer road by changing the planned inland route to SH6, with trucks using that road.
Kerry Bateman	Nelson Future Access (local roads) - Waimea Road	Create a clearway into and out of the CBD at peak flow periods – with priority lanes restricted to buses, essential trucks and vehicles containing at least four passengers.
Carol Falloon	Other - question	What is the plan for North Nelson?
Steven Gray	Overall	Support for the RLTP
	Active transport	The most important things are to improve the cycling network, especially the Rocks Road cycleway and improve the commuter bus services. Only criticism – that the improvements are still a few years away. Bring these projects forward
Alistair Kwan	Strategic context – demographics	Assuming population growth (and the economy) will continue in the same way over the long term (as over the short term) is not realistic, and is not a good basis for transport planning.
Andy Wotton, Nelson Airport Ltd	Strategic context – aviation	This section is generally supported. Note: the 2035 Nelson Airport Master Plan referred to in the RLTP has now been updated (as the Nelson Airport Master Plan 2040). This includes updated traffic forecasts (provided in the submission) which should be reflected in the passenger projections graph in Figure 7 on page 25 of the RLTP.
Henry Hudson	Foreword – central government funding	The shared priorities of the South Island Regional Transport Committee Chairs Group include advocacy for transportation in the South Island. However, in reality Nelson/Tasman got a disproportionately small amount of money for roading/transportation improvements. We need proper advocacy to gain more funding.
	Waterfront	One of the shared priorities is resilience (on page 4) but maintaining Rocks Road as SH6 is contrary to this priority. An inland route is necessary to improve resilience.
	Waterfront	Using Rocks Road as a freight corridor is contrary to the shared priority of enhancing tourism journeys (priority 4 on p4). Instead, bypass trucks through an inland route, slow the traffic to 30km/hr, develop a two way bike path on one side of the road, and improve the footpath.
	Active transport	The focus on cycling in the RLTP does not reflect actual usage, or probable future use. What evidence is there to support the view in the RLTP that considerable more spending on cycleways will double the number of cyclists?
	Active transport	Council has over-estimated demand for cycle parks in Montgomery Square and Trafalgar St. Council staff should be instructed to bike or walk to work, to remove a couple of hundred cars off the road.
	Engagement	When carrying out innovative streets projects, Council needs to properly consult with the affected residents to avoid costly, and potentially fatal, mistakes occurring.
	Significant Projects - Washington Valley Active Transport Route	I support this proposal but have concerns related to appropriate consultation, budgets and integration with the roading/walking/cycling network. I agree with the need to reduce traffic volumes. Consultation – don’t rely on a staff-selected community group which shares staff views to gain feedback. Clarify how the budgets on page 73 ($750K for Hastings Street to Wolf Street, and a placeholder of $1.5M for the upper end of the valley) relates to the budgets on page 55 of $5M from 2021 to 2027, with 51% from NZTA. Are there any other costs associated with active transport facilities in Hastings St and Washington Road? Integration with the roading/walking/cycling network: - Presently many vehicles, cyclists and walkers travel from Princes Drive down Washington Valley to the CBD. How will the proposed Washington Road plan to structurally reduce traffic volumes cope with the existing use, let alone the growth with new subdivisions? - When Washington Road has traffic calming measures and other means to reduce traffic flow, what is the proposed route to the CBD from Princes Drive, Richardson Street, Whitby road and the Cliffs. Note: public transport service for Princes Drive/Tahunanui Hills area is not planned prior to 2031 – so there is no plan in place to address the impending Washington Road bottleneck.
	Significant Projects – Victory-Waimea Road Active Transport route	$4.5M is proposed for Victory-Waimea public transport and active modes. However, there does not appear to be a plan to integrate the roading, cycling or walking network from the existing and new subdivisions along and off Princes Drive and Tahunanui Hills with Waimea Road to provide good access to the city. What are the plans for linking Princes Drive/Tahunanui Hills with Waimea Road or a future Inland Route? To what degree do recent and proposed works at Victory-Waimea Road have an adverse effect on the feasibility of an Inland Route?
Martin Tunley, Acting Road Policing Manager, Tasman District NZ Police	Active and public transport	Support this direction as it reduces pressure on our network
	Safety – road maintenance and renewals	Support for road maintenance and renewals which enhance the safety of our roads and roadsides
	Safety - Speed limits	Support CBD 30km/hr and anticipated 30km/h home zones, and development and implementation of a speed management plan
	Safety – traffic calming	Support these measures to reduce inappropriate through traffic and reduce vehicle speeds
	Safety - cycleways	Support the work being done to improve the safety of vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians.
	Significant project – Washington Valley active transport route	Support
	Significant project – Victory-Waimea active transport route	Support
	Low cost low risk projects to improve local network safety, walking and cycling infrastructure (page 57)	Support
	Significant Project – Nelson Future Access (local roads)	Support investment in intersection safety improvements on main routes identified through the Nelson Future Access Study
	Safety	Support for investment in Community Road Safety promotions and education campaigns targeting areas where we feature as high or medium risk on the Waka Kotahi Communities at Risk register.
W Ross	Innovative Streets	Please stop beautifying and making streets safer by putting garden boxes and picnic tables on the roadside. It didn’t receive a lot of popularity in Muritai St – learn from this.
Jane Murray, Nelson Marlborough Health	Strategic framework	Support for the vision, and the strategic objectives, particularly related to mode choice, safety and environmental outcomes.
	Linking transport objectives and significant activities (p56)	A high proportion of the significant activities do not have a sustainability ranking. Consideration should be given to this, in order to align with Waka Kotahi’s Sustainability Action Plan.
	Significant activities	NMH strongly supports the significant investment Nelson and Tasman are putting into public transport services and infrastructure.
	Investment in cycling and walking improvements	Strongly support.
	Significant Activity - Nelson Tasman Public Transport Improvements	Support for this investment. However, frequency of services needs to be revised in the Public Transport Plan.
	Significant Activity – Nelson Future Access (local roads)	Support. Consideration should also be given to adding shorter bus priority sections in the short term. Consideration could be given to introducing bus priority where new traffic lights are being introduced on Waimea Road/Highview Drive as this section already has two lanes.
	Significant Activity – Washington Valley Active Transport routes	Support
	Significant Activity – Victory-Waimea Road Active Transport Route	Support. NMH acknowledges there are poor cycling connections from Waimea Road to the existing Railway Reserve. NMH supports improving East-West connections to the Hospital and Waimea Road. NMH is happy to work with NCC on the development of the Detailed Business Case.
	Significant Activity: SH6 Nelson to Blenheim	Support for safety improvements on this route.
Jessica Powers	Safety	I want to see a 10 year plan and finances for pedestrian, cyclist and scooter users that prioritises safe pathways for children to get to and from school. This is as, if not more important, than allotting money and space for cars and buses.
	Cycleways	I’d like to see widened footpaths and a fully and more accessible system linking the Railway Reserve to the smaller footpaths in neighbourhoods.
	Other	Improve the greenbelts buffering houses from main roads with thicker, native plantings, and repave these roads with quieter surfaces.
Ian Shapcott, Te Atiawa Manawhenua Ki Te Tau Ihu Trust	Engagement	Iwi have been deeply involved in the Nelson Future Access Project but this is not acknowledged in the RLTP. However, the level of iwi engagement in the development of the RLTP is unsatisfactory tokenism. We should be working together in a collaborative partnership, as we have with the Future Access Project. Lodged Iwi Management Plans are relevant to this plan and should have been referred to in the RLTP. This process needs to wind back and begin engaging with Te Tauihu Iwi, afresh.
	Sustainability	The RLTP has a detached consideration of environmental impacts and responsibilities, suggesting that lessening adverse impacts is acceptable. A restorative approach is required.
	Iwi and stakeholders	The RLTP appears to lump iwi in with stakeholders. Iwi take offence at being collected in with stakeholders, because they are Treaty partners, and they hold mana whenua and mana moana in their rohe. As tangata whenua, the eight Te Tauihu Iwi have continuous occupation, and so are hosts to all who live, work, play and die in Te Tauihu.
Jace Hobbs	Sustainability	I suggest increasing your target from 30% less emissions by 2030 to 50% less emissions by 2030. Also have a goal of halving the number of cars on the road, or halving the vehicle km travelled by 2030. We need to fund promotion of this necessary shift. I urge you to: - Encourage further investigation of shipping and rail - Facilitate electrification of remaining road transport - Facilitate ride-sharing between towns via an online system - Recognise and support hitch-hiking and establish recognised areas on the edges of town for people to hitch and for drivers to offer rides. - Facilitate low cost bus services between towns. There will be substantial savings from reduced need for new and improved roads.
Nelson Youth Councillors	Cycleways	Support for investments in increasing the safety and accessibility of cycleways. Support for the new bike stands in Nelson. We would like to see lighting go along the railway reserve, as a safer path that will encourage more people to choose cycling over the alternatives.
	Cycleways/shared paths	Please make sure there are clear markings on bike tracks and shared pathways for the safety of both pedestrians and cyclists and others using these paths, including the Maitai shared pathway.
	Pedestrian crossings	Support for installing a pride crossing. More effort should be made to paint other crossings around town with brighter colours (eg paint pedestrian crossings on a red strip to make them more visible to drivers). This will make pedestrians safer, especially in bad weather conditions.
Jim Sinner	Sustainability	I strongly support the expansion of public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure. Building more roads such as the southern link will only encourage more unsustainable development in rural areas, creating more congestion, emissions and accidents. Any expansion of capacity along arterial routes should be reserved for public buses and vehicles with multiple passengers. Time is short for us to reduce our emissions.
Alec Waugh	Richmond traffic congestion	Planning should already be in place for the development of Richmond Park area and its interface with Transport Plan issues.
Alec Woods, Chair Boathouse Community Trust	Waterfront	The increasing amounts of heavy traffic on this road make it unpleasant for residents and businesses, while at the same time constraining development opportunities that lend themselves to this seaside location. We seem to be ignoring the vulnerability of this route to sea level rise, extreme weather and seismic events. Reducing the speed limit on Rocks Road to 40km/h needs to be a safety priority, as the road is becoming increasingly dangerous for all modes of transport, include pedestrians.
	Footpaths	Pedestrians seem to be the losers in the race for space on crowded pathways. Bikes, scooters and skateboards are getting faster but increasingly, a blind eye seems to be being turned to their use on footpaths.
Gillian Wratt, Nelson Tasman Cycle Trails Trust	RLTP overall	Support for the overall direction of the Plan, including provision for active transport.
	Cycleways	A gap in the plan is the need for improved active transport/cycle friendly linkages outside the urban areas. Rural and urban connectivity needs to be built. Where the cycling network (on page 23) includes on-road sections, investment is needed in taking the route off road (and sealed) where this is a reasonable cost option. There is some provision for this in the ‘low cost, low risk’ programme but there is no evidence in the RLTP of a strategic, regional approach to this investment.
	Significant Activities – Nelson Future Access Project	Support for the short term package inclusion of cycling infrastructure, particularly in relation to a Rocks Road walking and cycling facility.
	Cycleway	There doesn’t appear to be any mention in the RLTP of upgrading the cycleway alongside SH6/Whakatu Drive between Stoke and Richmond. This is a key commuter route that is becoming increasingly unsafe due to its narrowness, surface deterioration and increasing use (an average of 348 cyclists per day).
Steve Chandler, Tasman Pine Forests Ltd	RLTP overall	We support the intent of the plan
	Freight	We are concerned that traffic congestion from Nelson South to Port Nelson is not addressed in the Plan. TPL transports around 30,000 tonnes of logs to the port each year, with this volume expected to increase by a further 100,000 tonnes per annum during the next five years. Significant and costly delays are being experienced by our log trucks due to traffic congestion, particularly during peak hours along the coastal route to the port form Stoke. This is also an issue for other forestry and forestry wood processing industries in the area. Please give this issue a priority focus in the plan.
Portia King, Ministry of Education	RLTP overall	The Ministry of Education supports the objectives and policies of the RLTP, particularly related to encouraging active modes of transport and improving safety.
	Engagement	The Ministry requests engagement on projects proposed in the RLTP in the early phases of development to better understand the potential impacts on schools (especially Victory-Waimea Road Active Transport route). The key Ministry contact is Stuart Graham.
	Significant Activity – Victory-Waimea Road Active Transport route	Of key relevance to the Ministry due to all the schools in the area. Support for improvements to active transport infrastructure, but construction activities outside of the schools have the potential to result in accessibility, disruption, safety, dust and noise impacts on schools.
Bruce Gilkison, Business for Climate Action	Sustainability	We need to recognise we are in a Climate Emergency. This will require every investment and infrastructure decision to be assessed through a climate lens. To some extent this may have been done, but it would be useful for this to be far more obvious and transparent. Any requirement to construct or develop additional roads should be subject to particular scrutiny, as they attract and encourage additional private motor vehicles.
	Sustainability	A speedy change in behaviour, away from current unsustainable patterns, is the key and must be the goal of the plan.
	Sustainability	A transition to a net carbon economy by 2050, and to halve current emissions by 2030 (as most scientists say is essential to minimise the risk of climate chaos), will require very rapid and major changes to be initiated as soon as possible.
	Other – planning decisions	Planning rules should enable and encourage opportunities for people to live close to sources of employment, work and services, avoiding the need to commute. Where this isn’t possible, development should be at least clustered around transport hubs.
	Priority lanes	It is vital to have priority lanes between key centres such as Richmond and Nelson for public transport.
Robin Whalley	Freight	Further to earlier submission about freighting wine from Blenheim to Port Nelson – profit is only $320,000 after overhead allocation.
Richard Sullivan	Strategic context	Population trends are likely to be very different in future – which means the extrapolations about future population (on page 12 of the Plan) are too linear to be the basis for sensible judgements. There is no mention of the potential that electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles or the public transport plan will have on traffic and infrastructure needs, including the requirement for significant electric charging infrastructure.
	RLTP overall	Not including the NFAP (long term decisions) makes the plan incomplete. It should have a view on whether this will be necessary given the likelihood of changing living, commuting and shopping patterns. I believe the Plan should be delayed until the outcome of the Public Transport Plan and the NFAP are known.
Barbara and Tim Robson	Sustainability	The Regional Land Transport Plan must hold the Climate Emergency that we are in now as paramount in all decisions when considering transport in the future. We must incentivise low emission behaviour and make car use inconvenient and uneconomic. Councils should petition Government for authorisation to implement congestion taxes over peak hours. Another priority must be to make active transport to schools a safe option. The Nelson Future Access Study is keeping the anachronistic ‘Southern Link’ idea alive and holding funding which could be used on public transport.
Claire Berthelsen	Active transport	I support any plan that improves biking and walking initiatives. I would like to see: - lighting of the Railway Reserve to improve cyclist/walker safety - installing many more safe road crossings, eg Vanguard Street - improvements to safety to cross over the road along the river trail by River Kitchen - actions to reduce vehicle speed limits around town and elsewhere.
	Sustainability	I support plans that discourage vehicle use, for the purpose of reducing emissions, improving air quality, and increasing safety for cyclists and walkers.
Allen and Robyn Berthelsen	Active transport	I support any plan that improves biking and walking initiatives. I would like to see: - lighting of the Railway Reserve to improve cyclist/walker safety - installing many more safe road crossings, eg Vanguard Street - improvements to safety to cross over the road along the river trail by River Kitchen - actions to reduce vehicle speed limits around town and elsewhere.
	Sustainability	I support plans that discourage vehicle use, for the purpose of reducing emissions, improving air quality, and increasing safety for cyclists and walkers.
Huon Berthelsen	Active transport	I support any plan that improves biking and walking initiatives. I would like to see: - lighting of the Railway Reserve to improve cyclist/walker safety - installing many more safe road crossings, eg Vanguard Street - improvements to safety to cross over the road along the river trail by River Kitchen - actions to reduce vehicle speed limits around town and elsewhere.
	Sustainability	I support plans that discourage vehicle use, for the purpose of reducing emissions, improving air quality, and increasing safety for cyclists and walkers.
Tineke Stewart	Active transport	I support any plan that improves biking and walking initiatives. I would like to see: - lighting of the Railway Reserve to improve cyclist/walker safety - installing many more safe road crossings, eg Vanguard Street - improvements to safety to cross over the road along the river trail by River Kitchen actions to reduce vehicle speed limits around town and elsewhere.
	Sustainability	I support plans that discourage vehicle use, for the purpose of reducing emissions, improving air quality, and increasing safety for cyclists and walkers.
Steve Higgs, NZTA	Significant Activity - Maruia to Renwick	This corridor included SH 63, SH 6 and SH 65. It was part of a broader corridor called the ‘alternative route’ between Renwick and Waipara. This route has now been split to cover the three regions it traverses: Marlborough/Tasman (this RLTP), West Coast and Canterbury. The anticipated project costs have been apportioned according to route length through each region. We therefore request that the project costs associated with the combined Marlborough and Tasman regions be amended as outlined in this submission. SH Inland Alternative Route Maruia to Renwick: 22/23: $1,280,400 23/24: $1,552,100 Total cost: $2,832,500 An amendment to the Waka Kotahi 10 year forecast is required as a consequence (as shown in the submission – see page 76 of the Submissions).
David Ayre	Sustainability	The draft plan needs to be much stronger in its handling of issues related to climate change. There needs to be a clear statement about how the Climate Change Commission recommendations are going to be met. More exact targets and monitoring to achieve them are needed. There is a strong need for a much better recharging network for EVs. There is a strong need for the development of near-real-tie publicly available dashboard indicators such as monthly fossil fuel sales and daily vehicle counts on major routes. There is a strong need for the development of congestion charging schemes for peak hour traffic, including encouraging enabling legislation by central government.
Aaron Stallard	Cycleways	This plan is inadequate in terms of provision of cycleways. The Nelson-Tasman region does not have a commuter cycleway (we have recreation cycleways and shared use cycleways but not a commuter cycleway). The linear nature of development from Atawhai to Nelson, Tahunanui, Stoke and finally Richmond means that a single commuter cycleway could serve the needs of all commuters. A commuter cycleway is akin to a road for cyclists. It follows a direct and efficient route, is separate from vehicle traffic, and is wide and smooth. Three options: - build from new - reassign existing roads from car use to permanent cycle use - reassign existing roads from car use to cycle use during commuting hours only. Given that e-bikes allow easy travel at 30 km/h, such a cycleway (if direct and with few interruptions) would enable travel between central Nelson and central Richmond (15km distance) in only 30 minutes, similar to a car.
	Nelson Airport	Why is Nelson Airport predicting steady growth in passenger numbers through to 2035 when we are committed to reducing our emissions over this period?
Cam Carter	Active transport	I support any plan that improves biking and walking initiatives. I would like to see: - lighting of the Railway Reserve to improve cyclist/walker safety - installing many more safe road crossings, eg Vanguard Street - improvements to safety to cross over the road along the river trail by River Kitchen actions to reduce vehicle speed limits around town and elsewhere.
	Sustainability	I support plans that discourage vehicle use, for the purpose of reducing emissions, improving air quality, and increasing safety for cyclists and walkers.
Anna Berthelsen	Active transport	I support any plan that improves biking and walking initiatives. I would like to see: - lighting of the Railway Reserve to improve cyclist/walker safety - installing many more safe road crossings, eg Vanguard Street - improvements to safety to cross over the road along the river trail by River Kitchen actions to reduce vehicle speed limits around town and elsewhere.
	Sustainability	I support plans that discourage vehicle use, for the purpose of reducing emissions, improving air quality, and increasing safety for cyclists and walkers.
Peter Olorenshaw, Nelson Tasman Climate Forum Transport subgroup	Sustainability	The RLTP talks about climate change but still has the bulk of the money going into roadbuilding and road maintenance. We fail to see how this will bring about the significant changes necessary to reverse the 90% growth in carbon emissions since 1990. The biggest growth in NZ’s emissions since 1990 has been in transport emissions – cars and light duty trucks. You should only be investing in things that reduce our carbon emissions, and investing most in things that do the most to reduce emissions. Change the plan to incorporating how each item reduces climate change, and reprioritise the plan in climate change reduction per dollar spent order.
	Strategic objectives	Delete objective 4 – ‘supporting economic growth through providing better access across Te Tauihu’s key journey routes’ on page 38. Replace it with an objective of wellbeing and prosperity without growth.
	Freight	Push for rationalisation of freight movements – i.e. to avoid situations like people driving a truck across the country to deliver bread.
	Sustainability	We shouldn’t assume that people will continue to commute – we need a reset in all travel expectations.
	Other - Planning	By allowing and encouraging people to live close to where they work, educate and shop, the easier it is for active and public transport to be viable. This needs to be a central strand to transport policy. You should be petitioning councils to not allow rural subdivision, and for increased density of housing in urban areas. Don’t allow urban sprawl, only intensification. Increase allowable densities and heights in city and town centres.
	Town centres	Increase pedestrian friendly car-free zones in all town and city centres – to increase the attractiveness of walking and cycling.
	Sustainability	Actively discourage car commuting, alongside your measures to encourage active and public transport.
	Cycleways	We can’t find any budget for the rollout of a protected cycle path network.
	Other - aviation	We find it extraordinary that Nelson Airport is banking on a doubling of passenger numbers over two years following on from the Corona virus reset. Until we have zero emission flights we need to face the reality of the significant carbon footprint of aviation.
	Shipping	We would like to see explicit support for increasing coastal freighting.
Peter Olorenshaw, Nelsust	Sustainability	We are concerned at the disconnect between the words in the front of the document and the budget at the back – nice words at the front about mode shift, low emissions etc, but when you look at where the money is going a different story emerges – 61% of the budget is on local roads, and 98% of Waka Kotahi’s budget for the top of the south is on national roads. We are asking for a complete change of emphasis – to make active and public transport the MOST attractive for most trips, not just better than they currently are. Freeing up the roads (through less car commuting) for tradies and truckies is something we should be striving for.
	Sustainability	The RLTP needs to show how every dollar spent contributes to lowering carbon emissions.
	Sustainability	The RLTP should factor in the complete reset that Covid has provided, and climate change considerations demand, for our transport requirements. Growth projections should take into account the new reality of limited overseas travel for the foreseeable future.
	Sustainability	We oppose the objective of a transport system that supports continued economic growth (page 32)
	Sustainability	Make mode shift improvements with every maintenance and rebuilding project.
	Sustainability	The budgets include very little money for cycling which doesn’t match the objectives.
	Freight	Extend port hours to speed up freight journeys – so that trucks to and from the port can travel off peak. We would like to see you work with the port to extend its hours (and find solutions to noise issues related to surrounding residents).
	Cycleways	We need to aim for protected cycle paths and shared slow zones rather than on-road cycle lanes.
	Other – planning	Urban intensification is a transport solution, but very little has happened in this respect. Allow for partitioning of existing houses to provide extra dwellings.
	Waterfront	Nothing appears to be planned for the Rocks road esplanade for 3-4 years. We need it for protecting the road from sea level rise, and to make commuting the BEST option for more people, and for recreational users of the waterfront. Continual delays are unacceptable. The waterfront development must be brought forward.
	Peripheral parking charges	These could be a disincentive to car commuting, even though they are not as good as peak hour congestion charging. You should be pushing for this. We need to have sticks as well as carrots. We suggest you talk to Queenstown Council about the details of their peripheral charges and how they were an essential ingredient for a mode shift, along with the better bus service.
	Tahunanui Drive	We hope the crossing changes in Tahunanui include an over-bridge from Tosswill road over the road onto the school berm. This would improve safety for active transport people but also improve efficiency for motor vehicle traffic as there would be one less place for them to get held up.
	Coastal shipping	Please revise the plan to include getting more freight onto coastal shipping and off our roads.
	Freight (logs)	Please review our log barging proposal, which would get more than 35,000 of the most intimidating trucks off the roads. (See preliminary proposal in the full submissions, pages 192-200.)
John Bond, Road Transport Association	Significant Activity: Nelson Future Access (local roads)	The RTANZ supports the need for short term project deliveries (in the next 6 years) on local roads to address the Nelson Future Access challenge. RTANZ supports signalisation of a number of intersections when required to keep the intersection safe and controllable.
	Significant Activities: Active transport routes in Washington Valley and the Victory-Waimea areas	Support
	Significant Activity: SH6 Nelson to Blenheim	The RTANZ opposed the speed change threshold from Blenheim to Nelson. Motorists are taking chances by passing trucks in areas that are dangerous simply because of the slow speeds. More safety infrastructure and signage will make it even more frustrating.
	Significant Activity: Nelson-Tasman Public Transport Improvements	No issues with this. It would replace many light vehicles using the roads. But in our experience, New Zealanders continue to choose to use their own means of transport for convenience reasons. The RTANZ would support more centralised parking areas for motorists until we can change the culture of the public. However, forcing this change will bring more problems.
	RLTP overall	Both the transport and heavy transport sector has been overlooked. Without consultation with heavy truck operators, understanding what their issues actually are, then the plan will come across some important problems that may need to be addressed within the very near future. The Road Transport Association would support a review in looking at other options where heavy transport vehicles would not impose a problem on the community.
Angela Craig	Cycleways	I support more cycleways and more connected cycleways, separated from cars if possible.
Bevan Woodward, Bike Nelson Bays	Significant Activities	We are concerned that the significant activities (pages 54-55) have not been assessed against the Government Policy Statement 2021. We note the outcome of ‘growth’ is the justification for many projects (on page 56) but this is not a GPS strategic priority.
	Active transport	We disagree with the Investment Logic Mapping that shows ‘growth’ as having the greatest weighting. Instead we suggest that Mode Choice, Safety and the Environmental Impact are the most critical problems to be addressed in the RLTP. We believe mode shift is the transport solution for the 21^st century and should be at the heart of the RLTP. With this in mind, we have prepared a ‘top 10’ of projects to improve active transport and ask that this be included in the RLTP: 1. Removing parking from around schools at drop off and pick up times 2. Raised table pedestrian/cyclist crossings to calm traffic and improve access for active travel users: - Outside schools - On arterial roads (eg Quarantine Rd, Tahunanui Drive) - At roundabouts - Where shared paths meet roads. 3. 30m/h traffic speeds using low-cost calming: - Around schools - Residential neighbourhoods - retail centres. 4. Contra-flow cycle lanes on one-way streets, eg Church St, Tahaki St, Kerr St 5. Off-road cycle route between Richmond and Nelson via Toi Toi, to include: - Priority crossing of St Vincent side roads - Lighting and widening of Nelson south railway reserve path - Raised pedestrian crossing of Songer and Saxton Roads - Enhanced crossing facilities at Queen St/SH6 intersection, Richmond 6. More covered bike parking outside popular destinations, eg schools, supermarkets, community facilities, etc 7. Signage audit and cycle routers updated on Google Maps 8. Continuous cycle lanes Annesbrook roundabout along SH6/Haven Road to Halifax Street, 40km/h traffic speed (with 30km/h, raised crossings and safer intersections in Tahunanui) 9. Continuous cycle lanes on key arterials, including: - Ridgeway, Suffolk and Saxton Road - Rutherford Street and Waimea Road - Collingwood Street - Halifax Street - Salisbury Road. 10. Safe cycle routes from Nelson City to the MTB tracks in the Brook and Maitai.
Rachel Boyack, MP for Nelson	Active transport	I encourage Council to continue investing in high-quality and accessible walking and cycling infrastructure to encourage active transport and modal shift. I support the outcome noted on Page 29 of the Draft Plan that “the network will have primary routes that are high quality, direct and separated from motor vehicles.”
	Significant Activities And Waterfront	I am supportive of the Strategic Projects identified for Nelson and Tasman within the Draft Plan and wish to see the following projects prioritised by Councils and Waka Kotahi: 1. Prioritisation of the short/mid-term activities identified within the Nelson Future Access Project 2. Continued work to unlock the potential of the Nelson waterfront so that it can be developed into a world class piece of infrastructure 3. Prioritisation of the Richmond Future Transport Project and the Berryfield/Lower Queen Street Intersection Upgrade, so that this section of the network can be developed to promote public and active transport, and connect safely to the existing transport infrastructure in the Nelson-Tasman region.
Gaire Thompson	Significant Activity: SH6 Nelson to Blenheim (Speed Management)	Opposed to the new speed limits between Nelson and Blenheim.
	Active transport	Concerned at the prioritisation of cyclists and pedestrians over motorists. Eg the new bike parks which involved removing seven valuable inner city car parks.
	Cycleway	Opposed to the new cycle way in Muritai Street which gets next to no use and has caused a narrowing of the road making it dangerous, and removing car parks on the eastern side in a densely populated area.
	Significant Activity: Nelson Future Access Plan	Concern at the connection of a new road at Bishopdale to Waimea Road over the planned route for the Southern Link. Traffic congestion at Waimea road will be made worse by the new traffic lights in this area.
Richard Popenhagen, NZ Automobile Association, Nelson District Council	Significant Activities	Generally, we are supportive of the prioritisation of the highest cost projects for the next three years, as detailed on pages 53-55 of the RLTP.
	Significant Activity: iRex Interisland Resilient Connection Project	Support
	Significant Activity: Richmond Future Transport Project	Support – this is the most crucial project in the Nelson-Tasman region. We would like to be involved in the RPBC consultation on an ongoing basis.
	RLTP overall	Support. But AA is concerned that a large part of the success of this RLTP is contingent on achieving a significant increase in PT use. The AA supports people having choice of all modes of travel. Increasing the appeal of public transport must not be achieved by diluting levels of service for general traffic.
	Significant Activity: Berryfield Lower Queen Street Upgrade	Support
	Significant Activity: Nelson Future Access (local roads)	In general, AA supports this package of projects. However, we would want to be involved with regards to the broader detail of the specific and overall projects within the package. Importantly, AA wants to be involved with NZTA in identifying the preferred long-term package for the benefit of Nelson and the region.
	Significant Activity: Washington Valley Active Transport Route	Support rearranging the roading space at the same time as the water utility upgrade. We would welcome discussion on the proposal in due course.
	Significant Activity: Victory-Waimea Road Active Transport route	Support, with consultation in due course.
	Significant Activity: Waipara to Renwick	A full review of the speed limits is warranted on the four state highways. It is important that AA be consulted, along with the Road Transport Association and the NZ Trucking Association. These organisations represent the bulk of users of the affected highways. Correct the Road to Zero goal, which is 40% reduction in deaths and serious injuries (from 2018 levels) by 2030. Please confirm what the 2018 DSI figures are for all the relevant projects in the RLTP.
	Significant Activity: SH60 Richmond to Motueka	Support. And welcome consultation. Consideration should be given to the installation of side safety barriers/guardrails along appropriate sections of the Mariri tidal corridor.
	Significant Activity: SH6 Blenheim to Nelson (speed management)	Correct the Road to Zero goal, which is 40% reduction in deaths and serious injuries (from 2018 levels) by 2030.
	Significant Activity: SH6 Richmond to Wakefield	AA has submitted on the review of the speed limits along this corridor and recommended several safety improvements. The current standard of this section of the highway is poor. Earlier improvements are warranted before the proposed allocation of $9.5M in 2026/27.
	SH60 High Street Motueka – Additional Scope	Support. Please state what the 2018 DSI figure is.
	SH6 Blenheim to Nelson – Additional Scope (Package 1)	Support
	Engagement	Our fear is that you may only hear from larger more resourced groups – and smaller groups or individuals may not submit – due to the complexity of the RLTP, with so much information to digest.
Chris Ensor, OneFortyOne New Zealand	RLTP overall	Support the values and objectives
	Freight - Financial constraints	On page 30 there is mention of ‘heavy haulage users of low order roads may be asked to contribute to the costs of maintaining these roads’. We’re committed to playing our part when our activities are causing a disproportionate level of road wear, as we have demonstrated with voluntary contributions to MDC for the Wairau Northbank Road since 2006. Our long term planning horizon allows us to identify high use areas of road prior to harvest commencing, and we will continue to work collaboratively with roading authorities regarding this.
	Freight	With regional freight volumes forecast to increase in future, there is a safety and access implication for both road users, and those travelling using alternative transport modes.
	Freight – future scenario (p28)	A move to ‘greater separation of through routes from general transport within each urban centre’ is welcomed by us, as it also improves the efficiency, safety and reliability of our freight network. We have been striving to increase freight route ‘separation’ in the short term using delivery timing and are currently working with Port Nelson on a proposal to open 24 hour delivery. This would allow us to reduce overlap with the peaks of road use and transit by the general public. We are also working to reduce the overall number of vehicles we have on the road, by gradually increasing the share of High Productivity Motor Vehicles in our contract fleet.
Bernie Goldsmith, Nelson Residents Association	Wishes to speak at the hearing.	No written information.

New Zealand Walking Access Commission	Strategic framework	Support for the vision.
	Unformed legal roads	Recommendation: develop an access-friendly unformed legal roads policy. (Which includes a requirement for parties wanting to stop legal roads to first contact the Walking Access Commission for feedback, and uses the Commission’s Guidelines for the Management of Unformed Legal Roads as a best practice template.)
	Strategic framework, page 3	Recommendation: insert the following text in the last paragraph of page 3 of the Foreword: “Increasing and improving the connectiveness and safety of cycling and walking routes across the South Island, within and between settlement”.
	Strategic framework, page 7	Add to the Executive Summary list of key transport issues: · “safe provision of active modes of transport (biking, walking, skateboards, scooters, e-bikes etc) within and between the regions”
	Strategic framework, page 7	Support for bullet points two and three (of third paragraph).
	Strategic context, page 11	Start this section with the following text: “Transport is our means of connecting to people and places. It connects us to job opportunities, education, health services, shops and essentials – like groceries and medicine. It connects us to our friends, families and communities. It connects us to social and cultural places – like marae and church. It connects us to and provides recreational experiences and social activities. It connects our goods to our customers, supporting our jobs and livelihoods.”
	Strategic context, pages 11-30	Add challenges to the strategic context section of the RLTP, including the following relating to active transport. “Challenges Significant safety challenges will be faced in achieving the targets of increasing walking, biking and other forms of active transport while improving safety given: - Projected 15 percent population growth over the next 15 years (p11) - Significant residential growth in townships surrounding urban centres (p12) - A steady increase in the 65+ age group, which, at 21 percent, is much higher than the New Zealand average of 15 percent (p13) - A 43 percent increase in road travel from 2001-2018 at a time when population increased 23 percent (p16) - Projected 19 percent growth in freight volumes from 2022 to 2042 with an accompanying 4–5 percent growth in heavy vehicles and 35 percent growth in Cook Strait traffic (p20) - Cyclists are identified as being at higher risk in Te Tauihu than most other regions (p25).
	Engagement (page 14)	Te Tauihu tangata whenua are listed but there is no mention of how they will be included in active transport planning or benefit from results. The Commission recommends that the following be added to page 14: “That Te Tauihu tangata whenua be consulted on Land Transport policies and encouraged to participate in planning for active modes of transport/cultural trails etc
	Safety	We note the significantly higher number of fatal and serious injury crashes involving vulnerable users and suggest that these statistics are not adequately addressed in the Te Tauihu Draft RLTP.
	Active transport (page 23)	The Commission notes that TDC and MDC commuter cycling rates are below Nelson’s, and that this information be used to inform objectives, targets and priority investment areas. Add the following commitment: “RTLP investment in doubling active travel in Te Tauihu will prioritise Tasman and Marlborough, drawing from learnings in Nelson.” (Also include this in table 6, page 36.)
	Active transport	Add to page 23: “RLTP investment in increasing doubling active travel in Te Tauihu will prioritise the connecting of cycle on-road and share path facilities, especially urban routes.” (also include this in table 6, page 36)
	Active transport	Figure 6 (p23) does not show the formed cycle route from the northern entrance to Blenheim to Spring Creek or the planned 210km Whale Trail connecting coastal communities from Picton to Kaikoura.
	Active transport (page 24)	Add to the Walking text on page 24, as the third sentence: “Sections of long-distance walking and biking trails are on busy highways and secondary road.”
	Strategic framework (page 36)	Amend table 6 on page 36 to include the following text as a RLTP priority investment area (in the row of the ‘healthy and safe people’ outcome): ‘Shifting nationally and regionally significant walking trails off-road”
	Strategic framework	Add the following text to the end of Policy P1 (for Objective 1) on page 38: “Extend and connect walking and cycling routes.”
	Strategic framework	Amend Policy P2 (for Objective 1) on page 38 to read: “Encourage and support people to choose walking and cycling for an active and healthy lifestyle by investment in infrastructure to create new walking and cycling routes, connect existing routes, education programmes targeted at encouraging more people to walk and cycle, and setting, implementing and reviewing strategic direction at regular intervals.”
	Strategic framework	Amend Policy P1 (for Objective 2) on page 38 to read: Increase safe travel through improvement of transport networks. Identify roads requiring engineering intervention to reduce cycle/pedestrian serious injuries and deaths.
	Strategic framework	Objective 4 refers to economic growth, but this may become an outdated target due to climate change.
	Strategic framework	Add a new policy to support Objective 6: “Encourage and support people to choose walking and cycling to reduce road traffic and carbon emissions.”
	Strategic framework	Targets (page 35): The Commission supports a target of 50% reduction in deaths and serious injuries on roads by 2030. (Note: the published target in the draft RLTP is 40% on page 35 but 50% in the table on page 36.)
	Strategic framework	Targets (page 35) The Commission requests separate active travel/public transport targets: - “Double the use of active travel mode share by 2030” - “Double the use and public transport mode share by 2030”
	Strategic framework	Support for the Vision on page 36.
	Strategic framework	The Commission supports the ‘healthy and safe people’ investment area, but recommends the following insertion: “safe and connected cycling and walking routes within and between settlements”
	Strategic framework	Support for ‘inclusive access’ outcome.
	Strategic framework	The Commission supports the environmental sustainability priority investment area, but recommends the addition of cycling and walking networks.
	Active transport	More equitable funding should be dedicated to walking and cycling improvements across Nelson, Tasman and Marlborough with a considerably increased budget in Marlborough. (Currently the investment equates to $732 per person in Nelson, $687 per person in Tasman and $184 per person in Marlborough.)
	Safety	The Commission notes that safety improvements for motorists can reduce safety for cyclists and pedestrians, and this needs to be taken into account when planning and implementing safety improvements.
	Strategic framework	Specific targets should be added related to the inclusive access and health and safe people objectives., eg doubling of walking and cycling; 50% reduction in deaths an injuries by 2021.

Item 8: Nelson Tasman Regional Public Transport Plan 2021-31 - Deliberations Report

Regional Transport Committee

21 April 2021

REPORT R24772

Nelson Tasman Regional Public Transport Plan 2021-31 - Deliberations Report

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide information to assist the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) in its deliberations on the Draft Nelson Tasman Regional Public Transport Plan 2021-2031 (RPTP).

1.2 To request consideration of the revised RPTP by Council as part of the Long-Term Plan (LTP).

2. Summary

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

2.2 Once approved, the RPTP must usually be submitted to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) by 30 June 2021. Due to NCC meeting schedules, Waka Kotahi have agreed to a later submission date of 1 July 2021 following Council approval.

2.3 The RPTP has been out for consultation and hearings held. Officers recommend changes to the RPTP as below:

2.3.1 Including a commitment to work with the broader Tahunanui community over the next 12 months to determine the future bus routes and service timetables through Tahunanui to Stoke, the Airport and Nayland Rd.

2.3.2 In addition to this Tasman District Council (TDC) have indicated that they will work with their rural communities over the next 12 months regarding staging of service within funding limitations. Any changes will be cost neutral to NCC.

2.3.3 To develop the detail of any broader services, network and timetabling over the next 2 years (2021-2023), including earlier services to accommodate some shift workers.

2.3.4 To develop a policy of allowing dogs on public transport at off peak times provided they are in a suitable carrier.

2.3.5 To amend the RPTP and RLTP to reflect an additional $54,000 per annum operational budget to ensure bus drivers under the existing contract are paid the living wage to apply until the new contact takes effect noting that this will be a requirement under any new contract in 2022/23. It is anticipated funding will be shared across NCC and TDC with the final split yet to be determined but likely to be 70% NCC and 30% TDC for the existing routes.

2.3.6 To amend the RPTP (and RLTP) to bring service frequency increases proposed for stage 2 (2026) into stage 1(2023) at an increased net cost of up to $670,000.

2.4 High level costings for additional service changes in years 1 and 2, requested at the RPTP Hearings, are covered in a confidential report to the 21 April 2021 RTC meeting for consideration.

3. Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Public Transport Plan 2021-31 - Deliberations Report (R24772) and its attachments (A2569883, A2617764, A2617627); and

3. Approves lodging the amended Nelson Tasman Regional Public Transport Plan 2021-31 (A2569883 of Report R24772) with Council for consideration, with the following changes:

· Including the provision to undertake detailed service route and timetable planning in 2021-2023;

· Bring service frequency increases proposed for stage 2 (2026) into stage 1(2023) at an increased net cost of up to $670,000;

· Increase Nelson City Council operational public transport budget by $38,000 per year from July 2021 to pay drivers living wage rates;

· Include the investigation to allow dogs in suitable carrier containers on buses at off peak times; and

4. Advises the Tasman Regional Transport Committee and Waka Kotahi of any amendments to the Regional Public Transport Plan 2021-31 approved by the Nelson Regional Transport Committee; and

5. Notes that any changes made by Tasman District Council to the Nelson Tasman Regional Public Transport Plan 2021-31 will be cost neutral to Nelson City Council.; and

6. Notes that a final Regional Public Transport Plan will be bought to the 29 June 2021 Nelson Regional Transport Committee meeting following Long-Term Plan adoption recommending to Council to lodge with Waka Kotahi.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Considers making provision for extra funding as outlined in 6.6.4 of report R24772 to the 21 April 2021 Regional Transport Committee in the Long-Term Plan; and

2. Notes that a Regional Public Transport Plan will be bought to Council on 1 July 2021 seeking approval to lodge with Waka Kotahi.

4. Background

4.1 On 16 February 2021, the RTC approved a Statement of Proposal (SOP) for public consultation on both the Regional Land Transport Plan 2021–2031 (RLTP) and the Draft Regional Public Transport Plan 2021–2031 (RPTP). Some submitters made comment on both or submitted to the wrong plan. Officers have sorted submissions and can advise all those who wanted to be heard were provided with the opportunity, and all submissions have all be considered for the appropriate deliberation report

4.2 The RLTP is a joint document with Tasman District Council (TDC), Marlborough District Council (MDC) and Waka Kotahi to identify the key transport objectives and policies and to provide a joint voice when competing for central government funding for Te Tauihu. Each RTC is hearing submissions and deliberating on their RLTP separately and a separate report will deal with this matter on the 21 April 2021 RTC agenda.

4.3 NCC and TDC jointly heard submissions on the Draft RPTP on 9 April 2021, but are dealing with the matter separately at their respective RTCs.

4.4 Public consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP), was undertaken from 17 February 2021 to 17 March 2021. A summary of the submissions is appended as Attachment 1.

4.5 Council is required to submit the draft RPTP to Waka Kotahi by the 30 June 2021 so that activities and projects can be considered for funding from the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF). Due to NCC meeting schedules, Waka Kotahi have agreed to a later submission date of 1 July 2021 following Council approval.

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

5. Discussion

5.1 The Draft GPS was released by central government in March 2020 by central government. That GPS has five key transport outcomes - Inclusive Access, Healthy and Safe People, Economic Prosperity, Environment Sustainability and Reliance & Security and four strategic priorities - Safety, Better Travel Options, Climate Change and Improving Freight Connections.

5.2 The draft RLTP and RPTP, taking into account the above, has the following five priorities - Mode Choice, Safety, Network Management, Economic Prosperity, Resilience and Environmental Outcomes.

5.3 An amended RPTP with tracked changes highlighted is included as Attachment 2. This attachment reflects officer recommendations detailed in this report. At the time of writing this report TDC are editing the regional routes component. It is noted that any changes to those will be cost neutral to NCC. Some graphics will require further updating if Council support phasing changes.

5.4 Following NCC LTP deliberations, and discussion with TDC a final RPTP will be prepared for the 29 June 2021 RTC meeting which will recommend approval of Council to lodge with the Plan Waka Kotahi on 1 July 2021.

Submissions

5.5 A total of 144 submissions were received on the RPTP. Submissions to the joint RPTP were shared across the Nelson and Tasman Councils. 18 submitters spoke at a joint hearing held on 9 April 2021.

5.6 The key issues raised in the feedback are broadly summarised in the following table and discussed in this report.

RPTP Feedback – key issues	Responses
General support for the overall proposal	36
Routes 1 and 2 – frequency and speed	31
Route 2 – change from Muritai St to Tahunanui Drive	20
Storage and transfer of e-bikes and bikes	10
Proposed timing of the three stages	27
Earlier morning and later evening bus services	13
Accessibility	3
Extra routes	17
Weekend bus services	7
Drivers’ attitudes	5
Route 4: Airport to the Brook	51
Dogs on buses	2
Superstops and other bus stops	24
Transit app	5
Bus design features	8
Tasman routes	30
Park and Ride	9
Fares	28
Low emission buses	16
Frequency of buses	18
Funding and relative priority of public transport investment	6
Support/comments on the proposed routes as a whole	9
Route 3: Atawhai to Hospital	3
Car parking needs to be addressed	5
Promotion/communications ideas	19
Stoke link service	2
Topics outside the scope of the plan	14
Other aspects of the plan	12

6. Feedback on key issues

Overview

6.1 Almost all submitters expressed support for the overall plan (with 36 submitters explicitly stating their support for the overall plan), with many referring to the positive contribution that improved public transport services can make to responding to the climate emergency. None of the written submissions were opposed to the plan.

6.2 Other submissions focused on making suggestions for modifications and improvements to the plan including to route opportunities. It is difficult to review each option individually as all aspects of the plan (route options, timetabling and level of investment) are interrelated and interdependent. Officers propose to work through these opportunities as the routes and timetables are developed over the next 12 months.

Proposed timing of the three stages

6.3 The proposed timing allows officers time to take into consideration the ideas and submissions made as part of this consultation, to develop the timetables and details of the new services, write and tender the new contract, and to be able to procure low emission buses, all of which is unlikely to be achievable prior to July 2023.

6.4 Any earlier changes to the existing contract would add additional operational costs to Years 1 and 2 of the NCC draft LTP a key consideration of this council. The high-level costings for the requested changes are covered in an accompanying confidential report to this committee.

6.5 27 submitters requested to bring forward the proposals included in Stage 2. Some submitters suggested bringing forward particular actions from both Stages 2 and 3, with increasing the frequency of services being of most value (together with the introduction of the rural services in TDC). Stage Two of the RPTP from Year 2026 includes a standard 7am -7pm 30-minute frequency for all routes. Over 20 submissions specifically requested the improved service frequency proposed for 2026 should be brought forward to 2023 noting that 2026 is considered to be too late given the need for modal shift and the feedback that the frequency of bus services was one of the biggest barriers to increased usage.

6.6 The current proposal in the RPTP includes three stages, in 2023, 2026 and 2029, with:

6.6.1 a significant increase in the frequency on Routes 3 and 4 from 2023, compared to currently,

6.6.2 weekday 30-minute peak hour services and hourly off-peak services from 2023,

6.6.3 no increase in weekday frequency on Routes 1 and 2 until 2026, however officers note that on routes 1 and 2 where there is overlap the 15-minute peak frequency (between 7am- 9am and 3pm- 6pm) is retained between Nelson and Richmond. Due to route changes some sections in Stoke and Richmond are reduced to 30-minute frequency but the route provides better spatial coverage. This is illustrated on a map shown as Attachment 3

6.6.4 increased frequency to hourly services is proposed on all routes at weekends from 2023.

Officer comment - Officers support bringing forward elements of Stage 2 and 3 to 2023, particularly frequency and extended hours of operation as demand, funding, or resources increase. Increasing frequency and introducing bus priority are the most effective measures that can be taken to align with local and national strategic goals to encourage mode shift and decrease carbon emissions. The proposals in the RPTP are designed to be flexible and build on each other as each stage is implemented. The RPTP includes the opportunity for officers to review the current services and network and introduce improvements that can be achieved with available funding and contract constraints, and to review the plan as the situation evolves. Should future funding opportunities emerge these timeframes will be further reviewed.

Bringing the increased frequency and extended hours forward to 2023 will add a net cost of up to $670,000 to NCC (assumes Waka Kotahi subsidy and TDC matching contribution) and will require a change to the LTP .This equates to an addition to rates of 0.8% from 2023.

Routes 1 and 2 – frequency and speed

6.7 The RPTP includes introducing 7 days a week, 7am to 7pm services on the Routes 3 and 4, whilst maintaining the existing weekday services on Routes 1 and 2 (but enhancing the weekend frequency). 31 submissions expressed support for maintaining the existing 15-minute peak hour frequency and current timetable on Routes 1 and 2 (between Nelson and Richmond). The current proposals change Route 2 to via Nayland Road, maintaining the 15-minute frequency on most of the current routes. There is a section of Annesbrook Drive between Wakatu Drive and Waimea Rd where this frequency will be reduced to 30 minutes (peak hour) as result of these changes. There will be a similar reduction in frequency on Salisbury Road in Richmond due to diverting Route 1 in order to provide coverage to the growth area of Hill Street. These changes in routes and the effect on frequency are shown in Attachment 3

Officer comment: Officers support retaining the 15-minute end to end frequency on Routes 1 and 2.

6.8 Concerns were expressed about Routes 1 and 2 services being caught up in the regular traffic, making a bus trip slower than travelling by car, and therefore reducing the incentive to choose the bus. Bus priority measures were supported. However, several submitters (including the Tahunanui Business & Citizens Association, residents, and an affected local business) were opposed to establishing bus priority lanes on Tahunanui Drive due to the impact on businesses and St Stephens church attendees.

Officer comment: Priority lanes are seen as essential to a public transport system that encourages modal shift, but no specific commitment to establishing these in any particular area is discussed in the draft plan. This is because the process, timing and placement of priority lanes is subject to the Nelson Future Access Project business Case (NFAP). It is expected that the requirement for bus priority on Routes 1 and 2 between Wakatu Drive and Champion Rd will be identified in the next 3 years and included in the next RPTP review and NCC 2024-34 Long-Term Plan (LTP). TDC as part of the Richmond Business Case, are investigating bus priority lanes within Richmond from 2024 onwards.

Officers support incorporating bus priority lanes and other priority measures (potentially as part of the NFA and RPBC) into the RLTP as soon as financially possible due to the crucial part they play in developing a public transport plan that incentivises bus travel over private car use.

Officers note that priority lanes or clearways refer to a lane specifically reserved for use by buses (and potentially trade and freight vehicles), while an express route is one that makes use of the priority lanes and clearways, but also does not stop as frequently as the standard service.

6.9 Some submitters noted that linking these routes too closely with the rural services could result in delays in these bus services. In addition, the Nelson Tasman Community Transport Board was concerned that tacking the Tasman regional routes onto Routes 1 and 2 would make travelling by bus an unattractive option for Motueka and Wakefield residents, who don’t want the delays of stopping and starting through Stoke. The Trust suggests using smaller buses (up to 20 seats) on these rural routes.

Officer comment - The interaction of the urban and rural routes will be reviewed as part of the development of the detailed schedules over the 12 months. This work will include consideration of an express service from Richmond.

Route 2 – Change from Muritai Street to Tahunanui Drive

6.10 Currently Route 2 buses travel down Muritai Street. The proposal is to relocate this route to Tahunanui Drive.

6.11 Eighteen submissions strongly opposed this proposed route change, including MP for Nelson, Rachel Boyack, the Principal of Tahunanui School, the Tahunanui Business & Citizens Association and Grey Power.

6.12 The main issues cited were safety and accessibility for Tahunanui residents. Almost all submitters who were opposed to this change were concerned about the safety of crossing Tahunanui Drive to access the bus stop (particularly for children, the elderly and people with mobility or sight issues) given this is a very busy State Highway, with a high number of trucks travelling on it.

6.13 Grey Power, Tahunanui School and many other submitters pointed out that Tahunanui residents (including school children) are much more able to access the bus along Muritai Street, than walking to Tahunanui Drive, which is mainly motels, businesses and tennis courts, and very few residents.

6.14 The Tahunanui Business & Citizens Association also pointed out that many students attending Nayland schools already use a privately funded service, and that the need for a Nayland College service will diminish in future as the school is introducing an enrolment zone.

6.15 Pascoe Auto expressed significant safety concerns related to buses travelling along Pascoe Street as this is already a dangerous, busy industrial environment, with lots of trucks and private vehicles making use of this route. Some submitters said this safety issue also applied to Parkers Road and Quarantine Road.

6.16 There was significant support, 48 submitters, for a service to the Airport, including from Tasman. This support included recognition that timetabling the new airport service (Route 4) to run on alternative half hours to Route 2 would effectively bring the 30-minute Tahunanui frequency forward from 2026 to 2023. There were, however, questions regarding running an Airport service to Stoke and Tasman, and whether the route to the airport should go over the Port Hills. These opportunities will be included in the development of the routes and services over the next 2 years, subject to funding.

Officer comment - Officers recognise the submitters concerns and agree Route 2 should stay on Muritai Street. Officers will work with the broader community over the next 12 months to determine the 2023 routes regarding Route 2, the Airport, Annesbrook Drive, Pascoe Street and Nayland Road. Refer also Para 7.7 below.

Storage and transfer of e-bikes and bikes

6.17 Currently two bikes can be stored on the front of buses (including some e-bikes) There is currently no option to securely lock up a bike at key bus stops or either the Nelson or Tasman terminus.

6.18 10 submissions pointed out the value of secure, covered storage of e-bikes and bikes at bus stops (particularly superstops). This would enable people who live further than walking distance to the bus stop to make use of the bus service, as not everyone will need to also take their bikes with them on te bus to their destination.

6.19 However, some submitters also noted the value of increasing the carrying capacity of future buses to take bikes, such as six more on the back of buses, including e-bikes, with bike trailers might be necessary for the rural buses.

6.20 Some submitters also noted that any future Park and Ride facilities should provide for parking of bikes and e-bikes as well as cars.

Officer comment - Officers support, and have budgeted for, providing covered and secure e-bikes and bikes storage at superstop facilities to extend the range of access to bus services, and to provide more opportunities for combined active and public transport. Options to increase bike carrying capacity on the proposed buses will be included in the bus procurement assessment. It is proposed to include good bike storage at the superstops. Any larger scale Park and Ride facility developed in Tasman will include similar supportive infrastructure.

Earlier morning and later evening bus services

6.21 The proposal includes a 7-7-7 framework, which includes bus services beginning at 7am and finishing at 7pm each day.

6.22 12 submitters requested an earlier start and/or later finish time to allow for transport to Richmond by 7.30, and earlier (e.g. from 6am) to provide public transport for shift workers. Submitters noted that a later finish time (9pm or 10pm) would enable people to take part in after-work activities and still be able to use the bus. Several submitters noted this would contribute to a livelier CBD in the evenings.

Officer comment – Extending service hours has cost implications that have not been included in the current proposed budgets. High order costings of these timetable extensions are being gathered at the time of report writing and will be tabled at the deliberations meeting. Officers support further investigation to identify timetables that provide for extended hours that suit commuters and shift workers, school schedules and evening socializing/events. Further work is proposed over the next 12 months to optimise timetables with a view to identifying the cost and opportunities for extended hours beyond those currently proposed.

7. Further suggestions to extend or enhance existing proposals

Accessibility

7.1 Three submissions commented on the need for buses to be accessible to all. The Nelson Branch of Blind Citizens NZ provided several suggestions and considerations in its submission.

Officer comment - Officers support working directly with Blind Citizens NZ to factor these matters into the future procurement of the buses.

Extra routes

7.2 17 submissions requested extra routes. For Nelson this included a request for a bus out to Hira, including Rachel Boyack’s submission, representing constituents.

7.3 Based on Statistics NZ data and the direction outlined in the Future Development Strategy (favouring intensification over urban expansion for North Nelson), and the dispersed nature of households in this area, it is not expected that a commuter bus from Hira to the Nelson City Centre will be viable in the short term.

Officer comment - Officers consider a more informal, community-run mini-bus sharing scheme is likely to be a better option in this area which lacks the current urban density required to support public transport. The development of this community service is scheduled for 2023. Investigation into future opportunities for extending the Atawhai route in the future is included in the RPTP. Officers are currently investigating if extending the existing Atawhai route to Todd Bush in year 1 and 2 is viable and this is covered in the confidential report.

Weekend bus services

7.4 Seven submissions supported or commented on weekend bus services. Nelson Youth Councillors pointed out the value of weekend buses for students, as public transport is often their only transport option. Many of the submitters requested more regular services on weekends, earlier than provided for in the Draft Plan.

Officer comment – Improved weekend services are proposed in Stage 1 for 2023 with added frequency in 2026. If funding, resources or demand increase, the timetabling for weekend services will be reassessed.

Bus drivers

7.5 Five submissions commented on inconsistent attitudes perceived inappropriate behaviour of the bus drivers. This included submissions from Nelson Youth Councilors and from Blind Citizens NZ (Nelson Branch).

Officer comment - Driver behavior is paramount and any reports made to council in this matter are addressed by officers with the bus operators. Complaints are logged in the council service request system and can be made in person, via email, letter, telephone or use of the Antenno app. This and the ability to respond to future concerns, will be a focus in the new contract for 2023 onwards.

7.6 One submission (First Union) asked the NCC and TDC allocate funding in the upcoming budget to move the city’s bus drivers wage rate up to at least the living wage to recognise that this is important, skilled, and challenging work.

Officer comment:

– The current bus provider pays all their staff 55c/hour above the minimum wage effective 1 April 2021. In line with Council’s preference that all service providers will pay their staff at least the Living Wage, officers support paying bus drivers the living wage, recognizing the important role they play in the success of the public transport services;

- There is not provision in the current budget for the additional costs to the existing contract which expires in 2023. An estimated $54,000 p.a is required and officers are currently working with TDC to determine cost split. If a 70/30 split is settled on, and assuming Waka Kotahi subsidy will be applied the cost to NCC will be $18,000. This will impact rates by 0.022%;

- Officers are working with other councils and Waka Kotahi to pursue consistent application of this and develop the transition for this change’

- For the future contract the living wage adjustment is expected to increase costs by roughly 5%. The living wage version of the calculation for each stage sits comfortably within the cost projections used within the RPTP.

Route 4: Airport to the Brook

7.7 48 submissions supported Route 4, directly connecting the airport and the Brook, and many of these submissions suggested capitalising on this link to promote the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary as a destination for visitors and residents. Submissions suggested including imagery related to the sanctuary on the bus, and renaming the route as the ‘Airport to Brook Waimarama Sanctuary’.

Officer comment – The existing Brook bus route currently terminates at the Brook Holiday Park. There are no proposals to extend the route through the campground to the Sanctuary itself. Officers do not support the inclusion of Brook Waimarama Sanctuary permanent imagery on the Route 4 bus, due to the restrictions it places on bus fleet operational flexibility but will explore other ways bus signage can heighten the visibility of the transport service to key destinations. Refer also para 6.14 above.

Dogs on buses

7.8 Two submissions requested that dogs be permitted to travel on buses. This issue was also raised at the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw consultation process in 2020 and has come through service requests in the past.

Officer comment - Officers support following the approach of other councils which have successfully introduced a policy of allowing dogs on public transport at off peak times provided they are in a suitable carrier – including Wellington and Hawkes Bay. The current operator has indicated support for progression of this initiative.

Superstops and other bus stops

7.9 24 submissions made suggestions on how to enhance the appeal of superstops and other bus stops as a ‘place’, including covered seating, accessibility, bike storage, real time travel information and the ability to buy refreshments.

Officer comment - Officers support making the superstops attractive places, and the other bus stops (particularly those which are used often) more comfortable places to wait. Budgets are included to design and construct some and services provided at these will be developed over the next two years.

Transit app

7.10 4 submitters recommended enhanced information about bus services, including additional promotion of the existing Transit app to make it easier for people to access timetable and route information.

Officer comment - Officers support promoting and enhancing this app to make bus user information easier to access as part of the existing promotions budgets

Bus design features

7.11 8 submitters requested that buses be designed for people doing their shopping or travelling with luggage.

Officer comment - Officers support factoring these suggestions into future procurement of buses.

Fares

7.12 All of the 28 submissions on this topic were strongly in support of cheaper bus fares. Most of the submitters supported the flat fee of $2 per zone, and the revised three zone system. Seven submissions requested even lower fares for young people (up to 18 years old), and Blind Citizens NZ (Nelson Branch) requested that Total Mobility card holders have the same discount as Gold Card holders on buses, including free travel between 9am and 3pm.

Officer comment- the RPTP, Section 10.1, provides for a revised Fares Policy to be developed when the Waka Kotahi draft guidelines are confirmed. These issues will be addressed as part of the development of that policy. The provision of a flat fare (such as $2) has been included in the future budgets from 2023.

Further Total Mobility card holder concessions for bus travel will be investigated but are unlikely under the interim electronic ticket solution of BEE card. This could be considered as part of the national roll out of electronic ticketing known as Project Next.

7.13 Blind Citizens NZ (Nelson Branch) appreciated the increased $15 subsidy cap for the total mobility service but said this was still at the minimal level of support, as in other regions the cap could be as much as $40. They recommended considering different subsidy caps based on a zoning area system:

· Zone one: Nelson to Stoke

· Zone two: Nelson to Richmond

· Zone three or four: Nelson to Motueka.

Officer comment – this will be included in the Fare Policy review.

Low emission buses

Of the 16 submissions on this topic, 13 were in support of low emission or electric buses. Three submissions were neutral or opposed to this. The Business for Climate Action submission noted that while zero-emissions buses were desirable, it was important to start the changes with the available fleet, which could be upgraded to zero-emissions over time. Two submission commented on the emissions created during the manufacture of electric vehicles. One of these submitters asked how the Councils intended to mitigate the impact of lithium mining (associated with electric buses), the cost of replacing the batteries at the end of their life, and how the Councils would dispose of these batteries.

Officer comment- NCC and TDC are working with other Councils nationally to develop a roadmap for decarbonising the bus fleets to address these issues. The government has announced a national package of $50M to assist in decarbonising the public transport fleet however it is noted that an electric bus costs approximately $1M so this fund will be highly contested.

Funding and relative priority of public transport investment

7.14 Six submissions commented on public transport investment. One submission noted that the Southern Link should be prioritised above other transport projects. Two supported the proposed level of investment. The Automobile Association also supported the proposal, provided this was not at the expense of diluting levels of service for general traffic. One submitter said it would be helpful to be able to see how the budgeted revenue from public transport services fitted in with the overall costs.

Officer comment – Bus revenue is included in the overall cost of running the public transport service. Public transport forms a key part of the overall transport network in Nelson and Tasman and this RPTP has been formulated to enable mode shift and provide transport options to the wider community

Route 3: Atawhai to Hospital

7.15 Four of the five submissions on this topic supported this route. Two of the submissions requested more details on the schedule and specific roads to be used for this route.

Officer comment – more details will be developed over the next 12 months and will be socialised with the community.

Car parking needs to be addressed

7.16 Six submissions pointed out that public transport would become a more attractive option if car parking was more expensive and less available in Richmond and Nelson. Several submitters suggested a combined Nelson–Richmond approach to this issue.

Officer comment – The matter of parking fees is included in the Parking Strategy review currently underway. The draft Tasman LTP contains budget to install parking meters in Richmond off- street carparks in Year 3 in line with improved public transport.

Promotion/communications ideas

7.17 Nineteen submissions commented on the need to carry out ambitious promotional campaigns about the public transport service to achieve change.

Officer comment – The new services will be the subject of a targeted promotional campaign to be developed by NCC and TDC staff prior to the launch of the new services and routes in 2023.

Stoke link service

7.18 One submission was in favour of this service, and one was opposed. Nelson Marlborough Health noted requested further clarification on a “demand-responsive” service especially in relation to pricing including details on how people, especially older people, would be able to access this service. The Tahunanui Business & Citizens Association said that on-demand services were tantamount to a taxi service and it questioned the viability of such a service in competition with existing providers.

Officer comment – Officers will carry out further work to assess current usage patterns for the off peak Stoke loop service and appropriateness of a demand responsive service for Stoke as a potential future option.

Other aspects of the plan

7.19 Eleven submissions made comments on other aspects of the plan, including the following points:

· Blind Citizens New Zealand (Nelson Branch) asked that as plans were developed further that the planning group consider how new developments would be available and accessible to blind and low vision citizens. For example, at the moment there were some routes that were designated ‘Hail and Ride Services’ but how would blind and low vision bus passengers know when, or if, a bus was approaching and which vehicle to wave down?

· Blind Citizens New Zealand (Nelson Branch) also expressed support to have one person with oversight and management of the entire public transport service on behalf of both Council’s.

· One submitter sought more flexibility contracts for bus services to allow for expansion and adjustment of the routes and timetables according to community needs, rather than being constrained by a fixed contract.

8. Tasman routes

8.1 For completeness a summary of submissions on TDC routes is provided below. No comment is proposed on these matters as these are for the TDC to consider and fund.

8.2 30 submissions supported adding Tasman routes extending out to Wakefield and Motueka. Many of these submissions were also seeking more services, sooner, particularly daytime services for the Wakefield and Motueka routes.

8.3 The Nelson Tasman Community Transport Trust Board requested smaller (20 seat) buses travelling between Wakefield/Motueka and Richmond then taking an express route via Whakatu Drive, with no further stops until Nelson junction, the Hospital, Collingwood St, and Bridge Street. The Trust Board pointed out that this would be a quicker trip than adding these Tasman routes to the proposed Routes 1 and 2 between Nelson and Richmond. This express bus would also be more attractive to Richmond commuters who don’t want the delays of stopping and starting through Stoke.

Nelson Marlborough Health requested ongoing support for the community transport schemes for Motueka, Golden Bay, Wakefield and Hira.

Park and Ride

8.4 Nine submissions commented on the provision of park and ride facilities, with eight in support of these. Nelson Marlborough Health recommended that security cameras, covered bike parks and toilets be provided at these sites.

8.5 While many submitters supported a Park and Ride facility in Richmond (and wanted to see this happening sooner), the Nelson Transport Strategy Group was less enthusiastic about this option because by the time people are in Richmond they have already made much of their journey to Nelson. The Group considered Park and Ride facilities to be more valuable in Wakefield and Motueka (including roofed bike and e-bike parking).

Other matters

8.6 The Nelson Tasman Community Transport Trust Board requested financial support to maintain existing community bus services (the Wakefield Community Bus and Motueka Community Bus/Coastal Corridor, which was in the pipeline). The Trust Board understands that this funding would not be continued once the regular day-time services from Wakefield and Motueka began.

8.7 The Chair of the Motueka Community Board said the benefits for the period 2021-2026 were negligible for the Motueka community. Therefore, a targeted rate on the areas of benefit should be applied until at least a minimum of three return trips per day were being offered to Motueka residents.

9. Further engagement requested

9.1 The following people and organisations have requested further engagement:

9.1.1 Rachel Boyack, MP for Nelson – is keen to discuss the options for purchasing low emissions/zero emissions buses and has indicated may be able to help Nelson-Tasman speed up the transition to low emissions buses with government assistance.

Officer comment – Officers will explore this further with the MP

9.1.2 Nelson Marlborough District Health Board – want to discuss the location of the superstops at the hospital, particularly if it is to cover any NMDHB land – to ensure there is no conflict with future access to the emergency department.

Officer comment - Officers will explore this further with the DHB.

9.1.3 Ministry of Education – want to understand the implications of the Stage 1 routes for school students.

Officer comment - Officers support meeting with the Ministry of Education to discuss the differences between the current and proposed routes, to address any issues arising for school students, and to assist with communications to students about upcoming changes. In addition officers will engage directly with relevant schools.

9.1.4 Blind Citizens NZ – wish to discuss future planning considerations

Officer comment - Officers will explore this further with the society and with the Accessibility For All (A4A) forum to work on meeting the needs of low vision, blind and other less abled members of the community,

9.1.5 Many submitters provided excellent suggestions about additional ways to enhance the service and to promote use of public transport.

Officer comment - Officers support the development of a reference group for ongoing ideas and advice, and feedback on the current and future services, from people in the community with a passion for enhancing and promoting public transport in Nelson and Tasman.

10. Options

10.1 The Committee has two options. Officers support option 1.

Option 1: Request consideration of updated RPTP by Council as part of Long-Term Plan deliberations
Advantages	· Allows consideration of public transport cost increases as part of the LTP deliberation · Assists in meeting statutory timeline for submission of RPTP to Waka Kotahi by 1 July 2021 to provide eligibility for national funding (NLTF). · Demonstrates consideration of submissions
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Seek approval to lodge RPTP with Council without consideration of updates based on consultation
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Submissions will not have been considered for inclusion on final updated RPTP · No provision will be considered for earlier public transport improvements.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The RTC is required to prepare, consult on and lodge the RPTP with both NCC and TDC for approval.

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

11.2.1 To work with the broader Tahunanui community over the next 2 years to determine the future bus routes and service timetables through Tahunanui to Stoke, the Airport and Nayland Rd,

11.2.2 In addition to this Tasman District Council (TDC) have indicated that they will work with their rural communities over the next 12 months regarding staging of service within funding limitations. Any changes will be cost neutral to NCC.

11.2.3 To develop the detail of the broader urban and rural services, network and timetable over the next 2 years 2021-2023, taking into account submissions made,

11.2.4 To develop a policy that will allow dogs on public transport at off peak times,

11.2.5 Amend the RPTP and RLTP to reflect additional $54,000 per annum required to pay drivers the living wage until 2023 and include this in the new contract in 2022/23.

11.2.6 Amend the RPTP and RLTP to reflect bringing service frequency increases proposed for stage 2 (2026) into stage 1(2023) at an increased net cost of up to $670,000

12. Next Steps

12.1 Subject to approval, the Council will consider recommendations of the RTC as a consequence of consultation as part of the LTP deliberations.

12.2 Following LTP deliberation a final RPTP will bought to the 29 June 2021 RTC meeting recommending to Council approval to lodge with Waka Kotahi on 1 July 2021.

12.3 Staff will reflect the decisions of the RTC (subject to approval from the Council) in responses to submitters.

12.4 The RPTP will be lodged with Waka Kotahi on 1 July 2021.

Author: Margaret Parfitt, Manager - Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2569883 RPTP Workng document with tracked changes ⇩

Attachment 2: A2617764 Summary of Submissions ⇩

Attachment 3: A2617628 Existing and proposed R1 and R2 network - effect on frequency ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

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

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The development of a Regional Public Transport Plan sets the key objectives, measures and activities that contribute to the community outcome “our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”, particularly the supporting phrase “the community is proud of the many active transport options available and the effective public transport system”.

3. Risk

The changes recommended by the officers affect timing of phased of improvements outlined in the plan. There are risks if Waka Kotahi financial constraints result in the public transport improvements not being subsidised to the anticipated and requested level.

4. Financial impact

The changes recommended by the officers affect timing of phased improvements in the plan and require consideration as part of the LTP.

Inclusion of Living wage payments to bus drivers will affect rates by 0.022% in years 1 and 2 of the LTP

If there is support for additional service improvements outside those outlined in the Plan there will be an impact on rates and no certainty that Waka Kotahi will be able to co-fund.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

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

6. Climate Impact

The RPTP has a significant role to play in meeting Council’s goal (in the RLTP) of reducing transport emissions by 30% by 2030.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision-making process

Māori have had the opportunity to provide feedback as part of the consultation process. The summary Statement of Proposal, an invitation to provide feedback and links to relevant documentation were directly emailed to all iwi.

8. Delegations

The Regional Transport Committee has the responsibility for preparing the RPTP in accordance with the requirements of the Land Transport Management Act 2003. The Regional Transport Committee has delegations to hear and deliberate on submissions and make recommendations to Council in relation to the Regional Public Transport Plan.