Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Extraordinary Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An extraordinary meeting of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 30 March 2017

Time:                                    9am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

27 March 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Samantha Kelly

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6227

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

30 March 2017

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - Terms of Reference

 

 

Chair

Councillor Cotter

Membership

Councillor Davidson (Deputy Chair), Councillor Buck, Councillor Clearwater, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Keown, Councillor Templeton

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

 

Responsibilities

The focus of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee is the governance of roading and transport, three waters, waste management, and natural hazards protection.

 

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

·         Encourages opportunities for citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

·         Works in partnerships with key agencies, groups and organisations

·         Encourages innovative approaches and sustainable solutions

 

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committte considers and reports to Council on issues and activites relating to:

·         Water supply, conservation and quality

·         Stormwater drainage including the Land Drainage Recovery Programme

·         Natural environment, including the waterways, aquifers, ecology and conservation of resources

·         Natural hazards protection, including flood protection and river control

·         Solid waste minimisation and disposals

·         Sewage collection, treatment and disposal

·         Roads, footpaths and streetscapes

·         Transport including road operations, parking, public transport, cycle ways, harbours and marine structures consistent with Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee Terms of Reference.

 

Delegations

 

The Committee delegates to the following working group the responsibility to consider and report back to the Committee:

·         Land Drainage Working Group matters relating to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme, including opportunities for betterment.

 

Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Programme

 

At the Council meeting of 9 March 2017:

 

It was resolved that the Council:

 

1.         Delegates to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee the authority to make all decisions in connection with the Major Cycleway Routes (MCR) programme, including final route selections and anything precedent to the exercise by the Council of its power to acquire any property, subject to:

a.         The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and affected Community Boards being briefed prior to any public consultation commencing on any Major Cycleway Route project.

b.         The relevant Community Board Chair(s) will be invited by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to participate in the relevant Major Cycleway Route item discussion and give their Board’s feedback or recommendations.

2.         Notes and reconfirms Councils previous decision to designate the MCR programme a metropolitan project, as set out in the Council’s resolutions on 29 January 2015.

·         13.4         Agree to the Major Cycleway Route programme being declared a Metropolitan Programme and delegate to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee all decision making powers.

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

30 March 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 5

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 5

B       3.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 5

STAFF REPORTS

C       4.       Rapanui Shag Rock Section 2 and 3 Recommended Option Report........................... 7

C       5.       Heathcote Expressway Recommended Option Report.............................................. 59   

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

30 March 2017

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant and to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

3.   Deputations by Appointment

3.1

At the close of the agenda the following have requested speaking rights to speak on the Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Route and/or Rapanui Shag Rock Major Cycleway Route:

1.1       Ken Austin – Heathcote Expressway

1.2       Dave Alexander – Heathcote Expressway

1.3       Paul Cobham – Heathcote Expressway

1.4       Dirk De Lu on behalf of Spokes – Heathcote Expressway and Rapanui Shag Rock

1.5       Robert Fleming – Heathcote Expressway and Rapanui Shag Rock

1.6       Connie Christensen on behalf of Go Cycle Christchurch - Heathcote Expressway and Rapanui Shag Rock

1.7       Francesca Bradley and Alex McNeill on behalf of Generation Zero - Heathcote Expressway and Rapanui Shag Rock

1.8       Blair Dravitski Principal of Linwood Avenue School – Rapanui Shag Rock

1.9       Bill Simpson on behalf of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary Trust ‘The Trust’ – Rapanui Shag Rock

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

30 March 2017

 

 

4.        Rapanui Shag Rock Section 2 and 3 Recommended Option Report

Reference:

17/251045

Contact:

Jennifer Rankin

Jennifer.Rankin@ccc.govt.nz

039415177

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to approve the Rapanui Shag Rock Sections 2 and 3 for design and construction and to provide information on the outcomes of the consultation process and the recommended changes as a result of this consultation.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated. This project is specifically identified and funded project within the 2015-2018 long term plan.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by using the engagement significance matrix.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Approve that the Rapanui Shag Rock Sections 2 and 3 proceed to detailed design and construction as shown in the attachment A - Rapanui Shag Rock Preferred Option Scheme Plans.

2.         Approve the removal of the identified trees to allow the implementation of the proposed scheme.

3.         Recommend that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the route are brought back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase prior to onsite construction.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Major Cycleways

·     Level of Service: 10.5.3 Increase the number of cycling trips

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – The preferred route that incorporates changes as a result of consultation feedback. This route travels through Linwood Avenue central median, along the northbound road verge of Linwood Avenue and along Humphreys Drive (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – The alternative route as consulted on without any changes.

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     This option would travel down the centre of the tree lined boulevard giving users a safe and pleasant off-road experience. 

·     The closure of the three U-Turns provides a significant safety benefit by reducing the cyclist/vehicle conflict. 

·     The existing signalised intersection at Linwood Avenue/Hargood Street/Keighleys Road will be upgraded to include a separate crossing for people on bikes to access the shared path along the median.

·     Between Hargood Street and St Johns Street the preferred route is a shared path in the residential service lane berm on the south side of Linwood Avenue, this reduces the interaction of cyclists and cars.

·     Further trees will be planted along the berm to continue the boulevard feel.

·     On Linwood Avenue (Kidbrooke Street) the existing bus stop will remain and the bus shelter shifted forward.  This will provide space for passengers to wait for the bus and allow pedestrians and cyclists to travel behind the shelter.

·     The intersection of Dyers Road will be upgraded to incorporate a crossing phase for cyclists and pedestrians, this will provide safer crossing points.

·     A shared facility along Humphreys Drive will allow people to take in the coastal scenery and tie-in with the plans for the future Coastal Pathway.

·     The existing sea wall along Humphreys Drive will be repaired in order to provide the shared space required. 

·     A pedestrian island on Humphreys Drive will help pedestrians access Charlesworth Reserve.

·     The shared path through Tidal View will tie-in with the existing coastal pathway which allows pedestrians and cyclists to cross Ferrymead Bridge and continue around the Estuary.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The loss of U-Turns will impact on some road users and local residents.

·     An additional signalised crossing will be required along Humphreys Drive, this may have a small impact on road users.

 

5.   Context/Background

MCR Programme

5.1       The Rapanui Shag Rock Route is one of 13 routes in the Major Cycleways Route (MCR) Programme.  The MCR programme has Urban Cycleways Programme (UCP), CCC and National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) funding attached to it. Rapanui Shag Rock Section 2 and Section 3 is in the Long Term Plan as one of the identified MCR Projects.

5.2       The Rapanui Shag Rock Route is 6.5KM long and starts at Fitzgerald Avenue and terminates at Ferrymead Bridge. Section 1 of this route is currently under construction and terminates at Linwood Park. Section 2 commences at Linwood Park and terminates at Dyers Road. Section 3 commences at Dyers Road and terminates at Ferrymead Bridge. 

5.3       Sections 1 and 2 have both UCP and NLTP funding, this requires their construction prior to July 2018.

Route Selection

5.4       To develop a preferred route the following constraints were used:

·   The start point was Linwood Park

·   The end point was Ferrymead Bridge

·   Ferry Road was not to be used as a route as per a Board decision made on 14/04/15.

5.5       The majority of the route options investigated were along Linwood Avenue or Humphreys Drive, however alternative adjacent parallel routes were investigated where they were considered to have potential benefits.  Rapanui Shag Rock Sections 2 and 3 were split into 6 sub-sections, each of these sub-sections had the following route options investigated:

·   Section A Linwood Park Traverse – 8 Options

·   Section B Smith Street to Hargood Street – 6 Options

·   Section C Hargood Street to St Johns Street – 4 Options

·   Section D St Johns Street to Dyers Road – 5 Options

·   Section E  Dyers Road to Charlesworth Reserve – 5 Options

·   Section F  Charlesworth Reserve to Ferrymead Bridge – 4 Options

5.6       Each of these options involved the use of existing road space, routes through parks and lanes and routes that required land purchase.  Each of these routes were taken through a Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) which considered the routes on a number of aspects including; safety, coherence, directness, cost, residential and business impacts.

5.7       At the end of the MCA analysis, two options were taken forward for further investigation through a full scheme assessment and public consultation.  These were the preferred option and the alternative option. 

5.8       The preferred option travels through the Linwood Avenue central median, along the northbound road verge of Linwood Avenue and along Humphreys Drive.

5.9       The alternative option travels on the outside of the central median along Linwood Avenue and then uses the residential service lane between Hargood Street and St Johns Street and then crosses behind the Linwood Canal and through to Ti Rakau Reserve and through Charlesworth Reserve.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Rapanui Shag Rock Section 2 and 3 Preferred Option

Option Description

6.1       Following consultation the proposed preferred option was developed to incorporate feedback from affected stakeholders.  The route travels through the Linwood Avenue central median, along the northbound road verge of Linwood Avenue and along Humphreys Drive.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to consult with stakeholders on the project need, alternatives, opportunities and solutions so that any concerns, alternatives and aspirations are understood and considered.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

6.5       The proposed works along Humphreys Drive have an impact on the Estuary Area which is a statutory acknowledgement area. Staff are currently in consultation with MKT regarding this matter.  Ngāi Tahu are happy that the mana whenua engagement continues through MKT.

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       Adjacent residents and businesses are specifically affected by this option due to the new cycleway being adjacent to their properties and changes to the street layout and intersection treatments.  Their views are contained in Attachment B.

6.7       Consultation on the proposed Rapanui Shag Rock Cycle Route Sections 2 and 3 was undertaken from Tuesday 15th November 2016 to Thursday 15th December 2016.

6.8       Consultation material was distributed by hand to properties located along the route and generally two blocks back from the route. Properties were identified based on their proximity to the route or access to the road network affected by the cycleway.

6.9       Two public drop in sessions were held at the Woolston Club and the Memorial Community Centre. A total of 17 people attended. An additional meeting was held with a small group of representatives from the Linwood Community, 6 people attended this meeting.

6.10    A total of 86 submissions were received.  These were analysed as a whole and also according to specific sections of the route.

6.11    Of the total number of respondents 79 supported or generally supported the Rapanui Shag Rock MCR, 6 respondents did not support the scheme and one did not provide their preference.

6.12    Key issues identified included connectivity, cycleway width, cyclist’s vs vehicular traffic priority, loss of u-turns, crossing designs, landscaping, retention of on-street cycle lanes, car parking and cost.  A more detailed analysis of the consultation can be found in Attachment C.  These issues have been taken on board and modifications to the preferred route will be undertaken during detailed design to include:

6.12.1 Linwood Avenue - Connections: Additional local connections to Linwood Ave median;

6.12.2 Linwood Avenue - U-turns: The project scope will be extended to also upgrade the alternative Cranley Street U turn. Chelsea Street signalised crossing will include no stopping hatching;

6.12.3 St Johns Street - Crossing Design: The crossing alignment at St Johns St will be further considered;

6.12.4 All Locations - Path width: The shared path will be widened to 4m where possible;

6.12.5 All Locations - On road cycle lanes: On road cycle lanes will be retained where possible;

6.12.6 All Locations - Landscaping: Development of a specific planting plan;

6.12.7 All Locations - Cyclist priority at traffic signals through phasing arrangements and advance detectors will be incorporated.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.13    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

6.14    Cost of Implementation is approximately $17.1 Million which is budgeted in the 2015-2025 LTP

6.15    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – will increase to clean the separated facility but these additional costs have been allowed for in the maintenance budgets.

6.16    Funding source – This project is funded though the Council’s Capital Programme of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan and funding from the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) and the Urban Cycleways Programme (UCP). Section 2 of the Rapanui Shag Rock MCR has both UCP and NTLF funding. Section 3 of the Rapanui Shag Rock MCR has additional funding from NTLF.

Legal Implications

6.17    All decisions associated with projects associated with the Major Cycleways Programme have been delegated to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee by Council.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.18    Risk management was applied by the project team throughout the project development.  The routes were analysed via a multi criteria analysis and a risk workshop was held to identify and rank project risks.

6.19    The key risks identified were delays to the project affecting the funding agreement, design and safety risk as a result of the existing 66KV cable along a section of Linwood median and construction resources.

6.20    Mitigation strategies have been developed for the risks and periodic risk reviews will continue to be held until the end of the project.

Implementation

6.21    Implementation dependencies - Staff are working closely with other Major Cycleways projects to manage timing and consistency of design.

6.22    Implementation timeframe – the timeframe for implementation of the cycleway has a schedule construction start of July 2017 and a twelve month construction timeframe for Rapanui Shag Rock Section 2.  Section 3 is anticipated to commence construction in July 2018 with a twelve month construction timeframe.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.23    The advantages of this option include:

·   It addresses key safety concerns of the interested but concerned demographic by achieving a cycleway completely separate from vehicular traffic

·   It maintains connectivity to the surrounding communities

·   The closure of the three U-Turns provides a significant safety benefit by reducing the cyclist/vehicle conflict. 

·   The existing signalised intersection at Linwood Avenue/Hargood Street/Keighleys Road will be upgraded to include a separate crossing for people on bikes to access the shared path along the median.

6.24    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The cycle facilities widths have been reduced in some areas to minimise the impact on the established and mature street trees.


 

7.   Option 2 – Alternative Option

Option Description

7.1       The proposed alternative option travels on the outside of the central median along Linwood Avenue and then u the residential service lane between Hargood Street and St Johns Street and then crosses behind the Linwood Canal and through to Ti Rakau Reserve and through Charlesworth Reserve.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to consult with stakeholders on the project need, alternatives, opportunities and solutions so that any concerns, alternatives and aspirations are understood and considered.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Adjacent residents and businesses are specifically affected by this option due to the new cycleway being adjacent to their properties and changes to the street layout and intersection treatments.  Their views are contained in Attachment B.

7.6       Consultation on the proposed Rapanui Shag Rock Cycle Route Sections 2 and 3 was undertaken from Tuesday 15th November 2016 to Thursday 15th December 2016.

7.7       Consultation material was distributed by hand to properties located along the route and generally two blocks back from the route. Properties were identified based on their proximity to the route or access to the road network affected by the cycleway.

7.8       Two public drop in sessions were held at the Woolston Club and the Memorial Community Centre. A total of 17 people attended. An additional meeting was held with a small group of representatives from the Linwood Community, 6 people attended this meeting.

7.9       A total of 86 submissions were received.  These were analysed as a whole and also according to specific sections of the route.

7.10    Of the 80 submissions with were received in support or general support of the route 12% made a preference for the alternative option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.11    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

7.12    Cost of Implementation is approximately $17.1 Million which is budgeted in the 2015-2025 LTP

7.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – will increase to clean the separated facility but these additional costs have been allowed for in the maintenance budgets.

7.14    Funding source – This project is funded though the Council’s Capital Programme of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan and funding from the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) and the Urban Cycleways Programme (UCP). Section 2 of the Rapanui Shag Rock MCR has both UCP and NTLF funding. Section 3 of the Rapanui Shag Rock MCR has only got additional funding from NTLF.

Legal Implications

7.15    All decisions associated with projects associated with the Major Cycleways Programme have been delegated to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee by Council.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.16    Risk management was applied by the project team throughout the project development.  The routes were analysed via a multi criteria analysis and a risk workshop was held to identify and rank project risks.

7.17    The key risks identified were delays to the project affecting the funding agreement, design and safety risk as a result of the existing 66KV cable along a section of Linwood median and construction resources.

7.18    Mitigation strategies have been developed for the risks and periodic risk reviews will continue to be held until the end of the project.

Implementation

7.19    Implementation dependencies - Staff are working closely with other Major Cycleways projects to manage timing and consistency of design.

7.20    Implementation timeframe – the timeframe for implementation of the cycleway has a schedule construction start of July 2017 and a twelve month construction timeframe for Rapanui Shag Rock Section 2.  Section 3 is anticipated to commence construction in July 2018 with a twelve month construction timeframe.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.21    The advantages of this option include:

·   A seawall repair is not required

·   A canal wall would not be required to be constructed.

7.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This options asks vehicles and cyclists to share the road in the residential service lane.

·   More vulnerable cyclists may not feel safe traveling close to the fast traffic on Linwood Avenue at the sides of the central median

·   The route through Charlesworth Reserve would be considered a daytime only route.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Rapanui Shag Rock - Preferred Option Scheme Plans

16

b

Rapanui Shag Rock - All Submissions

38

c

Rapanui Shag Rock - Consultation Analysis

49

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Authors

Jennifer Rankin - Project Manager

Clarrie Pearce - Senior Project Manager

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

30 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

30 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

30 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

30 March 2017

 

 

5.        Heathcote Expressway Recommended Option Report

Reference:

17/251042

Contact:

Jennifer Rankin

Jennifer.rankin@ccc.govt.nz

039415177

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to approve the Heathcote Expressway scheme for design and construction and to provide information on the outcomes of the consultation process and the recommended changes as a result of this consultation.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.  This project is a specifically identified and funded project within the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan (LTP).

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by using the engagement significance matrix

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Approve the Heathcote Expressway Route alignment as shown in Attachment A – Heathcote Expressway Preferred Option Plans. 

2.         Approve that the Heathcote Expressway Route between Charles Street and Truscotts Road proceed to detailed design and construction as shown in Attachment A – Heathcote Expressway Preferred Option Plans. 

3.         Recommend that the decision relating to the Heathcote Expressway Cycle Route between the Ferry Road/Fitzgerald Intersection and Charles Street be bought back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee at a future date.

4.         Approve the removal of the identified trees to allow for the implementation of the proposed scheme.

5.         Recommend that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the route are brought back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase prior to onsite construction.

 

 


 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Major Cycleways

·                Level of Service: 10.5.3 Increase the number of cycling trips

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 – Attached is a revised scheme that incorporates changes as a result of the consultation feedback.  The route travels down Charles Street, Mackenzie Avenue, Sheldon Street, Cumnor Terrace, Kennaway Park, Ferrymead Heritage Park and Truscotts Road (preferred option)

·   Option 2 – The route consulted on without the changes resulting from the consultation feedback

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Connects with the An Accessible City project at the top end of Ferry Road;

·   Provides additional traffic calming to residential areas such as Charles Street, Mackenzie Avenue and Sheldon Street;

·   Replaces a footbridge over the Heathcote River with only 15 years life left;

·   Connects the communities of Philipstown, Charleston, Opawa, Woolston and Heathcote Valley with the Central City.

·   New traffic signals will be installed on Ensors Road which will provide a safer crossing point for cyclists and pedestrians.

·   New traffic signals will be installed on Garlands Road which will provide a safer crossing point for cyclists and pedestrians.

·   Additional landscaping will enhance local streets

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Parking spaces will be removed in various places along the route to make room for new cycle facilities;

·   A 30km/hr speed restriction is required for Charles Street, Mackenzie Avenue and Sheldon Street. This is to improve safety with the mix of cyclists and vehicular traffic sharing the road space.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

MCR Programme

5.1       The Heathcote Expressway is one of 13 projects in the Major Cycleways Route (MCR) Programme.  The MCR Programme has Urban Cycleway Programme (UCP), CCC and National Land Transport Funding (NLTF) funding attached to it and Heathcote Expressway is in the Long Term Plan as one of the identified MCR projects.

5.2       The Heathcote Expressway is approximately 7.1KM long and starts at Fitzgerald Avenue and finishes at Martindales Road in Heathcote Valley.

Route Selection

5.3       To develop a preferred route, the following constraints were used:

·   The start point needs to connect to the Ara Institute and the associated An Accessible City project;

·   The end point is Martindales Road in Heathcote Valley;

5.4       Four primary routes were developed and alternate connections within these four routes were developed. Each of these options was put through a Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) which considered a range of factors including, cyclists, community and businesses and network and property issues.

5.5       Following the MCA assessment, two route options remained and were considered for further investigation to confirm that they were viable options before community consultation.  The outcome of this investigation showed that the second option which ran alongside State Highway 76 had a number of issues both with safety and constructability that would be extremely costly to overcome.  It was therefore decided that this option would not be progressed any further.

5.6       The preferred route was developed for community consultation. A shared space (greenway) is proposed along Charles Street, Mackenzie Avenue, and Sheldon Street. Along Cumnor Terrace a bi-directional shared path on the river bank is proposed to Kennaway Park where the shared path continues through to Ferrymead Heritage Park and Truscotts Road.  At this point the cycleway transitions back into a greenway and terminates at Martindales Road in Heathcote Valley.


 

6.   Option 1 – Post Consultation Option (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Following consultation a scheme was developed that balanced the feedback from affected stakeholders but maintained a safe, useable and attractive facility for cyclists. The proposed route travels down Charles Street, Mackenzie Avenue, Sheldon Street, Cumnor Terrace, Kennaway Park, Ferrymead Heritage Park and Truscotts Road.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to consult with stakeholder on the project need, alternatives, opportunities, and solutions so that any concerns, alternatives and aspirations are understood and considered.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Adjacent residents and businesses are specifically affected by this option due to the new cycleway being adjacent to their properties and changes to the street layout and parking.  Their views are contained in Attachment B.

6.6       Consultation on the proposed Heathcote Expressway Route was undertaken from 15th November 2016 to 23rd December 2016. 

6.7       Booklets were hand delivered to directly affected properties along the route and generally two blocks back. Properties were identified based upon their proximity to the proposed route or access to the road network affected by the cycleway.

6.8       Three drop in sessions were held at the Lions Room, Ferrymead Heritage Park; The Tannery and St Marys Church, Heathcote Valley. In total 38 people attended these sessions.  On 14th December 2016 a meeting was also held with the business owners of Ferry Road. 15 people attended this meeting.

6.9       At the close of consultation a total of 170 submissions were received from residents, businesses and organisations. These were analysed as a whole and also according to specific sections of the route.

6.10    Of the total number of respondents 145 supported or generally supported the proposed route. 25 did not support the scheme. In addition the Council received one petition from the businesses on Ferry Road. This will be discussed at a report specifically related to the Ferry Road proposals to be presented at a future date.

6.11    Key issues identified by submitters were around the need for additional connections, alternative route suggestions, speed limit changes, landscaping, costs and the need for lighting improvements. A more detailed analysis can be found in Attachment C.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.12    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

6.13    The current estimated cost of implementation is $19.5 Million. The current budget is $11 Million giving a shortfall of $8.5 Million shortfall. The construction cost has increased due to the need to use the road corridor rather than the anticipated use of the rail corridor.  The rail corridor would have allowed for basic footpath construction, but the road corridor requires new kerb and channel, traffic signals and landscaping etc. We are currently assessing the allocation of budgets across the whole programme and opportunities for value engineering across the route.

6.14    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs will increase to clean the separated facility but these additional costs have been allowed for in the maintenance budgets.

6.15    Funding source – This project is funded through the Councils Capital Programme of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan and has funding from the National Land Transport Fund and the Urban Cycleways Programme. 

Legal Implications

6.16    All decisions associated with projects associated with the Major Cycleway Programme have been delegated to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee by Council.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.17    Risk management was applied by the project team throughout the project development. The routes were analysed via multi criteria analysis and a risk workshop was held to identify and rank project risks.

6.18    The key risks identified were funding, construction resources, and impacts on businesses and the community.

6.19    Mitigation strategies have been developed for risks and periodic risk reviews will continue to be held until the end of the project.

Implementation

6.20    Implementation dependencies - Staff are working closely with An Accessible City and other Major Cycleway Projects to manage timing and consistency of design.

6.21    Implementation timeframe – the timeframe for implementation of the cycleway has a scheduled construction start of July 2017 with a 12 month construction timeframe.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.22    The advantages of this option include:

·   Achieves a compromise between the need to provide high quality cycle facilities and minimising the impact on the community and businesses along the route.

·   Provides a direct link for cyclists crossing Ensors Road and an improved pedestrian refuge for pedestrians.

·   A neighbourhood greenway from Sheldon Street to Marshall Street has been provided allowing a greater number of existing trees to be retained.

·   New traffic signals will be installed on Garlands Road which will provide a safer crossing point for cyclists and pedestrians.

·   Maintains a cycle connection from the City to destinations such as ARA Trade Campus, The Tannery and Ferrymead Heritage Park. 

·   Reduces speeds on local residential street and enhances general amenity.

·   Retains further on-street parking on Charles Street and Sheldon Street but retains landscaping.

6.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Turning restrictions on Sheldon Street, Radley Street, Garlands Road and Mackenzie Avenue will add a journey time increase to motor vehicles but will provide safe facilities for cyclists.

·   The cycle and pedestrian facility widths along Cumnor Terrace are at a minimum desired width to accommodate larger heavy goods vehicles entering and exiting industrial properties.


 

7.   Option 2 – Consultation Option

Option Description

7.1       This route is the follows the same path as the preferred option and has no changes proposed as a result of community feedback. The original proposal includes alternative landscaping treatments which impact on street parking, less traffic calming measures for Charles Street and Mackenzie Avenue and at the intersection of Cumnor Terrace/Marshall Street a separated path was proposed.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to consult with stakeholders on the projects need, alternatives, opportunities and solutions so that any concerns, alternatives and aspirations are understood and considered.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Adjacent residents and businesses are specifically affected by this option due to the road layout changes and impacts on parking.  Their views are contained in Attachment B.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

7.7       The current estimated cost of implementation is $19.5 Million. Our current budget is $11 Million giving a shortfall of $8.5 Million shortfall. The construction cost has increased due to the need to use the road corridor rather than the anticipated use of the rail corridor.  The rail corridor would have allowed for basic footpath construction, but the road corridor requires new kerb and channel, traffic signals and landscaping etc. We are currently assessing the allocation of budgets across the whole programme and opportunities for value engineering across the route.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs will increase to clean the separated facility but these additional costs have been allowed for in the maintenance budgets.

7.9       Funding source – This project is funded through the Councils Capital Programme of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan and has funding from the National Land Transport Fund and the Urban Cycleways Programme. 

Legal Implications

7.10    All decisions associated with projects associated with the Major Cycleways Programme have been delegated to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee by Council.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.11    Risk management was applied by the project team throughout the project development. The routes were analysed via multi criteria analysis and a risk workshop was held to identify and rank project risks.

7.12    The key risks identified were funding, construction resources, and impacts on businesses and the community.

7.13    Mitigation strategies have been developed for risks and periodic risk reviews will continue to be held until the end of the project.

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies - Staff are working closely with An Accessible City and other Major Cycleway Projects to manage timing and consistency of design.

7.15    Implementation timeframe – the timeframe for implementation of the cycleway has a scheduled construction start of July 2017 with a 12 month construction timeframe.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Connects with the An Accessible City project at the top end of Ferry Road;

·   Provides additional traffic calming to residential areas such as Charles Street, Mackenzie Avenue and Sheldon Street;

·   Replaces a footbridge over the Heathcote River with only 15 years life left;

·   Connects the communities of Philipstown, Charleston, Opawa, Woolston and Heathcote Valley with the Central City.

·   New traffic signals will be installed on Ensors Road which will provide a safer crossing point for cyclists and pedestrians.

·   New traffic signals will be installed on Garlands Road which will provide a safer crossing point for cyclists and pedestrians.

·   Additional landscaping will enhance local streets

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This option has increased parking loss of residents and businesses on Charles Street, Mackenzie Avenue and Sheldon Street.

·   This option removes the mature trees on Cumnor Terrace between Sheldon Street and Marshall Street.

·   Turning restrictions on Sheldon Street, Radley Street, Garlands Road and Mackenzie Avenue will add a journey time increase to motor vehicles but will provide safe facilities for cyclists.

·   The cycle and pedestrian facility widths along Cumnor Terrace are at a minimum desired width to accommodate larger heavy goods vehicles entering and exiting industrial properties.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

MCR Heathcote Expressway - Preferred Option Plans

68

b

MCR Heathcote Expressway - All Submissions

100

c

MCR Heathcote Expressway - Consultation Analysis

118

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Authors

Jennifer Rankin - Project Manager

Clarrie Pearce - Senior Project Manager

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

30 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

30 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

30 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator