Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 11 October 2017

Time:                                    1pm

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

 

 

5 October 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

11 October 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.

 

 

Christchurch Biodiversity Fund

 

At the Council meeting of 20 June 2017:

 

It was resolved that the Council:

 

5.         Delegate authority to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to consider and approve applications to the Christchurch Biodiversity Fund.

 

 

 

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 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

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 5

B       4.       Public Forum.................................................................................................................... 5

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

B       6.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 5

STAFF REPORTS

A       7.       An Accessible City Current State (2)............................................................................ 19

A       8.       Conversion of Road lighting to Light Emitting Diodes (LED)  ................................... 31

A       9.       Close out Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group (HIGG) report ................... 51

B       10.     Incentivising the use of Rainwater collection and Grey Water repurpose in Christchurch City........................................................................................................... 65

B       11.     3 Waters & Waste bi-monthly report - August/September 2017............................. 71

B       12.     Secure Cycle Parking Update...................................................................................... 111

B       13.     Lichfield Street Car Park Project Brief....................................................................... 119   

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on Thursday, 21 September 2017 be confirmed (refer page 6).

4.   Public Forum

A period of up to 30 minutes may be available for people to speak for up to five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

There were no deputations by appointment at the time the agenda was prepared. 

6.   Petitions

There were no petitions received at the time the agenda was prepared.


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

 

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 21 September 2017

Time:                                    9am

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

 

 

Present

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

 

 

20 September 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

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

 

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00049

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Davidson that the apology for lateness from Councillor Templeton be accepted.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Davidson                                                                                                      Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00050

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 13 September 2017 be confirmed.

Councillor Keown/Councillor Davidson                                                                                                              Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

Councillor Templeton arrived at 9.02am

 

6.   Briefing by the pupils of Selwyn House

 

Committee Comment

1.         The Committee received a presentation from Alice, Clare, Sophie and Reed, students from Selwyn House School. Their presentation to the Committee was in regards to a class project on how they could be involved in getting better use of the cycleways and getting them better known by the Community.

2.         The Committee noted that they were very impressed by the ideas presented by the students and requested that staff go through the appropriate channels and to work with the school to investigate how their ideas could go forward.

3.         The Committee would like to see some progress made on these ideas in October to coincide with cycle month.

4.         The Committee requested for staff to report back to the Committee on these developments to the November Committee meeting.

 

 

7.   MCR Heathcote Expressway - Ferry Road Options Report

 

Committee Comment

1.         On 29 June 2017 the Committee convened to hear deputations in regards to the Heathcote Expressway – Ferry Road Major Cycleway Route.

2.         The Committee reconvened on 3 July 2017 to make its decision. At the meeting the Committee approved the Ferry Road and Wilsons Road as the route selection for the remaining part of the Heathcote Expressway MCR. In addition, the Committee requested for staff to investigate the merits of a further set of ideas which were presented by Ray Edwards and to report back to the Committee.

3.         Having investigated the merits of the further ideas presented, the staff report remained the status quo, presenting the Committee with three options.

4.         Following further deliberations the Committee resolved to approve option three with amendments, which was tabled at the meeting. Amendments included:

a.         A separation between cyclists and pedestrians on the at grade path including vertical elements alongside high pedestrian zones, and taking opportunities for amenity enhancements where possible.

b.         To maximise parking set backs from driveways to meet design guidelines.

c.         Priority and safety for cyclists at all intersections between Fitzgerald Ave and Moorhouse Ave.

d.         To increase the width of buffer zone to 0.7 metres between car parks and cycleways.

5.         The Committee also requested for staff to investigate further enhancements through the detailed design process, refer to resolution three below.

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Approve the Ferry Road and Wilsons Road as the route selection for the remaining part of the Heathcote Expressway.

2.         Approve that the Ferry Road and Wilsons Road Section of the Heathcote Expressway, (between 77 Ferry Road and 9 Charles Street), proceed to detailed design and construction as shown in attachment A – Ferry Road Preferred Option Plans.

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

4.         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.

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00051

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Approve that option three, Ferry Road and Wilsons Road Section of the Heathcote Expressway, (between 77 Ferry Road and 9 Charles Street), proceed to detailed design and construction as shown in the tabled attachment.

2.         Recommend that Council staff provide for the following through the detailed design process:

a.         Separation between cyclists and pedestrians on the at grade path including vertical elements alongside high pedestrian zones, and taking opportunities for amenity enhancements where possible.

b.         To maximise parking set backs from driveways to meet design guidelines.

c.         Priority and safety for cyclists at all intersections between Fitzgerald Ave and Moorhouse Ave.

d.         To increase the width of buffer zone to 0.7 metres between carparks and cycleways.

3.         Recommend that Council staff investigate during detailed design:

a.         A reduction in the speed limit to 30kph for Ferry Road.

b.         Crossing points along this section of Ferry Road.

c.         The potential to have a mobility car park on each side of the road.

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.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Keown                                                                                                                    Carried

 


 

 


 

 


 


 

 


     

Meeting concluded at 10.05am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017.

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Chairperson

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

 

7.        An Accessible City Current State (2)

Reference:

17/918344

Contact:

Aaron Haymes

aaron.haymes@ccc.govt.nz

941 8075

 

 

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 receive the report and recommend to Council an altered programme for the delivery of An Accessible City and other related projects, to inform the Long Term Plan process.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council resolution (CAPL/2017/00022) to report back on options for works on these streets prior to any work proceeding.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions 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 the number of people affected and the level of community interest in the An Accessible City programme.

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 recommends that the Council:

1.         Adopts the adjusted programme for An Accessible City as detailed in option one.

2.         Notes that staff will work closely with all stakeholders in planning and implementing any works.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.3 Maintain resident satisfaction with roadway condition

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Modified programme for An Accessible City and tram extension (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Maintain the current programme for An Accessible City

·     Option 3 – Abandon the An Accessible City programme and do not deliver the tram extension

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Will provide a complete integrated network within the central core of the central city.

·     Allow for the completion of upgrades in the central city core to support development and population changes within the central city.

·     Links to the completion of the partner agency delivered projects including AAC projects, PT improvements and pedestrian safety.

·     Completes connections of significant MCR projects and provides for east-west and north-south cycling connections.

·     Allows for the completion of the Tram network along High Street.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Concerns may be raised by some central business stakeholders.  It is critical that communications are timely, detailed and all affected parties are engaged (business owners as well as building owners)

·     Disruption to the inner city transport network.  This will be managed through the integration of project work, the careful management of contractors and with the support of CTOC.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

An Accessible City Background

5.1       The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan was notified in the New Zealand Gazette on 31 July 2012 and had effect from that date.

5.2       An Accessible City is an addendum to the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and replaces the transport chapter.  An Accessible City also includes amendments to the transport provisions of Christchurch City Council’s District Plan.

5.3       The 2015 to 2025 Long Term Plan outlines the initial programme for An Accessible City.

5.4       Stage one of the An Accessible City has been completed with a few minor contractual issues to complete.  Stage one delivered by Council included:

5.4.1   Hospital Corner (TP1)

5.4.2   Colombo Street (TP11)

5.4.3   Lichfield Street (TP10)

5.4.4   Tuam Street (TP9)


 

Current Project Programme and Progress

5.5       The table below illustrates the programme as defined in the current Annual Plan.  It also notes progress on the projects.

 

 

 

 

Projects Delivered by other Organisations

5.6       The following projects are being delivered by external organisations:

·   Durham Street – under construction.

·   Manchester Street – under construction.

·   Hospital Corner (TP1b) – design complete.

·   Oxford Gap

·   Armagh Street and Colombo Street (TP2)

·   Oxford Terrace

Interdependencies with other Programmes

5.7       Major Cycle Routes (MCR) connections.  The following MCR routes connect to the four avenues and continuing connections in to the central city:

·   Papanui Parallel along Colombo Street.

·   Rapanui-Shag Rock along Worcester Street.

·   Heathcote Expressway along Ferry Road and St Asaph Street.

·   Quarryman’s Trail along Antigua Street.

·   Uni-Cycle across Hagley Park to Armagh Street.

5.8       The current situation is that all MCR projects terminate at the appropriate avenue and the AAC programme will complete the route to the central city.  The critical routes for completion are:

5.8.1   Papanui Parallel – Colombo Street from Bealey Avenue to the Square.  This is the final connection to the central city and when the cycleway up the Christchurch Northern Corridor is completed will form the connection north to the Hurunui Heartland Ride and further north to Kaikoura.

5.8.2   Heathcote Expressway – Ferry Road from Fitzgerald Avenue to St Asaph Street. This will complete the section into the central city and links past Ara Institute and Cathedral College and Marion College. Scheme design is underway and initial engagement has been undertaken with significant stakeholders.

5.8.3   Quarryman’s Trail – Antigua Street from Moorhouse Avenue to Hospital Corner.  This links Hoon Hay to the central city and provides a facility past the Metro Sports centre.

5.9       The current proposal for the next stage of the Tram (Stage 1B) is to terminate on High Street at the intersection of St Asaph Street, Madras Street and High Street.  The recent An Accessible City projects on Tuam Street and St Asaph Street have provided infrastructure to support the Tram extension.  This includes signal infrastructure on Tuam Street and platform infrastructure at the Madras Street, St Asaph Street intersection.

5.10    Tram infrastructure is currently complete to Poplar Lane up to the intersection of Tuam Street. The proposal is to install a cross-over for the Tram in High Street as indicated in the following diagram.

5.11    Currently refurbishment of the Heritage building along this section of High Street is underway and the integration of the Tram works with any street works will positively support development and growth in this area.


 

6.   Option 1 – Modified programme for An Accessible City and tram extension (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Plan for and/or deliver the following:

6.1.1   Construction of the mid-block sections of Victoria Street, programme to be agreed following discussions with affected business owners and the central city liaison group. In a timely manner to inform the LTP planning process. This will include changes to the Bealey Avenue/Papanui Road intersection and supporting line marking changes on Montreal Street.

6.1.2   Continue with engagement and consultation of the following to the current programme in the LTP:

·     Complete the block of Kilmore Street adjacent to the Town Hall. Any design should not impact future opportunities for the wider plan for Kilmore Street.

·     Continue with Ferry Road (Fitzgerald Avenue to St Asaph Street) to complete the central city connection for the Heathcote Expressway MCR.

·     Continue with Hereford Street design development and engagement with affected business and building owners and the central city liaison group.  This will support the rapid development of building along this street and link appropriately with the Avon River Precinct projects.

·     Continue with design development for High Street from Hereford Street to Manchester Street. This completes the section through the City Mall and along the current Tram route.

6.1.3   Delay the construction of the remainder of Kilmore Street and Sailsbury Street for at least 5 years, including any changes to the intersections with Victoria Street.

6.1.4   Continue the TP30km and Wayfinding projects to support the development and benefits of these projects across the wider central city.

6.1.5   Propose to bring forward budgets as part of the 2018-28 LTP to complete the following:

·     High Street upgrade from Manchester Street to St Asaph to tie in with the completion of the majority of the development in the street.

·     Allocation of budget ($3m) to allow the extension of the tram track from Poplar Lane into High Street.

·     Undertake the investigation and design of soft wiring solutions for the connection of the MCR’s along Colombo Street and Antigua Street. Budgets should also allow for implementation. This would complete the central city connections for both the Papanui Parallel and the Quarryman’s Trail.

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 will be undertaken at a project level or as part of the overall LTP consultation.

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       The wider community are specifically affected by this option due to the changes to some of the proposed delivery schedules.  Their views should be sought, this would be possible through the engagement on the 2019-29 Long Term Plan.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – This report does not seek approval for additional costs, but seeks to identify potential alterations to delivery timeframes.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Some additional maintenance costs may be required to Kilmore and Salisbury street

6.9       Funding source – AAC programme within the Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.10    None identified

Risks and Mitigations   

6.11    There is a reputational risk with funding partners, particularly NZTA and ECan, that they will not support the proposed changes.  This risk is lowered with clear consistent and regular communications with all stakeholders.

6.12    There is a potential risk of challenge from central government that Council has not upheld the agreed programme and development timelines to meet the requirements for the Central City Recovery Plan.

6.13    There is a risk that some members of the business community will not support the continued progression of the development of the projects in the programme as it stands.  This could result in increased stakeholder management and community engagement costs.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - The implementation of the An Accessible City programme, the Major Cycle Routes Programme and the extension of the Tram all interact and need to be programmed appropriately.

6.15    Implementation timeframe – In line with budget timeframes and option description.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Will provide a complete integrated network within the central core of the central city.

·   Allow for the completion of upgrades in the central city core to support development and population changes within the central city.

·   Links to the completion of the partner agency delivered projects including AAC projects, PT improvements and pedestrian safety.

·   Completes connections of significant MCR projects and provides for east-west and north-south cycling connections.

·   Allows for the completion of the Tram network along High Street.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Concerns may be raised by some central business stakeholders.  It is critical that communications are timely, detailed and all affected parties are engaged (business owners as well as building owners)

·   Disruption to the inner city transport network.  This will be managed through the integration of project work, the careful management of contractors and with the support of CTOC.


 

7.   Option 2 – Maintain the current programme for An Accessible City

Option Description

7.1       Deliver the AAC programme to the currently agreed programme as outlined in the table in 5.6.

7.2       Deliver the Tram extension along High Street to align with the current programme for the AAC project of financial year 2024.

7.3       Propose in the 2019-29 LTP allocation of budget ($3m) to allow the extension of the tram track from Poplar Lane into High Street.

7.4      

Significance

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

7.6       Engagement requirements for this level of significance have been undertaken through the engagement of the 2015-25 LTP.  Any additional engagement will be undertaken through the 2019-29 LTP.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.7       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

7.8       The community views on this programme have already been sought through the consultation for the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.10    Cost of Implementation – No change to the current budgets in the agreed Annual Plan.

7.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – This has been accounted for in the forward planning of existing maintenance budgets.

7.12    Funding source – AAC programme within Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

7.13    None identified.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.14    There is a risk that the business community will not support the continued progression of the development of the projects in the programme as it stands.  This could result in increased stakeholder management and community engagement costs.

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies - The implementation of the An Accessible City programme, the Major Cycle Routes Programme and the extension of the Tram all interact and need to be programmed appropriately.

7.16    Implementation timeframe – as identified in 7.1.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Will complete the projects identified in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan and Annual Plan

·   Allow for the completion of upgrades in the central city core to support development and population changes within the central city.

·   Links to the completion of the partner agency delivered projects including AAC projects, PT improvements and pedestrian safety.

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not rationalise the programme to ensure efforts are focussed on linking and completing the central core and supporting development and population changes within the central city.

·   Does not connect significant programmes such as the tram extension and Major Cycle Routes to ensure efficiency of implementation, minimise impacts on businesses and maximise effectiveness of benefits are realised.


 

8.   Option 3 – Abandon the An Accessible City programme and do not deliver the tram extension.

Option Description

8.1       This option would stop all work on the An Accessible City programme and the tram extension.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance will need to be undertaken as part of the Long Term Plan engagement.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.4       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

8.5       The wider community are specifically affected by this option due to the comprehensive nature to the decision.  Their views will be required to be sought, this would be possible through the engagement on the 2019-29 Long Term Plan.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.6       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

8.6.1   Inconsistency – The current Long Term Plan has this programme identified for delivery.

8.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – Delivery is expected as part of the annual programme.

8.6.3   Amendment necessary – Consultation on the change would be necessary and could occur through the LTP engagement process.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – no further costs against these projects.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – maintenance and operations costs are likely to increase as the damaged assets in the central city will require more work. 

8.9       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.10    None identified.

Risks and Mitigations   

8.11    There is a potential risk of challenge from central government that Council has not upheld the agreed programme and development timelines to meet the requirements for the Central City Recovery Plan.

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies  - None.

8.13    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Budget will be available within the wider Capital Programme.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Council portion of the AAC programme will not be delivered and appropriate connections to partner agency projects will not be achieved.

·   Significant asset renewals will not be achieved within the central city, this may lead to asset degradation.

·   Consistency, cohesion and connectivity will not be easily achieved in the central city and this will not support the changed to the population base and the changing development within this area of the city.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

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

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Stefan Jermy - Project Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

 

8.        Conversion of Road lighting to Light Emitting Diodes (LED) 

Reference:

17/960457

Contact:

Andy Cameron

Andy.Cameron@CCC.govt.nz

03 941 5916

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee about the opportunity of accelerating the replacement of Council’s road lights with Light Emitting Diodes (LED). This report identifies the strategic case, and the potential economic benefits.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the findings of a report commissioned into the benefits of LED conversion.

2.   Significance

2.1       This report is of low significance in relation to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in Council's significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Agree to the design and purchase of 7,000 LED lights by 30 June 2018.

2.         Agree to the installation of 4,000 lights with a central management system before 30 June 2018.

3.         Agree to the installation of 3,000 pre-purchased lights with a central management system before 22 December 2018.

4.         Notes to complete the conversion to LED with a central management system by 30 June 2021, subject to being programmed as part of the 2018 Long Term Plan.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025).

4.2       The LED conversion project is strongly aligned to the following council policies documents, schemes and plans:

·   Christchurch City Council Sustainability Policy (2008)

·   Christchurch City Council Supply Chain Sustainability Policy (2003)

·   Christchurch City Council Resource Efficiency & Greenhouse Gas Emission Policy (2017)

·   Council Energy Management Programme Framework

·   Council Emission Management Programme Framework

·   Council Energy Efficiency

·   Council Emissions Reduction Scheme

 

4.3       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 – (Preferred option) Accelerate the existing LED replacement programme for FY18 to maximise the benefits of the 85% elevated NZTA subsidy.

·   Option 2 – Do Nothing.

4.4       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.4.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduced operational costs

·     Reduced carbon footprint

·     Increased efficiency

·     Reduced maintenance periods

·     A 24 hour centrally controlled system

·     Smarter city capability

4.4.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    There are no perceived disadvantages

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Background

·    Council are responsible for the management/operation of 39,500 council owned lights as part of the Christchurch road lighting network.  Of these, 38,000 lights are associated with the road network and LED lights represent 12% of the current network.  In recent years council has converted approximately 1,000 lights per year, at this current rate it could take another 34 years before all Council road lights are converted to LED.

·    Development of LED technology for use in road lighting has matured to a point where many cities throughout the world are embarking on major replacement programmes. In the last 18 months there has been further improvements to LED technology resulting in greater energy savings.

·    From 2012 all new lights on Council roads (including renewals and subdivisions projects) have been LED.  This was to minimise energy costs and limit the number of lights that would need to be replaced in the future.

·    In 2015 NZTA provided guidance on the benefits of converting to LED lighting including the use of a Central Management System enabling wireless communication to each light, allowing for switching, dimming and reporting of faults. In March 2017 this was further reinforced with NZTA increasing the subsidy from 49% to 85% covering the council’s upgrades in financial years 2016, 2017 and 2018.  Also included in the subsidy is the installation of a central management system and the pre-purchase of lights before 30 June 2018 for installation (at the normal subsidy) before 31 December 2018.  NZTA cannot indicate what the subsidy will be for future years until the next Long Term Plan is developed.

·    Council commissioned Beca in February 2017 to provide an independent report on accelerating the conversion of the Council’s road lighting network to LEDs. The report explored the benefits and risks of the project and includes benefit cost analysis which shows an 8 to 10 year return on investment for the option that includes a central management system.

·    The NZTA Present Value Calculator for LED conversions has been used to analyse the outcome when the total network is converted with and without a central management system, the payback period for the conversion to LED without a central management system is 8 years and with a central management system 9 years. The only economic benefits included in the analysis for the a central management system option is reduced energy costs due to dimming which is 26% for local roads and 22.5% for arterial and collectors roads. As outlined above there will also be maintenance benefits which are not included in the analysis for the option with a central management system.

5.2 Context

·    Council has two priority goals related to climate change leadership and maximising opportunities to develop a vibrant, prosperous, and sustainable 21st century city which this proposal contributes towards.

·    The project will deliver significant economic and environmental benefits to the community.  Benefits include;

·    Energy consumption of the existing network would decrease by greater than 59% (the saving increases to 69% if a central management system is installed as part of the upgrade). 

·     Approximately 40% of the electricity charges are fixed line charges (i.e. cents per connection per day) so the electricity cost reduction is not directly related to the energy savings.  The load on the electricity network will be reduced by approximately 3.1 megawatts.  This reduces council’s total electricity consumption by 17%.

·     Carbon dioxide emissions would reduce due to lower energy consumption and reduced maintenance.  Road lighting makes up 17.4% of council’s carbon consumption.  The total project would save 1,510 tonnes of carbon or 8.5% of council’s carbon emissions.

·     Reduced maintenance costs due to longer lamp life and 10 year warranty periods on new LED lights.  Periodic cleaning will still be required.

·     LEDs produce white light that has been attributed to improved safety. 

·     Better light control reducing upward waste light.

·     Greater directional capabilities leading to reduced spill lighting in adjacent residential properties.

·     Reduced hazardous waste due to ongoing disposal of lamps (currently these are recycled).

·   Additional benefits can be achieved by installing a Central Management System in conjunction with the upgrade to LED.  A central management system enables wireless communication between the software system and each light.  The a central management system will;

·     Enable dimming of the lights when there is low use which would increase the overall energy and CO2 reduction to 69%.

·     Provide opportunities for providing intelligent transport systems and would support the implementation of the smart city technologies.

·     Identify light failures enabling earlier repair and reducing the need for night patrols.

·     Enable an interactive map to be developed that would allow the public to see the status of each light and expected repair date, reducing call centre enquiries.

·     Provide data will support any future warranty claims relating to luminaire failure.

·     Improve asset data and allow electricity consumption to be measured for billing purposes rather than a database and calculation method currently used.  The Electricity Authority is considering how a central management system can be used for electricity billing purposes.

 

·     There are approximately 10,000 lamps replaced each year under the planned maintenance lamp replacement programme. Instead of replacing lamps the conversion programme for the 2018 financial year would replace the complete light with a new LED light.  This uses existing resource and is the most economic option to accelerate the upgrade.  The programme would focus on local and low volume collector roads as the design of lighting for busy collector and arterial routes is more complex.  The project would be based on a one for one replacement.


 

6.       Option 1 – (preferred) Accelerate the existing LED replacement programme for FY18 to maximise the benefits of the 85% elevated NZTA subsidy.

Option Description

6.1       This project aims to:

6.1.1   Design and purchase 7,000 luminaires by 30 June 2018.

6.1.2   Replace 4,000 luminaires with a central management system by 30 June 2018.

6.1.3   Replace the remaining 3,000 luminaires with a central management system by 22 December 2018.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this level of significance.

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       Engagement will be carried out through an inform process which will have three stages:

·    Web based frequently asked questions/live update on progress.

·    October 2017 – letter drop to those residents in the area being worked in prior to the rates update.

·    January 2018 – Letter drop city wide combined with the rates update.

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as it reduces costs, energy consumption, carbon output, and increases efficiency’s and aligns with a smarter city.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – For the 2018 financial year NZTA have agreed that the additional funding from the two previous years would be applied to the 85% subsidy for this year.  This will provide an adjusted subsidy of 102.14% on the $4,380,000 total expenditure. To replace 4,000 lights with LED lights and establish the central management system network is estimated at $2,902,000, and the additional cost to pre-purchase 3,000 LED luminaires for installation between July and December 2018 is $1,534,000, bringing the total expenditure for 2017/18 to $4,380,000.

6.8       The additional funding to complete the conversion to LED would be considered as part of the development of the 2018 Long Term Plan. The total estimated cost to convert all NZTA subsidised lights is $27M.

6.9       Maintenance and Electricity Costs – The replacement of the complete network would bring Opex savings estimated at $600,000 for maintenance and $1,000,000 for electricity.

6.10    Funding source – NZTA subsidy

Legal Implications

6.11    None

Risks and Mitigations

·   Weight and size of luminaires and impact on existing poles and arms. This can be managed during product selection phase.

·   Concerns that LED lighting may impact on public health.  The US Department of Energy have prepared a paper titled “Street Lighting and Blue Light Frequently Asked Questions” in response to questions relating to this topic. This risk can be minimised through good design of road lighting installations and changing the output of lights when appropriate. 

·   The ongoing improvements to LED will mean the installed technology will become outdated.  The technology is now considered mature and future benefits are likely to be marginal compared to the benefits of this project.

·   There is a risk that the LEDs will not last as expected.  This is mitigated through a 10 year warranty period which is longer than the payback period.  Failures in the Los Angeles project which is 140,000 luminaires installed since 2009 show exceptionally low failure rates to date.

 

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies - FY18 none, Future accelerated programme depends upon NZTA subsidy level and Long Term Plan budget.

6.13    Implementation timeframe - 4 years if the accelerated programme is maintained through to completion of the network, and 28 years if the current replacement rate is returned to after the FY18 accelerated programme is complete.

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduced operational costs

·     Reduced carbon footprint

·     Increased efficiency

·     Reduced maintenance periods

·     A 24 hour centrally controlled system

·     Creates a platform for Smart city capabilities

 

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    There are no perceived disadvantages


 

7.       Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Lighting upgrades get carried out at current levels of approximately 1,000 per year.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this level.

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       No engagement would take place.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is not consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as it does not maximise efficiency’s and minimise costs.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Existing budgets would continue.  The opportunity of savings that can be achieved from a large scale project would not be available.

7.8       Maintenance and Electricity Costs – The existing operational expenditure would be required until the network is replaced.

7.9       Funding source - Council

Legal Implications

7.10    None

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    This option does not take advantage of known city wide benefits.

7.12    Maintenance costs of the existing technologies are likely to increase as demand for the lamps currently used on the road lighting network declines. Two of the least common lamps on the Council’s network have been withdrawn from the market.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - N/A

7.14    Implementation timeframe - N/A

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include: None

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

 

The following are not taken advantage of

·    Reduced operational costs

·    Reduced Carbon footprint

·    Increased efficiency

·    Reduced maintenance periods

·    A 24 hour centrally controlled system

·    Smarter city capability

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

NZTA Business Case

37

b

NZTA Business Case Appendix A

47

c

NZTA Business Case Appendix B

48

 

 

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

Geoff English - Team Leader Transport Asset Management

Lois Cairns - Public Information & Participation

Andy Cameron - Junior Project Manager

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 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

11 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

 

9.        Close out Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group (HIGG) report

Reference:

17/973560

Contact:

David Adamson

david.adamson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8235

 

 

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 receive the attached Close Out Report and recommend that it be noted, and its learnings be supported by the Council.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated after receiving the Close Out Report on the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined as low by the author David Adamson in accordance with the Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.2   No community engagement or consultation is required as a result of this assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Review the Independent Chairperson’s report on the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group.

2.         Notes the contents of the report and the learning’s in support of the establishment of a governance programme to oversee future significant events.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       In putting this report together the chairperson of the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group Mr Chris Mackenzie, circulated a draft to his colleagues who also sat on the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group, for comments.  The report and these comments were confined to those of the operation and lessons learnt during what the chairperson considered was a messy beginning to a structure which delivered a significant rebuild of a portion of the Christchurchs’ horizontal infrastructure

4.2       The chairperson highlighted that there was an element of disagreement over some decisions made at certain stages of the rebuild. There were however excellent group dynamics and the decision making process was unanimous.

4.3       The chairperson thanked the current and former members of the horizontal infrastructure governance group for their dedication to the task of rebuilding Christchurch's infrastructure to a point where it could stand on its own feet.

5.   Context/Background

5.1       As part of the Agreement between the Independent Chairperson of the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group (HIGG) and the Minister of Earthquake Recovery that he would produce a close out report covering the HIGG.

5.2       The Independent Chairperson agreed to forward the same report to the Mayor. 

5.3      The report in itself is self-explanatory and therefore does not need to or be replicated in the body of this report. It is important however to draw the Committees attention to the following sections of the report

·   Section 4 – Key programme achievements of the HIGG

·   Section 5 – Key Learnings

5.4       The Chairperson asks the Council to note the contents of his report including his learnings.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group - Independent Chairs report 20 July ex CCC 2017-07-20

51

 

 

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

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

Beverley Mills - Executive Assistant

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

Piers Lehmann - Head of Asset Management

Approved By

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 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


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

 

10.    Incentivising the use of Rainwater collection and Grey Water repurpose in Christchurch City

Reference:

17/963270

Contact:

Tim Drennan

Timothy.drennan@ccc.govt.nz

941 8372

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to be informed by the attached report on incentivising the use of rainwater collection.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Incentivising the use of Rainwater collection and Grey Water repurpose in Christchurch City report.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       There is no clear evidence to suggest that there are sufficient economic benefits in implementing a mandatory or subsidised rainwater harvesting scheme.

3.2       The environmental and social benefits are perhaps a bigger driver given the reduction in ground water abstraction, an increase in self-sufficiency, and an emergency resource in event of another natural disaster.

3.3       However the economic case to implement a water collection and reuse strategy from Councils demand management point of view is very weak. If Council encourages this type of initiative there may be internal organisational benefits to implementing an internal planning/regulation strategy focusing on new developments.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Incentivising the use of Rainwater collection and Grey Water repurpose in Christchurch City

64

 

 

Signatories

Author

Timothy Drennan - Manager Technical Services

Approved By

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

 

11.    3 Waters & Waste bi-monthly report - August/September 2017

Reference:

17/1040812

Contact:

John Mackie

john.mackie@ccc.govt.nz

941 6548

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee of the activities undertaken by the 3 Waters and Waste Unit, who are responsible for the planning, asset management, operations, maintenance and capital project delivery for all 3 waters and waste infrastructure. This includes drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, land drainage and solid waste services within the city.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated at the request of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to keep them up to date with the current status of the Three Water activities in Christchurch.

2.   Significance

2.1       There are no decision(s) sought in this report and therefore the significance is low in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the 3 waters and waste June 2017 report attached.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Overview of 3 Waters and Waste Operations. 

4.2       Monitoring, bore testing and drinking water standards in reservoirs and wellheads.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

3 Waters and Waste bi-monthly report - August September 2017

71

 

 

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

Author

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Performance Management

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 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

11 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

 

12.    Secure Cycle Parking Update

Reference:

17/1027412

Contact:

Trudy Jones

Trudy.jones@ccc.govt.nz

9418060

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on the current status of secure cycle parking at trip generators and connections with public transport.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee query ITEC/2017/00014.

2.   Significance

2.1       The information in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined as medium

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.         Notes the ongoing bi-annual (spring and autumn) monitoring of on-street and public secure cycle parking facilities by operations team. This will allow for improved understanding of asset conditions and use patterns in the Central City to allow for a more agile response to demand.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Public Transport Futures Business Case is currently being commissioned with AECOM in order to gauge rapid transport options for the long term 20-30 year horizon. The global ‘Movement as a Service’ trend suggests any review of the existing networks will need to include Public Transport hubs and other modes.

4.2       The Bike Share Business Case analysis suggests end of journey is the focus for expanding that particular operation to support mobility in the city.

4.3       Given the travel distances involved within urban Christchurch, the Major Cycleways Network does not require a bike and ride component to operate effectively.

4.4       Through An Accessible City and the Streets and Spaces Design Guide Central City and will have more casual on-street cycle parking provided over time by CCC.

4.5       The delivery of Suburban Master Plans will also improve on-street cycle parking provision outside the Central City. There is currently no plan or budget allocation to address any needs for secure cycle parking outside of the Central City.

4.6       The Replacement District Plan will ensure that new commercial development provides suitable levels of staff cycle parking facilities. For visitors, shoppers and workers with no secure cycle parking provision the Council and Private Car Parking buildings as well as some Anchor Projects will address at least some of that likely demand for secure cycle parking.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Policy Background

5.1       The Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan (2012) outlined the need for improved cycle facility provision. The Cycle Design Guide policy document (2013) includes principles to consider for the design of short and long stay cycle parking provision. The Central City Parking Plan (2015) adapted data from car parking demand models, reviewed existing cycle parking provision and occupancy levels and likely future on-street short stay provision to calculate projected secure cycle parking demand.  The Central City Cycle Parking Demand and Supply Analysis; Short Stay Cycle Parking (July 2015) established existing and likely future needs for short stay parking.  A policy recommendation was developed to reflect projected demand, indicating areas where cycle parking hubs would best be located throughout the central city area. There are long term (2041) and medium term (2026) forecasts for cycle parking demands associated with the cycle number targets for the central city. The medium term demand has been estimated at 2800 cycle park spaces made up of 1600 long stay and 1200 short stay. https://www.otakaroltd.co.nz/assets/BalanceOfLand/CentralParkingPlan2015.pdf

5.2       The Replacement District Plan (2015) incorporated cycle parking forecasts from the Central City Parking Plan with requirements for improved public and private cycle parking and clearly differentiates between short stay visitor cycle parking and the need for long term secure staff cycle parking and associated facilities based on Gross Floor Areas for different activity types. New commercial buildings consented after December 2015 will be required to provide the levels of service outlined in the Replacement District Plan. Minimum requirements differ between developments within and outside the Central City. (Ref: http://districtplan.ccc.govt.nz Appendix 7.5.2).

5.3       Standards relating to the design of stands are specified (ie; stands must be securely anchored to immovable object, support the frame and front wheel of the bike, and allow the frame to be secured).

5.4       Cycle parking needs to be clearly signposted or visible to cyclists entering a site whilst not impeding pedestrian thoroughfares or being at risk from vehicle movements.

5.5       Facilities should be located no more than 30 metres from at least one main public entrance. Buildings with no setback are an exception to this rule and are a feature in the Central City (as well as Key Activity Centres). This has been considered within the Central City Parking Plan (2015) and the expectation is that the CCC will provide on-street public short stay cycle parking stands incorporated into new streetscapes for Central City (and those Key Activity Centres being upgraded through Suburban Masterplans) to address this need for casual cycle parking.

5.6       Note; commercial buildings with no setback are still required to provide adequate secure cycle parking facilities for staff as outlined in the Replacement District Plan (Ref: Table 7.5.2.1 for Minimum numbers of cycle parks required associated with different activity types; educational, entertainment and recreation, healthcare, industrial, residences, retail and commercial services).

5.7       Ensuring that compliance with the minimum cycle parking requirements and associated standards continues to be met by new development will require ongoing enforcement. However, expert witness evidence at the Replacement District Plan hearings (2015) suggested that the demand for cycle parking was at that stage already being met by the market irrespective of the minimum requirements outlined in the now superseded City Plan.

 

 

 

 

Potential locations/numbers of long stay cycle parking by 2041 (Central City Parking Plan 2015)

 

 

5.8       With the current and planned level of new development throughout the central city the effects of the Replacement District Plan requirements and associated standards are being realised relatively quickly.  New Public Parking Buildings and many Anchor Projects will have significant cycle parking hubs available to the public. Commercial requirements as outlined in the Replacement District Plan (2015) have been provided in new Central City building stock eg: Westend Parking Building, Innovation Precinct Parking Building, ECan offices, New BNZ Building. There is allocation in the draft LTP for a CCC/partner Car Parking Building north of the core which could incorporate public secure cycle parking.  The CCC Lichfield Car Park Building with semi-secure parking for 96 cycles opens late 2017. This all makes for a very dynamic supply and demand picture.

5.9       The Next Bike Share scheme pilot in the Central City currently has one stand of cycles on Colombo located outside the Bus Interchange for end of trip public use. CCC has recently received Expressions of Interest and Public Transport Committee has now asked for Request for Proposals in order to extend the current Bike Share trial to serve the University and Riccarton education and commercial areas. This proposed expansion is based on expert analysis of likely demand, presented within the Bike Share Business Case. There is demonstrable potential to expand this enterprise. Under the first three financial years 2018-20 of the draft LTP funds are allocated to support operational costs of a Bike Share scheme. 

5.10    As land use changes and new developments with no set back increase in Central City and in Key Activity Areas on-going monitoring will be required to ensure on-street casual parking supply matches demand. The Central City Cycle Parking Demand and Supply Analysis; Short Stay Cycle Parking (July 2015) will be used as a basis for monitoring distribution of supply as demand patterns evolve.

5.11    Urban Renewal budget has been made available in FY 2017/18 for the purchase and installation of 20 cycle parking stands at four sites within the Central City where public casual on-street cycle parking gaps have been identified (incl; Worcester Street Boulevard, Civic Office entrance, and Ash Lane within the Innovation Precinct).

5.12    To identify any additional gaps in provision of central city on-street cycle parking public the Operations Parking Team has recently audited the number, type and occupancy of on-street CCC cycle stands to update the asset management database. This updated information will inform future planning and provision, and be used to keep cycle parking information current on the CCC Transport for Christchurch website. It is likely the private sector will continue to provide a significant proportion of the on-street casual as well as secure cycle parking needs of the city associated with their businesses.

5.13    Outside the Central City the Replacement District Plan regulations apply to new builds with additional casual public cycle parking provision provided by CCC within Suburban Master Plan streetscapes such as the recently completed Edgeware and Linwood Villages.

5.14    The Major Cycleway delivery programme has responsibility for short stay casual cycle parking provision associated with those routes. The project team look for opportunities to install cycle stands along routes, in particular around businesses. For example, on the Papanui Parallel route, there is cycle parking at Edgeware Village (due to a collaboration between MCR and Masterplan implementation), the Rutland Street shops and at the Main North Road/Sawyers Arms Road block of shops.

5.15    There are currently no plans to deliver secure cycle parking at public transport hubs or key activity centres other than the central city. A full Public Transport Network Review is currently being commissioned. The need for secure cycle parking may be considered as an operational aspect of enhancing the public transport network in Greater Christchurch. As the Bike Share analysis suggests, end of trip rather than start of trip journeys by bicycle have greatest demand due to volume and efficiencies associated with destination areas. The possibility of any bike and ride developments in the future would need to be considered within the full range of strategies to improve public transport patronage, with a full analysis of start of trip cycle catchments, likely uptake and integration with the public transport network.

5.16    Key Activity Centres, (some with public transport Super Stops) currently offer some pre-existing casual cycle parking:

·   Addington (Lincoln Road)

·   Shirley – Superstop relocation planned, negotiations with school continue (with limited space for cycle parking on existing or new site)

·   Northlands – Limited space on road reserve; (existing cycle parks in Northland Mall carpark are hidden by commercial bins; to improve this facility access needs to be maintained and signage improved)

·   Riccarton – Limited space on road reserve; (as with Northland Mall, visibility of existing casual cycle parking at the Mall would benefit from improved signage)

·   Linwood – Eastgate Mall; planned improvements; pedestrian crossings, bus stops and larger shelters being investigated

·   New Brighton – Improved cycle parking provision should be provided with delivery of Master Plan

·   Halswell – Key Activity Area; improved cycle parking possible within Plan Change 68 interchange

·   Barrington – Barrington Mall; no upgrades currently planned

·   Other sites where public transport and cycle parking needs could intersect include; Merivale, Princess Margaret Hospital, Northwood (Super Centre), Burwood, Hornby and Selwyn/ Waimakariri Districts.

 

Anchor Projects

5.17    While new anchor projects designated under the Public Work Act do not have to comply with the Replacement District Plan cycle parking requirements, as key destination attractors they can be expected to provide a mixture of long and short stay cycle parking. Anchor Projects include; QE2 Sport and Leisure Centre, New Central Library,  Performing Arts Precinct, Metro Sports Facility,  Nga Puna Wai, and the New Health Precinct.

Conclusion

5.18    This report summarises the current focus on ensuring provision of secure cycle parking in association with key end of trip destinations. To date there are no plans or budgets for CCC to provide secure cycle parking for the public in association with any existing projects other than the new CCC Lichfield Car Parking Building where 96 cycle parks will be provided along with associated locker facilities and allocation has been made for a new CCC/partner Parking Building north of Cathedral Square where similar cycle parking facilities will be provided. The Major Cycleways focus is on the urban catchment and therefore do not warrant secure cycle parking facilities.

5.19    While there is potential for ‘bike and ride’ to support public transport at major public transport hubs outside the central city, a Greater Christchurch demand analysis of park/bike and ride demand within a multi modal integrated transport framework would be needed to gauge how usefully any additional secure cycle parking facilities might assist in optimising public transport uptake. The pending full Public Transport Network Review may be a good basis for revisiting ‘park/bike and ride’.

5.20    The idea of a one-off ‘bike and ride’ secure lock up facility located at the Gondola has been raised, potentially for use primarily by recreational as well as cycle commuters from Lyttelton Harbour. Observations suggest that bus bike racks on buses coming through the Lyttelton tunnel are often at carrying capacity (two bikes) in peak commuter times. This would be a limiting factor for more Harbourside commuters adopting a mixed mode bike and bus travel pattern. However, the idea of a cycle lock up facility may still be worth investigating commercially if recreational demand is sufficient (particularly as and when the Heathcote Express Major Cycleway is completed). Commercial and community interests would need to ascertain sufficient sustained demand, establish asset ownership, secure a site, resolve security and management issues, confirm appropriate design for location (secure compound versus individual boxes), as well as resolve the costs of on-going operation, maintenance and security.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Examples of Cycle Parking in the Central City(2)

115

 

 

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

Author

Trudy Jones - Transport Planner, Sustainable Transport

Approved By

Richard Holland - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

 

13.    Lichfield Street Car Park Project Brief

Reference:

17/1006753

Contact:

Lee Butcher

Lee.butcher@ccc.govt.nz

941 6774

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to receive the Lichfield Street Carpark Project Brief herein attached.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the attached Project Brief for Lichfield Street Car Park Project.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Refer to the attached for the key points.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Lichfield Street Car Park Project Brief

118

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Lee Butcher - Project Director

Alistair Pearson - Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilites

Rita Estrella - Senior Project Coordinator

Approved By

Liam Nolan - Head of Vertical Capital Delivery and Professional Services

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

11 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator