Agenda of Hastings District Rural Community Board

File Ref: 16/1241

REPORT TO: Hastings District Rural Community Board

MEETING DATE: Monday 11 September 2017

FROM: Acting Traffic Engineer

Kathryn O'Reilly

SUBJECT: Ocean Beach Road/Waimarama Road Intersection Improvements

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Committee on the way forward with safety improvements at the intersection of Ocean Beach Road and Waimarama Road.

1.2 This request arises from the Boards desire to receive an options report for the intersection of Ocean Beach Road and Waimarama Road for possible safety improvements.

1.3 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to provide good quality infrastructure that is safe, efficient and effective in meeting the needs of present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that the current layout is generally retained with improvements being made to the visibility, signage & road markings, and minor adjustments to the Ocean Beach Road approach lane.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Following an LTP submission to Council to improve the intersection of Ocean Beach Road and Waimarama Road it was requested that an assessment of options be undertaken to ascertain the possibilities to enhance safety at the intersection

2.2 The submitter was concerned with the lack of visibility when exiting Ocean Beach Road towards Havelock North in a motorhome/ute/truck.

2.3 The submitter was also concerned that they were undertaking an illegal manoeuvre by negotiating the intersection utilising the slip lane heading towards Waimarama and turning right towards Havelock North.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The intersection currently resides on the outside of a ‘broken back’ or compound curve which has two radii, one of 100m and one of 60m. The average superelevation on the 100m radius section of the curve is 3.2% raising to 8.2% on the 60m radius section. Based on the curve geometry (radii and superelevation) the curve is correctly signposted at 45km/h. Ocean Beach Road forms a ‘Y’ arrangement at the intersection with two way access on both legs as seen in Photo 1 below.

Photo 1: Aerial view of the intersection

3.2 For vehicles approaching the intersection from Havelock North there is a map style Advanced Directional Sign (ADS) located approximately 130m in advance of the intersection. There is also a PW-18/PW-25 ‘45km/h’ curve warning sign (with intersection stub) located approximately 70m in advance of the curve. The curve warning sign is located closer to the intersection than MOTSAM specifies, however the map ADS supplements this and is in the correct position.

3.3 For vehicles approaching the intersection from Waimarama there is just a PW-18/PW-25 ‘45km/h’ curve warning sign (with intersection stub). This is approximately in the correct location, although could be brought back 10 or 20m out of the shadow of the trees. The right turn from Waimarama Road to Ocean Beach Road is not a key movement and hence this approach does not have an ADS.

3.4 For vehicles wishing to exit Ocean Beach Road towards Havelock North there is a ‘Give Way’ control. Visibility from this ‘Give Way’ control west is currently restricted to between 110m and 250m by the vertical geometry of the road, topography in the neighbouring property, power poles, the fence and tall grass (refer photo 2 overleaf). This restriction results in vehicles being hidden from view, to vehicles wanting to exit Ocean Beach Road, for approximately 6 seconds. NB: the Safe Intersection Stopping Distance (SISD) for a 100km/h approach vehicle (Reaction Time 2sec) is 248m.

Photo 2: Visibility towards Havelock North

3.5 The visibility towards Waimarama is approximately 100m, although vehicle speeds at this point are slower and hence there is more time to judge a safe gap.

Photo 3: Visibility towards Waimarama

3.6 The other leg of the intersection is used by far fewer vehicles heading to/from Waimarama. Visibility to a vehicle turning right in is also limited and does pose a safety risk albeit it lower.

4.0 CRASH HISTORY

4.1 In the most recent five years from 2012 to 2016 there has been one crash that has occurred within 250m radius of the intersection. This crash occurred in November 2016 and involved serious injuries to two occupants.

4.2 This serious injury crash resulted from a tourist exiting Ocean Beach Road, and, allegedly blinded by the sun, travelled on the wrong side of the road colliding with an eastbound vehicle on the curve approximately 100m west of the intersection.

4.3 This single crash within the last five year raises the collective risk of the intersection to Low-Medium. Taking in consideration the traffic flows the intersection is performing as expected in relation to similar intersections.

4.4 Looking to the earlier five year period, between 2007 and 2011, there were five crashes recorded within a 250m radius. Only one resulted in minor injuries with the rest being classified as non-injury crashes.

4.5 The crashes between 2007 and 2011 were:

4.5.1 A car lost control on the curve travelling eastbound and hit a fence and tree (2008) – non injury

4.5.2 A car lost control 150m east of the intersection on Ocean Beach Road (2009) – non injury

4.5.3 A car travelling from Ocean Beach was hit in the rear by a car which was following too closely when navigating the intersection (2009) – non injury

4.5.4 A car travelling westbound on Waimarama Road hit another car head on. The at fault driver was an overseas driver who had failed to drive on the correct side of the road (2010) – minor

4.5.5 A car lost control travelling eastbound and hit a fence and tree in the wet (2010) – non injury

4.6 In summary the intersection has generally been performing well from a safety point of view despite the deficiencies that exist.

4.7 In saying this, it was observed that both injury crashes within the last 10 years involved tourists exiting Ocean Beach Road and travelling in the wrong lane resulting in a head-on crash. There are often many factors involved in any crash, however, Photo 4 overleaf does show that the westbound approach lane on Ocean Beach Road appears to line drivers up with the opposing lane on Waimarama Road. For those unfamiliar with New Zealand driving conditions this arrangement could confuse drivers, particularly if there are other factors involved, such as sun-strike.

Photo 4: View on approach to Waimarama Road from Ocean Beach Road

5.0 OPTIONS

5.1 The options/safety improvement measures considered include:

Option 1 - Do Nothing

Option 2 - Low cost visibility improvements to the west

Option 3 - Signage and road marking improvements

Option 4 - Minor adjustment to the Ocean Beach Road approach lane

Option 5 - Install RIAWS (Rural Intersection Activated Warnings Signs) or electronic curve warning signage

Option 6 - Improve vertical curves west of the intersection (for visibility)

Option 7 - Intersection reconstruction (Teeing up Ocean Beach Road, but excluding right turn bay)

6.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

6.1 The matters in this report are deemed ‘not of significance’ in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Some engagement will be required with a local land owner for the preferred option(s).

7.0 OPTIONS & ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS

7.1 An options assessment table has been developed (refer attachment) which contains details of the potential safety improvement measures along with benefits, issues, financial implications and recommendations.

8.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

8.1 The assessment recommends proceeding with Options 2, 3 and 4 as they are targeted to the deficiencies, improve intersection conspicuity and are of an appropriate scale to the historical safety record. These option include:

· Low cost visibility improvements to the west – This involves vegetation clearance, fence line adjustment and minor earthworks on the adjacent property (there is a need for engagement and agreement with a third party land owner).

· Signage and road marking improvements – This involves tourist lane direction arrows, ‘Give Way’ controls on the secondary slip lane, edge and continuity lines on Ocean Beach Rad and a STOP control on Ocean Beach Rd (for westbound traffic) should visibility improvements in 1 above not be possible.

· Minor adjustments to the Ocean Beach Road approach lane - This is to better direct vehicles (heading west) on the Ocean Beach Rd approach into the correct lane on Waimarama Road.

8.2 The assessment did NOT recommend proceeding with the installation of a RIAWS system or electronic curve warning signage, or adjustment to the vertical curves to the west at this time. If the crash record worsens then these measures could be considered.

8.3 The assessment did NOT recommend proceeding with an intersection reconstruction (Teeing up Ocean Beach Road) as this was expensive, out of proportion to the issues and did not fully address the visibility concerns

9.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Acting Traffic Engineer titled “Ocean Beach Road/Waimarama Road Intersection Improvements” dated 11 September 2017 be received.

B) That low cost visibility improvements, road marking & signage improvements and minor adjustments to the Ocean Beach Road approach be implemented as part of the minor improvements programme in the 2017/18 financial year.

With the reasons for this decision being that the recommended improvements are targeted and in context to the historical safety record of the intersection and the road safety needs of other parts of the network. The improvements will provide good quality infrastructure that is safe, efficient and effective in meeting the needs of present and anticipated future circumstances.

Attachments:

Ocean Beach Road/Waimarama Road Intersections Improvements Report and Options Table

PRJ15-51-0143

File Ref: 17/836

REPORT TO: Hastings District Rural Community Board

MEETING DATE: Monday 11 September 2017

FROM: Bridge Engineer

Anu Ileperuma

SUBJECT: Funding Vista Bridge Slip Repair Local Share

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Hastings District Rural Community Board on funding the local share required to repair the slip located at Vista Bridge.

1.2 This issue arises from the need to protect structural integrity of the Vista Bridge.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government are infrastructure development to support economic growth and accessible transport options.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that the Rural Community Board approves the local share of $216,200 from the Rural Flood Emergency Event Reserve for the Vista Bridge slip repair.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Vista Bridge is a single lane bridge spanning 68 metres across a 20 metre deep gorge situated on Waitara Road north of Napier and connects to State Highway 5.

2.2 The bridge was subjected to routine inspections in two yearly intervals. There were some instability noted in the earlier inspections but these were insignificant surface failures.

2.3 The slip pictured below was identified during routine inspections carried out in late November 2015. Since the discovery the slip has been monitored for further movements and shows that slip is continuing to spread slowly.

2.4 MWH was appointed to undertake an assessment of the slip failure and identify associated risks. The consultants identified that predominant failure mechanism is a combination of wedge, planer and toppling failure within very weak mudstone. They have stated that the risk of the slip undermining the western abutment is very high.

2.5 There were several options proposed to repair the slip area. The urgent minor improvements needed to storm water drainage was completed until a permanent solution was formed.

2.6 Out of the possible options, active slope stabilisation and supplementary bridge pile were considered further.

2.7 In a report presented to Rural Community Board on the 27^th February 2017, the supplementary bridge pile option was recommended with a cost estimate of $790,000.

2.8 The work was recommended to be phased over two financial years and be absorbed to current budget provisions provided in the maintenance budget as the additional funding application to New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) was declined.

2.9 Maintenance programme was to be prioritised to accommodate the budget requirements of the repair.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The supplementary pile option encountered problems due to issues with transferring the loads to the new piles from the existing central pile. Therefore, the active slope stabilisation option was chosen. This option comprise of installing integrated rock bolts and a mesh system to stabilise the slip face from regressing further.

3.2 The preferred solution is estimated to cost $470,000. The project is being progressed to detail design.

3.3 The intention is to finish the repair by end of 2017/18 financial year.

3.4 Other funding options such as claiming funding through Council’s bridge insurance for the repair was pursued but was unsuccessful.

3.5 Following meetings with NZTA, Council has applied for additional funding assistance at a rate of 54% under flood damage and is awaiting approval. This funding is highly likely to be approved.

3.6 This reduces the risk to the rest of the bridge network as the maintenance budgets are no longer constrained.

3.7 Local share of $216,200 will need to be sourced to complete the repair in this financial year.

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

4.1 Bridge structures are categorised as part of infrastructural strategic assets Council owns. However only the decisions that affect the asset group as whole, is considered significant. Therefore, the decision about Vista Bridge alone does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy. However, affected parties such as PanPac will be consulted before construction/repair work will be undertaken.

5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Amount of local share required for the slip repair is $216,200.

5.2 The local share is recommended to be funded through Rural Flood Emergency Event Reserve as the cause of the slip is storm water damage and the fund was set up to meet local share of such repairs.

5.3 The local share required can be funded from the Rural Flood Emergency Event Reserve which has a balance of $1,699,552 as at 17 August 2017.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Bridge Engineer titled “Funding Vista Bridge Slip Repair Local Share” dated 11/09/2017 be received.

B) That the Rural Community Board approves the local share of $216,200 from the Rural Flood Emergency Event Reserve for the Vista Bridge slip repair.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure by:

i) Maintaining good quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Ref: 17/842

REPORT TO: Hastings District Rural Community Board

MEETING DATE: Monday 11 September 2017

FROM: Bridge Engineer

Anu Ileperuma

SUBJECT: VDAM Rule Impact Assessment

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Rural Community Board regarding the Vehicle Dimension and Mass (VDAM) Rule imposed bridge restriction impacts on the district and to seek guidance from the Board on the preferred implementation strategy.

1.2 This proposal arises from the recent regulatory change in the VDAM rule which impacts the management of bridge structures owned by Hastings District Council.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is infrastructure development to support economic growth and providing accessible transport options within the district.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that the Rural Community Board adopts the proposed bridge implementation strategy with or without amendments following consultation with Council subjected to Long Term Planning process for 2018/2028.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Vehicle Dimension and Mass (VDAM) rule sets out the requirements for dimension and mass limits to enable vehicles to operate safely on New Zealand’s roads.

2.2 The intention was to set a reasonable balance between risks heavy vehicles present to public safety and efficient operation of heavy vehicle fleet within constraints imposed by the network.

2.3 The revised rule with significant changes to general weight (laden weight of a vehicle) came into effect 1^st February 2017.

2.4 As previously reported to the Board, all the bridges on the network were screened to assess whether they had the capacity to meet the new general weight limits prescribed by VDAM rule 2016.

2.5 The changes to VDAM rule meant that current approach to management of bridges needed to be changed to align with the rule.

2.6 Hastings District Council had adopted a “balanced approach” to bridge management which categorised the bridge stock to either strengthening, posting (weight restriction) or managed categories. While strengthening and posting are self-explanatory, managed structures were defined as the bridges that are under general weight capacity, however were put through an inspection regime to manage the risk instead of imposing restrictions.

2.7 Under the new rule, this approach cannot be utilised as it demands for the bridges under capacity to be posted. This results in increased number of restrictions being placed on the network.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The bridge assessments for the network were carried out and it produced the following results.

3.2

3.3 A high level prioritisation of the bridge results were put together using existing data such as heavy vehicle count on the road, land use and route priority (lifeline).

3.4 This information was presented to a group of targeted stakeholders at a workshop held on 3 August 2017 to seek their comments with regards to business impact and to confirm the order of priority for proposed bridge upgrades.

3.5 At the workshop the group was divided to three categories of forestry, stock/farming and transport depended on the industry the individual represented.

3.6 The results were then gathered and collated into a proposed implementation plan to reflect the priorities confirmed by the group.

3.7 The proposed plan extends over seven years and is attached with this report.

3.8 Another consultation round was held on 1 September 2017 to confirm the way forward with the targeted stakeholders.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 There are two options proposed, which are:

4.2 Option 1: Do nothing (place restrictions)

4.3 Option 2: Council adopts proposed plan with or without amendments subject to Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018/2028 process.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 The implementation of the proposed plan does trigger significance and engagement policy as the expenditure proposed is significant as well as the number of people affected.

5.2 Due to the significance of the expenditure and the approach, the proposed implementation plan will be subjected to LTP 2018/2028 process.

5.3 A targeted stakeholder workshop was held and the implementation plan was amended accordingly. Another consultation meeting was held to confirm the implementation plan. Any feedback and amendment to the current plan will be tabled at the coming Rural Community Board meeting.

5.4 Directly affected properties are to be consulted via Rural Community Board newsletters prior to finalising implementation plan.

5.5 Regional Land Transport Committee to be consulted alongside neighbouring councils prior to finalising implementation plan.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 Implementation of Option 1 is as below:

6.1.1 Advantages:

· Minimal financial impact on the district

6.1.2 Disadvantages:

· Accessibility of general weight vehicles reduces over the roading network

· Increased restrictions placed on the network, leading to inefficient travel for industries such as forestry, farming, stock and transporter

· Increased transport costs to be primary industries as the operators will impose higher transportation costs due to restrictions

6.2 Implementation of Option 2 is as below:

6.2.1 Advantages:

· Improved level of service for the travel of industries mentioned above

· Reduced restrictions on the roading network, leading to increased accessibility and resilience of the network

· Supporting economic growth of the region through reduced travel costs to the industry operators and producers

6.2.2 Disadvantages:

· Significant financial impact to undertake strengthening work required on the under capacity bridges

6.2.3 The draft budget will be subjected to LTP process to get approval from the Council and NZTA

6.2.4 A business case have been prepared to NZTA and if approved a Funding Assistance Rate (FAR) of 54% is expected.

Cost	2018/19	2019/20	2020/21	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24
Expected NZTA Share	$263,007	$866,484	$946,809	$337,932	$527,472	$518,400
Expected Local Share	$224,043	$738,116	$806,541	$287,868	$449,328	$441,600
Rating Area 2 Impact	$184,759	$580,980	$792,189	$230,460	$449,328	$441,600

6.2.5 This will have a local share impact of:

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 The preferred option is option 2.

7.2 Even though Option 2 will have a significant financial impact on the rate payers, it provides many benefits to the community, supports economic growth and reduces the restrictions placed on the roading network which builds a more resilient network.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Bridge Engineer titled “VDAM Rule Impact Assessment” dated 11/09/2017 be received.

B) That following consultation and subject to Long Term Planning process for 2018/2028 the Hastings District Rural Community Board adopts the proposed bridge implementation strategy with or without amendments.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i) Reducing restrictions placed on the roading network

ii) Improving roading connections to support economic growth in the region.

Attachments:

VDAM Implementation Plan 28/08/2017

TR-2-3-17-5

File Ref: 17/853

REPORT TO: Hastings District Rural Community Board

MEETING DATE: Monday 11 September 2017

FROM: Strategic Transportation Engineer

Nilesh Redekar

SUBJECT: iWay Strategy Update

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Board about the proposed iWay Strategy and also on the recommendation of the Strategy Implementation Plan.

1.2 At the Works and Services Committee meeting on 22 August 2017 it was resolved to accept the proposed strategy and deliver all identified projects over the next 3 years and the remaining projects over the following 12 years as part of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 process.

1.3 This proposal arises from the desired to have a clear direction on iWay following the successful delivery of Model Community and Urban Cycleway Programme and to move towards the goal of a safe, attractive and connected cycle network in a ‘complete streets’ setting.

1.4 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.5 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to provide good quality infrastructure that is safe, affordable, integrated, accessible, efficient, and effective in meeting the needs of present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.6 This report concludes by recommending that the Hastings District Community Board will adopt the proposed iWay Strategy for strategic direction and will consider implementing Option 1 as part of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 process.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 It is becoming increasingly recognised in New Zealand and abroad that cycling benefits society in a number of ways including lower traffic congestion (due to fewer motor vehicles on the road network), improved health (including mortality and morbidity), reduced vehicle operating costs and improved travel times (related to efficiency in conditions of lower congestion) and reduced pollution (since active transport modes involve no emissions).

2.2 To increase the proportion of trips made by cycle it will be necessary to attract a larger proportion of the general population to cycle. Studies show that a large proportion of the population who do not currently cycle for transport are willing but wary of doing so without physical protection from high-speed or high-volume motor traffic. Therefore, it is necessary to provide connected routes with provisions that are suitable to the surrounding traffic environment.

2.3 Almost a decade ago, the New Zealand Transport Agency selected Hastings as one of two places (New Plymouth was the other) for the Model Communities Programme: a focused investment in cycling infrastructure, education and encouragement. This initial project grew into iWay, and has been bolstered through additional investment from the national Urban Cycleways Programme (UCP, 2015-2018). The iWay programme has included:

· A focus on developing four key arterial routes into the city centre, completing routes and linking communities and modes;

· Complementary on-road cycle improvements on key collector routes;

· Shared pathway projects;

· Footpath renewal, connectivity and lighting;

· A network of information signs, bike stands and seats;

· The MoveIt education programme, including cyclist skills training, Share the road and Be Safe Be Seen campaigns, promotional campaigns for ‘Walk and cycle to school’, ‘Walk and cycle to work’, ‘Walk and cycle to the shop’ and ‘Walk and cycle for fun’, and other safety programmes

2.4 Figure 1 presents the key milestone in the planning and implementation of the walking and cycling network –

Figure 1 – Recent History of the Hastings District Council iWay development

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Figure 2 is an overview of the iWay network. Existing routes are denoted by solid lines and proposed routes are dashed lines.

Figure 2 – Overview map of iWay network

3.2 The network consists of following types of cycle facilities –

· Shared Paths (i.e. Class 2) are shared by cyclists and pedestrians. They are either sealed (e.g. concrete or asphalt) or unsealed (e.g. limestone aggregate – and often referred to as a trail). May be along a road or through a park or waterway reserve and are traversable by any type of cycle (excludes mountain bike trails).

../../../../../../../Pictures/iPhoto%20Library.photolibrary/Previews/2016/06/22/20160622-065257/IKrWGdh1TeSD7M5LjHOf5Q/IMG_563

Concrete shared path, Havelock Rd, Hastings

../../../../../../../Pictures/iPhoto%20Library.photolibrary/Previews/2016/06/22/20160622-065257/bjQJbRSGTTmgIxyZ5M6aIg/IMG_558

Palmer Symons Link Reserve, Hastings

Figure 3 – Examples of Shared Path on iWay network

· Cycle lane (Class 3) on the carriageway is legally designated by a painted cycle symbol; motorists may not park in or drive along (except to turn). They are normally provided adjacent to the kerb or parking, or between general traffic lanes on an intersection approach.

../../../../../../../Pictures/iPhoto%20Library.photolibrary/Previews/2016/06/22/20160622-065257/T1zQ36qIQzaSJzWbH%25frCA/IMG_5

Shared path transition to kerb-side cycle lane, Railway Road, Hastings

../../../../../../../Pictures/iPhoto%20Library.photolibrary/Previews/2016/06/21/20160621-070942/Wpmf5Op2SpWNAYSOdLYsMw/IMG_556

Car-side cycle lane, Te Mata Rd, Havelock North

Figure 4 – Examples of Cycle Lane on iWay network

· Neighbourhood greenway or quiet streets/roads (Class 4) have low traffic volumes and speeds. They are always indicated by way finding signage and may have traffic calming features and/or sharrows.

../../../../../../../Pictures/iPhoto%20Library.photolibrary/Previews/2016/11/23/20161123-124924/NTZ+QsGDRAy%25qT404kNFZQ/IMG_7

Quiet street with 1-lane constriction point, Lowe St, Hastings

../../../../../../../Pictures/iPhoto%20Library.photolibrary/Previews/2016/11/23/20161123-124924/dWfogWLPQH6AJZMxZnqF8g/IMG_705

Quiet, low volume and speed rural road, Gilbertson Road, Hastings

Figure 5 – Examples of Neighbourhood Greenway or Quiet Streets/Roads on iWay network

· Other (Class 5) including bus lanes (by default shared by cyclist), wide shoulders (typically rural roads), or mixed traffic lanes with sharrows (e.g. low speed shopping district main streets such as Heretaunga Street).

../../../../../../../Pictures/iPhoto%20Library.photolibrary/Previews/2016/06/22/20160622-065257/wQgo2friS1qGG798BCybvg/IMG_562

Wide shoulders, St. George’s Rd, Hastings

../../../../../../../Pictures/iPhoto%20Library.photolibrary/Masters/2013/12/07/20131207-195845/sharrow%20on%20ste

Shared lane on commercial street, Boston, Massachussetts

Figure 6 – Examples of Other facilities on iWay network

3.3 Overall, the iWay programme over last few years has achieved:

· Increase in average annual daily cycling traffic (as counted at 25 short term and 9 permanent automatic count stations). In 2016, the average daily cycle traffic at the nine permanent counters was over 650 and over 235,000 trips were recorded.

· Active travel to school is increasing, as measured at a set of primary, intermediate and high schools to be tracked over time (baseline surveys and cycle/scooter stand counts have been taken at seven schools).

· Reported injury crashes involving people on bikes are declining. Between 2008 and 2015, the five-year rolling average of cyclist-reported injury crashes has decreased by about 4% each year.

· Nearly 90% of combined arterial and collector roads in Urban Area and over 20% in Rural Area have provided cycle facilities however many urban intersections still did not have any provision for cyclists.

3.4 Hastings has already made great progress on the iWay network and been recognised as an innovation leader for endeavours such as trialling ‘sharrow’ (shared lane) markings, applying green cycle lane delineation and the award-winning MoveIt campaign. Even so, there is still much work to be done and it will be necessary to challenge the current norms even further. Some of the key examples include -

· St Aubyn Street currently has Class 3 cycle lanes, but as intersections are the critical points for cycling safety and most of the intersections along the route require further improvements.

· Lack of east-west cycle connectivity at south of the Hastings;

· There are still few Arterial and Collector Roads in urban areas that has no cycle facility especially at intersections.

· Over 20 schools within the district do not have any adequate cycle–walk facility;

· There are many gaps identified within iWay network over last few years that raises concerns to beginner and advanced cyclists.

4.0 STRATEGY UPDATE – the Vision

4.1 Moving forward and to achieve the best outcome for the district, a simple and realistic vision is developed (and is further explained in detail in Attachment 1)

“Hastings District has a safe, attractive and connected cycle network in a ‘complete streets’ setting, that gives people of all ages and abilities more mobility choices and a higher quality of life”.

4.2 The full realisation of our vision will depend on the degree to which we take the next steps over next ten years:

Adopting a complete street approach, where streets are planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including cyclists, pedestrians, buses, truck drivers, and motorists, appropriate to the network function and context. Complete streets will support more liveable and economically vibrant places;

Improving the safety, comfort and quality of existing cycleways, especially at intersections;

Developing a family-friendly “neighbourhood greenway network” using local streets with reduced motor traffic speeds/volumes, and crossing facilities where they intersect with busier streets;

Completing urban network gaps and major cross-city corridors;

Improving connections to the Hawke’s Bay Trail Network (part of the New Zealand Cycle Trails (NZCT), also known as the Great Rides) and between district urban areas (Flaxmere, Clive, Whakatu, Haumoana, and Havelock North).

4.3 As explained in Attachment 1, the principal policy drivers for iWay are further illustrated in Figure 7

Figure 7 – Policy and guidance forming the rationale for investing in iWay

4.4 As part of the iWay Strategy a thorough analysis was carried out to identify existing gaps (i.e. connectivity and missing facilities), inconsistency and other deficiencies within iWay network projects. The analysis includes fieldwork, review of previous planning efforts, consultation with the Active Transport Group (ATG) and desktop gap analysis.

4.5 If several different gaps exist along the length of a particular cycling route, they are treated as one corridor project. The full list of project corridors and area wide network programme are further prioritised as briefly explained in Section 3.11 to 3.16 (and comprehensively explained in Attachment 1 – Section 2.2).

4.6 As well as the physical provision that make up the iWay network, a number of programmes are proposed to encourage people for cycling and enable them to do it appropriately through education. Following is list of education/encouraging programme –

· Cycle Skills Training – Level 1 basic skills to primary school and Level 2 on-road training to intermediate school;

· Scooter Safety Programme (based on NZ Transport Agency Guidelines) tailored for Yr 4 students;

· MoveIt and School Travel Plans – is successfully implemented to few schools within Hastings and is aimed to continue rolling across the district.

· Be Safe Be Seen – working closely with community to raise awareness about safe ride during winter;

· Sponsoring Events – providing encouragement to community to explore iWay network;

· Monitoring and Evaluation – extending the existing nine permanent auto counters across the network to closely evaluate progress of iWay.

4.7 All identified projects are prioritised using the ActiveTrans Priority Tool (National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2015) during the ten -year period (2018-28). The analysis presented provides a transparent and flexible tool for walking and cycling projects based on multi-year research and the experience of the top jurisdictions in the World.

4.8 The prioritisation can be easily updated as more information becomes available. The criteria used are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Prioritisation criteria and scoring method summary

Factors (criteria)	Variables (sub-criteria)	Scoring method
Constraints	Cost	Order of magnitude, planning level cost estimate. Included to ensure a value-for-money approach, but with a lower weighting to recognise that factors that contribute to achieving the vision are more important.
Opportunities	Planned maintenance	Higher priority to iWay projects that can be coordinated with other roading projects, to increase economies of scale and avoid “double-passing” of roadworks.
Safety	Total cycle crashes	Based on reported crashes in the NZTA Crash Analysis System (CAS) from Jan 2006- Apr 2017. Higher crashes indicate an increased priority[1]. Note that fatal and serious crashes are included in both datasets – this is to elevate the priority of addressing sites with these crashes.
Safety	Fatal & serious injury cycle crashes
Existing conditions	Average daily traffic	A proxy for safety, to account for locations where cyclists may not currently be present or where crashes have not yet occurred due to chance. Safety is associated with the volume and speed of motor vehicles that are in the road corridor; higher values indicate an increased priority for treatment.
Existing conditions	Posted speed
Demand	Total number of cyclists predicted	Based on census usually resident population data within defined buffers around the corridor, using the NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual Simplified Procedures 11 method. Adjustments have been made based on judgement and existing volumes. The assumptions include existing census mode share and network completion / facility quality.
Connectivity	Connected to existing iWay	Highest priority for projects that fill a gap in an existing corridor. Medium priority for projects that extend a corridor or branch off from an existing corridor. Lowest priority for projects not connected to existing corridor.
Connectivity	Number of schools served	Higher priority for projects that involve a greater number of schools on the corridor or within 100m of the route via existing iWay facility or low volume local street.

4.9 The proposed iWay vision promotes safety, connectivity and usage by people of all ages and abilities, therefore the factors for safety (both observed through crash records and predicted through existing motor traffic conditions), demand, and connectivity have been given the highest weightings.

4.10 The variables relating to cost and opportunities for coordination with other projects are considered important in terms of achieving a value-for-money solution and public buy-in during the installation phase, but are not the most critical aspects to achieving the vision, and have therefore been giving medium weightings.

4.11 Stakeholder input was considered as a variable (especially noting that a limited consultation is carried out at this stage), but it was determined that the information gained from the Active Transport Group workshops was more directed at developing the project descriptions rather than prioritising between projects, and would not give enough detail to be included in the prioritisation.

4.12 Another variable considered related to whether the project falls within the existing road corridor, but at this stage of development, it was considered that the information available was insufficient to accurately determine this.

4.13 Overall thirty projects are selected as part of the Strategy and based on the prioritisation method, following top ten projects as shown in Table 2 are identified. (The entire list of prioritisation is available in Appendix 1, Section 2.2.3) that are to be led by HDC.

Table 2: Corridor prioritisation results

Priority	ID	Location	Prioritization Score
1	4	St Aubyn St upgrade	343.3
2	2	Willowpark Rd	326.0
3	3	Southampton St upgrade	316.3
4	17	Pakowhai Rd Stage 4	231.6
5	16	Brookfields Rd (Completed)	215.8
6	19	Napier Road Stage 2	215.0
7	12	Te Aute Rd urban	207.5
8	13	Te Aute Rd rural	197.6
9	23	Southland Drain (Southern Link Path)	187.6
10	11	Portsmouth Rd	179.0

4.14 A sensitivity analysis is also carried out to evaluate that a single factor does not have dominance over the priority output and the ranking provided is robust and is reliant on several factors. Interestingly all top three projects remained same during all scenario and sensitivity testing.

4.15 The economic evaluation carried out for all identified projects especially the first ten prioritised projects are likely to achieve significant benefits that will outweigh the associated implementation cost.

4.16 The most identified projects fall under rating area 1 (DRA 1), except Waimarama Road (Mad Mile Section), Middle Road and Whirinaki Road Improvement projects.

4.17 All three projects in rating area 2 (DRA 2) are identified as a regional priority considering their significance in NZ Cycle Trail and are currently proposed to be delivered during first three years (2018-21), although the prioritisation indicates that all three projects have a priority ranking above 10. Also there are no funds allocated in the LTP (or Annual Plan) for any projects in rating area 2 (DRA 2).

4.18 Waimarama Road ‘Mad Mile’ Improvements – This work is led by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) and includes improvement to replace the Mad Mile section of the trail. The preliminary investigation and design is currently carried out by HBRC and they indicated $50,000.00 as a local share from the Council.

4.19 Middle Road Improvements – Middle Road is promoted as part of the Heartlands Ride New Zealand Cycle Trail and was previously accepted and supported by HDC. However, the existing road environment (i.e. narrow carriageway, high heavy vehicle volume and blind windy corners) creates an unsafe environment for cyclists. Although there is a need to improve cycle safety along the route, Middle Road is also identified as one of the high risk motorcycle route and has few road sections that will be re-constructed as part of the Area Wide Pavement Treatment (AWPT).

A Middle Road Corridor Improvement plan is currently under investigation which will combine all these projects and will provide a strategic vision for the entire route to improve efficiency and safety for all road users. It is expected that the corridor report will be completed over next two months and will recommend few options for implementation over period of time (i.e. short term, medium term and long term). Based on the high level preliminary estimates, a provision of up to $600,000.00 is proposed to improve cycle safety (only) over next three years.

4.20 Notwithstanding the identified need to upgrade Middle Road, a question as to the appropriate funding issue for cycling requirements needs to be developed.

4.21 Whirinaki Road Improvements – This work is part of the HBRC’s long term plan and will include a staged lime sand trail extension of 7 km from Bayview Trail end to the Whirinaki/Pan Pac MTB Park. It is expected that this trail will ultimately extend 4 km further to Tangoio Settlements. The HBRC is currently investigating details for the trail and has indicated to allocate $100,000.00 as part of the local share. As with Middle Road the appropriate funding will need to be developed.

4.22 Two options were developed as part of implementing the proposed strategy. Option 1 proposed to deliver all identified projects over 15 years and Option 2 over 30 years.

4.23 At the Works and Service Committee meeting on 22 August 2017, it was resolved to accept proposed strategy and deliver all identified projects over the next three years and the remaining projects over the following 12 years as part of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 process.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 Whilst no formal consultation with wider community is carried out, few workshops with the Active Transport Group (ATG), an advisory panel comprised of Councillors and representatives of Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Napier City Council, Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, Sport Hawkes Bay, Cycle Aware Hawke’s Bay, Ramblers and the Youth Council were carried out.

5.2 The involved level of participation with ATG was adopted. This was achieved by engaging the Group in all stages such as project identification, project prioritisation and encouraging them to provide comments on the process.

5.3 Although the proposed iWay strategy including prioritised projects are thoroughly developed in partnership with ATG, it is necessary to complete additional consultation and engagement with other stakeholders and local community prior to implementing any further work. The next stage of consultation will be project specific and will align with the standard consultation process adopted by HDC when delivering new capital project works on the roading network.

6.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 All three identified projects are prioritised based on their regional priority and their significance in NZ Cycle Trail. It is estimated that the local share for identified improvements to

· Mad Mile section of Waimarama Road will cost up to $50,000.00;

· Middle Road safety improvement for cyclists only will cost nearly $600,000.00 (this estimate will likely change after completion of the Middle Road Corridor Plan); and

· Whirinaki Road Improvement will cost up to $100,000.00.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Strategic Transportation Engineer titled “iWay Strategy Update” dated 11/09/2017 be received.

B) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board endorse the I-Way Strategy.

C) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board request that an appropriate funding approach to cycleway improvements as identified in the Strategy be developed.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure.

Attachments:

Proposed i-Way Strategy ten year plan

TR-17-4-17-1

Separate Document

File Ref: 17/864

REPORT TO: Hastings District Rural Community Board

MEETING DATE: Monday 11 September 2017

FROM: Chief Financial Officer

Bruce Allan

SUBJECT: Draft Financial result for the year ended 30 June 2017 for Rating Area 2

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Hastings Rural Community Board (HRCB) of the indicative rating result for the year ended 30 June 2017.

1.2 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.3 The indicative result for Rating Area 2 for the 2016/17 year is favourable to budget and is a $380,959 rating surplus. The results are unaudited and indicative at this stage and consequently there may be some variation to the figures in the final result.

1.4 This report concludes by recommending that the Hastings Rural Community Board recommend to the Finance and Monitoring Committee that the remaining rating surplus after specific allocations is allocated to the Rural Flood and Emergency Event Reserve.

2.0 CURRENT SITUATION

2.1 The unaudited result for the year ended 30 June 2017 will be presented to the Finance & Monitoring Committee on 12 September 2017.

2.2 This report sets out the indicative rating result for the year ended 30 June 2017 for Rating Area 2.

The Rating Result

2.3 The indicative rating result for the 2016/17 financial year is a positive result for

Rating Area 2, a $380,959 surplus.

2.4 A more detailed breakdown of this result is available in Attachment 1.

2.5 The overall rating surplus is due to savings across a number of Council activities.

2.6 The following graph demonstrates from what activities the surplus has accumulated:

2.7 While Transportation makes up over half of the rating requirement for RA2 with a $5.3m net budget, the Transportation budget has been managed expertly with just a $46 surplus and therefore doesn’t feature on the graph above.

2.8 The largest single contributor of the RA2 surplus was Rural Fire where RA2 contributes 80% of the rating requirement. The level of rates remissions was also lower than expected and has contributed to the surplus favourably.

2.9 The net rating result is shown in the attached schedule “Analysis of Year End Result for 2016/17 for Rating Area 2”. This shows the budgeted and actual cost for the various activities and the amount requested to be carried forward. The final column shows the rating surplus or deficit (negative) for the activities. Also attached as Attachment 2 is the 2015/16 result for comparison.

Rural Flood and Emergency Event Reserve

2.10 The Rural Flood and Emergency Event Reserve has a balance of $1,785,603 as at 30 June 2017. The Hastings Rural Community Board on 21 September 2015 resolved:

“That the Hastings Rural Community Board recommend to Council that a new target level for the Rural Flood and Emergency Event Reserve be established of $2,000,000.”

2.11 The above resolution was subsequently approved by Council.

2.12 Allocation of Surplus

Council’s Treasury Policy states the following on the allocation of surpluses:

“The funds from all asset sales and operating surpluses will be applied to the reduction of debt and/or a reduction in borrowing requirements, unless the Council specifically directs that the funds will be put to another use.”

2.13 Rating Area 2 currently has no debt with the Taihape Road debt being extinguished last year from the 2016 surplus.

2.14 The exact allocation of funds to reserve contributions may change if Council determine that additional funds be set aside from the 2016/17 surplus to meet any other identified needs. The Rating Area 2 surplus allocation will only be affected by the relevant rating splits between Rating Area 1 and Rating Area 2.

2.15 The Rating Area 2 reserve balances as at 30 June 2017 are as follows:

Reserve Description *(Interest bearing Y/N)*	Balance ($)
Rural Flood and Emergency Event Reserve (Y)	1,699,552
Rural Fire Contingency Fund (N)	6,457
General Purpose Reserve - Rating Area 2 (N)	591,158
Capital Reserve - Rating Area 2 (N)	1,314,393
Transportation NZTA Fund Reserve Rating Area 2 (N)	1,124,489

2.16 Given that Rating Area 2 has no debt, the Board can therefore only allocate the surplus to increasing reserves including the Rural Flood and Emergency Reserve or some other reserve for another purpose.

2.17 It is recommended that $260,959 of the surplus, currently assessed at $380,959 be allocated to the Rating Area 2 Capital Reserve. The actual amount will be dependent on the allocation of the final surplus by the Finance and Monitoring Committee on 12 September 2017.

2.18 The balance of the Rating Area 2 surplus is allocated as its share of two other surplus allocations with the replenishment of the Council contingency fund being the primary driver. The Contingency Fund is allocated 80:20 between Rating Area 1 and 2.

2.19 The following table summarises the allocation of the 2016/17 Rating Area 2 surplus:

	$
RA2 Surplus on General Rate	380,959
Allocation of Surplus:
Community Health Assistance Fund	20,000
Contingency Fund Replenishment	100,000
Rating Area Two Capital Reserve	260,959
Allocated Surplus	380,959

3.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND CONSULTATION

3.1 This decision is not significant in terms of the Council’s policy on significance and no consultation is required.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Chief Financial Officer titled “Draft Financial result for the year ended 30 June 2017 for Rating Area 2” dated 11/09/2017 be received.

B) That the Hastings Rural Community Board recommend to Council that $260,959 of the Rating Area 2 Rating Surplus be allocated to the Rating Area 2 Capital Reserve.

Attachments:

1	Analysis of Rating Area 2 Year End Result for 2016/17	CG-14-26-00030
2	Analysis of Rating Area 2 Year End Result for 2015/16	CG-13-26-00098

[1] A lack of crashes does not mean that a corridor is not a valid priority on a safety basis, it may just mean that the corridor is perceived to be so unsafe that few people use it. As cycle crashes are statistically rare events, there is a high degree of chance involved in influencing whether a crash occurs and what the severity of the outcome is. For new corridors, crashes on nearby parallel corridors (i.e. alternative routes) have been used.

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings

Hastings District Rural Community Board – Terms of Reference