Item 5: Bridge to
Better Project Concept Approval
|
|
Council
11 April 2024
|
Report
Title: Bridge
to Better Project Concept Approval
Report
Author: Lisa Gibellini -
Strategic Housing Adviser
Report
Authoriser: Alec Louverdis - Deputy Chief Executive / Group
Manager Infrastructure
Report
Number: R28455
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To receive and
consider the results of business, property owner, iwi and stakeholder
engagement on the Bridge to Better Project.
1.2 To approve a street
layout option for the Bridge to Better Project which will proceed onto
developed and then, subject to the outcome of the LTP detailed design.
2. Summary
2.1 The
Bridge to Better Project is an ambitious project that has benefitted from
Central Government’s Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, the details of
which have been canvassed on many occasions with elected members and not
replicated here.
2.2 This report outlines
the significant engagement and communications work undertaken to date and highlights
the ongoing opportunities for that to continue through the design and
construction phases as well as the next steps in the programme and
opportunities for governance oversight.
2.3 This report seeks a
Council decision on which street layout option (Attachment 1 336940202-11213)
for Bridge to Better to proceed with into developed and then, subject to the
outcome of the LTP, detailed design.
2.4 This decision will
allow work to progress to a stage that will allow officers to meet the first payment
milestone of IAF due by September 2024.
3. Recommendation
|
That
the Council
1. Receives the report Bridge to
Better Project Concept Approval (R28455) and its attachments 336940202-11213
and 336940202-11214; and
2. Approves a one-way
street/two- way street (delete one)
layout on Bridge Street from Rutherford Street to Collingwood Street, that
will allow the Bridge to Better project developed design to proceed and then,
subject to the outcome Deliberations of the Long Term Plan, detailed design;
and
3. Notes that the results of
community feedback sought during late April and early May 2024 will be
reported to Council as part of the Long Term Plan Deliberations Report on
funding decisions for the Bridge to Better project; and
4. Notes that the additional
cost of parking, to offset any parking lost through the Bridge to Better
project will be reported to Council through the Long Term Plan 2024-34
Deliberations report; and
5. Notes that future progress
and budget reporting on the Bridge to Better Project will be brought to
Council via the Infrastructure 6 monthly report.
|
4. Background
4.1 In June 2021, the New
Zealand Government announced the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF)
initiative as part of the Housing Acceleration Fund announced in March 2021.
4.2 On 22 September 2022
the Council entered into a contract with Kāinga Ora – Homes and
Communities, acting on behalf of the Crown Infrastructure Acceleration Fund
(IAF) for the Bridge Street Linear Active Transport Corridor, now known as
“Bridge to Better”.
4.3 The agreement is to
fund the Bridge to Better project $36.3 Million subject to special conditions,
including Council committing funding through the Long Term Plan 2024/34 and
enabling housing outcomes.
4.4 The Long Term Plan
2024/34 is currently out for consultation and includes a proposal to increase
the Council funds already set aside (of $32 million) for Bridge to Better to
$42.4 million. It also states that public feedback on a concept design is
proposed to take place in May 2024.
4.5 The project includes
for the upgrade of potable water, wastewater, stormwater, above ground roading
and the Paru Paru wastewater pump station upgrade.
5. Discussion
5.1 Since Council entered
into the IAF contract a design consortium contract has been awarded (following
a public tender process) that has arrived at optioneering and concept designs,
ready for a Council decision to proceed to the next stage.
5.2 Following approval of
a street layout concept, officers will be progressing with an Early Contractor
Involvement (ECI) model to seek benefits from early thinking around
buildability, construction sequencing/staging to better inform the design. This
also provides opportunities to lock in a contractor early and address any wider
market/resourcing pressures. The intention is to get a contractor on board late
2024.
5.3 Construction is due to
take place in 2026/2027 however the wider three waters infrastructure upgrades
works (i.e. works that sit outside of Bridge Street) will be staged ahead to
assist with capital works project sequencing to minimize overall disruption to
the central city area.
5.4 The Paru Paru
Pumpstation project also falls within the Bridge to Better programme of works
and will also follow an ECI process; with construction to take place from
2026-2028.
Engagement
and Communications
5.5 Bridge to Better has
an extensive engagement history, most notably through Te Ara o Whakatū,
which specifically highlighted the Bridge Street project and the Annual Plan
2023/24 which sought additional funding to begin engagement and design
optioneering ahead of the availability of IAF funding which is dependent on the
LTP 2024/34 decision currently out for consultation. That funding was approved.
5.6 Communications around
this project have been in the public domain since 2021 and the successful IAF
funding was formally announced in October 2022.
5.7 In August 2023, work
began on early engagement with stakeholders to inform concept design, including
meeting with Te Tauihu Iwi.
5.8 In September 2023,
early engagement was publicly launched with a media release, letter to affected
businesses, and 1:1 visits from the engagement team. The release was
covered by the Nelson App (TOPS Media), Nelson Mail and RNZ.
5.9 The engagement has
been live on Shape Nelson and featured across Council social media and
publications since September 2023, alongside a publicity campaign that has
included 13 updates or articles in Our Nelson, as well as Phantom posters.
5.10 Further engagement also occurred
with key community groups and Te Tauihu iwi, with 12 hui occurring with iwi
leaders to date, as well as regular updates.
5.11 In December 2023, two information
sessions were hosted by the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce and the What If
Whakatū Nelson initiative respectively, both of which were publicly
advertised and well attended.
5.12 Building on the history of
engagement with Te Ara o Whakatū, the Bridge to Better project team has
met with over 80 businesses and spoken to over 250 individuals.
5.13 In March 2024, following six
months of extensive early engagement activity, a letter from the Chief
Executive and a proactive survey consultation was issued to businesses and
property owners in the Bridge Street catchment to canvas preferences on street
layout.
5.14 There were 52 respondents to the
survey, which included questions seeking feedback on a one-way or a two-way
option, as well as questions relating to key issues raised in early engagement
such as carparking and construction impacts.
5.15 The information stated within the
survey estimated on-street carparking would reduce by 60% in the one-way option
and 50% in the two-way option.
5.16 Feedback was also received from
iwi and community groups who had been involved in the early engagement,
complementing their earlier involvement.
5.17 The survey results indicated the
following high-level findings:
5.17.1 Preference for
a two-way street (58%) over a one-way street (42%).
5.17.2 Above
average sentiment: 6.3/10 for two-way vs 5.3/10 for one-way.
5.17.3 Support
for parking loss mitigation methods such as shifting to a higher turnover time
limit (P60 or less) and creating offset parking elsewhere.
5.18 Survey results also indicated that
most respondents (80%) felt Council is getting the level of engagement
‘About Right’ with just 20% indicating ‘Not Enough’.
5.19 A range of feedback was received
on suggested improvements, construction impacts and other issues which will be
considered throughout the design and construction phases.
5.20 A summary of the key feedback
from stakeholders is provided in Attachment 2. Communities of interest is made
up of art and culture, accessibility for all, active transport organisations.
5.21 Two Council workshops have been
held on the project this year. The first on 23 February where an overview of the
engagement undertaken over the previous 6 months was provided along with a
discussion of the street layout options to be taken back to stakeholders for feedback.
At the second workshop on 22 March Council considered the stakeholder survey
feedback provided on the two options also presented in this report.
5.22 Key stakeholders have been
informed of the survey results and that this report is being tabled at this
meeting.
Design Guiding Principles
5.23 Following any decision by Council on a road layout and
following LTP deliberations, the design principles that will be incorporated
into the developed and detailed design will include:
5.23.1 Urban greening with trees and low
plantings prioritising native plantings, integration of raingardens with
endemic plant species that will enable didactic stormwater to prepare the city
for higher frequency storm impacts.
5.23.2 A flush surface street without kerb and
channel will enable a flexible surface suitable for a variety of public
activation opportunities such as festivals, markets, parades to celebrate
Nelson’s arts and creative events legacy.
5.23.3 Cultural expression reflected through the
integration of unique details working with iwi co-design will be revealed
through materials, details, colours, textures, patterning, and artwork.
Street Layout Concept Options
5.24 A wide range of street layout options were considered during
the concept design process. These options included variations in how all street
users were catered for, and how the street space could be allocated. Several
options were discarded early in the process, and these were: a fully pedestrian
street, a street with no parking and a street with angle parking (due to
critical safety concerns and the excessive space required to accommodate it).
5.25 The initial long list of options was assessed against key
project principles that resulted in a shorter list of options that were then
assessed against the following key criteria and sub criteria shown in brackets:
5.25.1 Supporting city centre housing intensification
(with consideration of the needs of future residents and the development
sector); and
5.25.2 Urban greening (space for raingardens,
play, positive effects om microclimate); and
5.25.3 Community and culture (support business
needs such as parking and outdoor dining, encouraging people to stay longer,
Iwi considerations); and
5.25.4 Moving people (supports the Active
Transport route status, all users catered for safely, impact on adjacent
streets, simple and clear to use, servicing needs, e.g. loading)
5.26 From the assessment process, two main options emerged, the
key difference between them being how the traffic (motor vehicles and bicycles)
moves along the street and how much space is available for other uses such as
landscaping. Both options include a flush (level) street with no kerbs, this
allows flexibility to hold events and creates car park spaces that are more
accessible for mobility impaired people. A flush street also has more
flexibility on where people cross the road.
5.27 Overall, both options meet - to varying extents - the range
of project guiding principles and assessment criteria, such that when applying
a numerical scoring (unweighted) to the assessment the result is very close.
The options are described in section 6.0 of this report along with an
assessment of their advantages, disadvantages and risks.
Parking
5.28 At the Bridge to Better workshop held on 23 February 2024
elected members discussed the question of whether offset car parking should be
provided elsewhere in the city centre. Officers have considered where offset
carparking could be provided without the need to purchase further land and have
cost estimates for a range of car options.
5.29 Offset car parking can be provided off Paru Paru Road at
Rutherford Park, adjoining the existing formed carparks and opposite the site
of the proposed city centre playspace. Officers explored rough cost
estimates for three options: Option 1 provides 37 carparks for $525k; Option 2
provides 55 carparks for $860k; and Option 3 provides 81 carparks for
$1.3million.
5.30 The provision of offset carparking and its scale, costs and
implications for Council’s debt cap will be addressed in the LTP
deliberations report.
Hardy
Street
5.31 At the Bridge to Better workshop held on 22 March 2024
elected members raised the question about the possibility of Hardy Street being
a one-way in the opposite direction and whether that would work with and
complement any decision by Council on a one-way layout for Bridge Street this
report. The question extended to officers was cost and timing of this
proposition.
5.32 The underground infrastructure in Hardy Street is of varying
age and condition. Any works in Hardy Street, as in Bridge Street, would need
to work on the principle of “dig up once”, essential to minimise
cost and disruption to local businesses. If Hardy Street was to be upgraded to
complement Bridge Street there would be a mixture of underground upgrades that
would be prudent to undertake, while some underground infrastructure would be
left in situ as it still has an expected life of between 30 to 80 years.
5.33 High level estimated costs for all works to bring Hardy
Street up to the same level of service as a Bridge Street one way layout would
be around $40 million (excluding cost escalation that is dependent on what year
the works are to be undertaken). This includes greater outdoor dining areas to
complement the “eat street” businesses on Hardy, design work,
consultation, consultant/construction costs and allowances for coal tar removal.
5.34 Ideally any work on this initiative would follow on from the
work in Bridge Street with consultation commencing earlier. This would be an
additional cost that is not included within the current LTP. The Council
is already close to the debt cap limit of 200% being consulted on in the LTP
24/34 and any decision to include funding for Hardy Street would require
reprioritising this above other projects to ensure the debt cap is not
exceeded.
6. Options
6.1 Council has two
options to consider. Each of the street layout options is described below
and illustrations of the key components of spatial allocation of each are
provided in Attachment 1 and should be read together. The advantages,
disadvantages, and risks of each are also summarised in the table below.
6.2 While the results of
the survey were a slight preference for a two-way street (58%) over a one-way
street (42%), the over whelming message from business and property owners on
Bridge Street, stakeholders and iwi was that regardless of which option the
Council just needs to get on and get this project done. With so much effort
from those consulted with there is considerable reputational risk if the
Council doesn’t approve either of the options below.
Option 1 : One-Way Street
Layout
6.3 Option 1 is a one-way
street for traffic and cyclists sharing the east bound traffic lane, with west
bound cyclists having their own space known as a ‘contraflow’ cycle
lane.
6.4 This option of a
one-way street was tested and found to have negligible traffic impacts on the
wider network. This is because Bridge Street is a low volume street and is not
a key traffic link, it is a street that allows access to central city
destinations. The traffic peak is around lunchtime compared to a commuter
focused street where there are clear morning and afternoon traffic peaks.
6.5 This option has wider
footpaths than the existing layout that allow more space for outdoor dining and
seating areas.
6.6 It includes parking
bays on the north side only, with several loading bays on the south side. The
number of parking spaces will be less than there is currently and slightly less
than a two-way option.
6.7 Between the parking
bays on the north side and the loading bays on the south side, space would be
provided for greenery, cycle parking and for pedestrian activation space, making the street more vibrant by compelling longer
stays/visits to Bridge Street and the city centre. Overall, there is more
space (an extra 1.2m) for these uses than a two-way street.
6.8 In this layout there
would be defined places to cross the road for those who need a crossing. The
distance to cross the road is less than a two-way street and easier as there is
only one direction of traffic, although there will be cyclists in both
directions.
6.9 With this one-way
layout the intersection of Trafalgar Street will be less complex for people due
to the reduced number of turning movements with a one-way street.
6.10 Under this option approximately
55 parking spaces (60% loss from 91 parks) will be lost.
Option 2: Two Way Street Layout
6.11 Option 2 is a two-way street
where traffic and cyclists would share the same traffic lane that would be
narrower than the existing lanes with cycle markings that communicate the
sharing situation.
6.12 This option has wider footpaths
than the existing layout that allow more space for outdoor dining and seating
areas.
6.13 In this layout there would be
defined places to cross the road for those who need a crossing. The distance to
cross the road is a bit (1.2m) further than a one-way street.
6.14 With a two-way layout parking
bays on each side including several loading bays are accommodated. The number of
parking spaces would be less than there is currently, about half, this is so
more space could be provided for greenery, cycle parking and pedestrian
activation space in the street, making the street more vibrant by compelling
longer stays/visits to Bridge Street and the city centre.
6.15 There are opportunities to
improve the intersection of Trafalgar Street, but it may still remain complex
for some people unless some vehicle turns or movements are banned.
6.16 Under this option approximately 38
parking spaces (50% loss from 91 parks) would be lost.
6.17 The advantages, disadvantages and
risks associated with Council’s decision to approve one of the options is
summarised in the table below. Officers have not made a recommendation on
either option.
|
|
|
Advantages
|
· Consistent
with the recommended approach in the heavily engaged on and community
supported Te Ara o Whakatū
· Is a
truly transformational project that can enable revitalisation of the city
centre and attract greater private investment for housing and commercial
development.
· Satisfies
the call from stakeholders and the community to invest in the city public
realm and get on and deliver a project.
· Satisfies
the requirements of the IAF funding in that it meets all stated outcomes.
· Safer
for all users due to the reduction in vehicle conflict points at
intersections and removal of head-on collision risk.
· Easier
for people to cross the street and intersections as motor traffic in one
direction only and the distance is shorter.
· More
space (an extra 1.2m) for uses such as landscaping seating ad public amenity
than a two-way street.
· Can
achieve more effective raingardens due to greater space allocation.
· Likely to
promote better use of the parking squares as westbound movement into the
city.
· Less
amenable to accommodating buses which is supported by business who want buses
and the old bus hub removed from Bridge Street.
· Can
stand as a project alone or could be supported by a future project to one-way
Hardy Street in the other direction thereby maximising revitalisation
investment in the city centre.
· Westbound
traffic is distributed to adjacent streets in low volumes and resulting in no
network efficiency concerns.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Removes
more parking than the two-way option.
· Would
require design changes at the west end of the street to accommodate the
current bus exit movement from the Bus Hub if this was to remain in Bridge
Street. This would be contrary to feedback from business who want both the
buses and the bus hub to be removed from Bridge Street.
· A
one-way option was not the most supported option by the stakeholders engaged
with.
|
|
|
|
Advantages
|
· Is a
transformational project that can enable revitalisation of the city centre
and attract greater private investment for housing and commercial
development.
· Satisfies
the call from stakeholders and the community to invest in the city public
realm and get on and deliver a project.
· Satisfies
the requirements of the IAF funding in that it meets all stated outcomes.
· A
two-way option was the most supported option by the stakeholders engaged
with.
· Allows
greater network flexibility for people driving, particularly those making
deliveries.
· People
are more used to this configuration than a one-way street.
· Retains
marginally more parking than the one-way option.
· Would
accommodate the current bus exit movement from the Bus Hub if this was to
remain in Bridge Street.
· Can
stand as a project alone or could be supported by a future project to give
Hardy Street a similar treatment thereby maximising revitalisation investment
in the city centre, although noting that a two way Hardy Street ay provide
less space and amenity for the outdoor dining focus of the street.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Less
space available for other uses.
· Less
likely to achieve the Linear Park concept supported in Te Ara ō
Whakatū.
· Less
safe for all users overall than the one-way option (but not at a level that
makes this a fatal flaw for the option).
· If
selected to enable the buses to remain at the old SBL site (25 to 27 Bridge
St) then this would be contrary to feedback from business who want both the
buses and the bus hub to be removed from Bridge Street.
· There
may be some reputational risk that a two-way option is not the transformative
project the community and city centre business and stakeholders are seeking.
|
7. Conclusion
7.1 This report seeks a
Council decision on which street layout option to proceed with into developed
and then detailed design for the Bridge to Better works.
7.2 Council only has
funding to take one option through to developed design, and completion of that
is the first payment milestone of IAF due by September 2024.
8. Next Steps
8.1 Following
the approval by Council on a street concept layout, developed design will
commence that will include:
8.2.1 Further
communications enabling more useful information about the project to be shared.
8.2.2 Early
engagement results and the concept layout will be released for further public feedback
via Shape Nelson which will feed into LTP deliberations.
8.2.3 Engagement
with key stakeholders particularly on key issues such as timeframes and
mitigation impacts.
8.2.4 The intention remains to work closely
with stakeholders to continually provide feedback and input, ensuring
communication lines remain open throughout the project.
8.3 The project life
deliverables include:
8.3.1 The design development continuing
through to mid-2025 in partnership with key stakeholders.
8.3.2 Securing all necessary consents, early
contractor involvement/tendering ahead of construction activities with
construction planned to take place in 2026/27 with wider three waters
infrastructure upgrades works (i.e. works that sit outside of Bridge Street)
staged ahead to assist with wider capital works project sequencing and minimize
overall disruption to the central city area.
8.3.3 The project will work to align with
the IAF Funding Agreement Milestones and seek IAF income/payments as the
projects progress.
8.3.4 Future updates will be provided
through the Infrastructure 6-monthly Report
Attachments
Attachment 1: Illustration
of Street Layout Options Bridge to Better 336940202-11213 ⇩
Attachment 2: Summary
of Key Feedback from Stakeholders 336940202-11214 ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
Fit with Purpose of Local Government
The recommendations in this report support the cultural,
economic and social wellbeing of the community by confirming which street
layout option to proceed into developed and detail design in order to
revitalise and provide infrastructure capacity to enable development in the
city centre
|
|
Consistency with Community Outcomes
and Council Policy
The recommendations in this report align with the
following community outcomes:
· Our
urban and rural environments are people friendly, well planned and
sustainably managed
· Our
infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future
needs
· Our
communities are healthy, safe, and resilient
· Our
Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective,
and community engagement
|
|
Risk
There is a risk that some members of the Bridge
Street stakeholders and iwi may not support the option selected by
Council. This risk is however mitigated by either option being able to
achieve the project objectives, that Council has considered the view of those
potentially affected in making this decision, and that there is general
consensus in the feedback that there is a need to get on and get this project
implemented whatever the option in order to show commitment to the need to
revitalise the city centre through civic investment. There is a risk that if
Council does not make a decision on which option to proceed with, this will
undermine the community support for the project and mean that IAF delivery
and funding milestones are not met.
|
|
Financial impact
Funding for the completion of developed design was
approved via the Annual Plan 2023/24 and therefore this decision does not
have any finical impact. The longer term funding of the project is
currently being consulted on via the Long Term Plan 2024/34 and decisions in
relation to that will be made as part of the deliberations on the LTP.
|
|
Degree of significance and level of
engagement
This matter is of low significance because the
decision on which option to proceed to developed and detailed design does to
relate to a strategic asset; it will not result in any changes to levels of
service and there will be no impact on the level of financial debt.
Notwithstanding this significant communication and engagement with key
stakeholders and iwi has been undertaken, the results of which have been
provided in this report so that the Council in making this decision is taking
in the views of those potentially affected by the project. In addition,
a public feedback process is proposed following this decision so that the
Council can consider in its deliberations on the LTP, in regard to future
funding of this project, the further views of the wider community
|
|
Climate Impact
Climate
impact will be considered throughout the design, material selection, and
construction methodology and period of this project.
|
|
Inclusion of Māori in the
decision making process
Engagement with iwi has been undertaken throughout
the project to date and this is summarised in section 5.2.2 of this report.
|
|
Legal
context
· Council has
power to make this decision under its power of general competence (Local
Government Act 2002 s12(2)).
· The
general decision-making requirements of sections 76 to 82 of Part 6 of the
Local Government Act 2002 apply to this decision of Council. The report
demonstrates that these general requirements have
been met by:
o assessing significance and necessary consultation (refer
Degree of significance and level of engagement above); and
o identifying the reasonably practicable options and assessing
their advantages and disadvantages (refer options table in the body of the
report).
|
|
Delegations
This is a matter for Council
|
