Agenda of Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Minutes

13 February 2020

MINUTES

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting

Thursday, 13 February 2020

Order Of Business

1 Apologies. 3

2 Public Forum.. 3

3 Acceptance of Late Items. 3

4 Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 3

5 Change to Order of Business. 3

6 Confirmation of Minutes. 4

6.1 Minutes of the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting held on 27 November 2019. 4

7 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 4

8 Business. 4

8.1 Submissions to draft National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity, Resource Management Systems Reform & Urban Development Bill 4

8.2 Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency - Arataki Document Feedback. 6

9 Discussion of Late Items. 7

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council
Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers, 91 Willow Street, Tauranga
ON Thursday, 13 February 2020 AT 9am

PRESENT: Chairperson Larry Baldock, Deputy Chairperson Heidi Hughes, Mayor Tenby Powell, Cr Jako Abrie, Cr Kelvin Clout, Cr Andrew Hollis, Cr Dawn Kiddie, Cr John Robson, Cr Tina Salisbury, and Te Pio Kawe (Tangata Whenua Representative)

IN ATTENDANCE: Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Brad Bellamy (Project Leader: Urban Planning), Campbell Larking (Team Leader: Planning Projects), Andy Mead (Manager: City & Infrastructure Planning), Janine Speedy (Team Leader: City Planning), Alistair Talbot (Team Leader: Transport Strategy & Planning), Steve Tuck (Policy Planner), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor), and Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor)

1 Apologies

Committee Resolution UR0/20/1

Moved: Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded: Cr Jako Abrie

That:

a) apologies be accepted from Crs Bill Grainger and Steve Morris.

b) apologies for lateness be accepted from Mayor Tenby Powell and Crs Dawn Kiddie and Andrew Hollis.

Carried

2 Public Forum

Nil

3 Acceptance of Late Items

Nil

4 Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

5 Change to Order of Business

Nil

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Minutes of the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting held on 27 November 2019

Committee Resolution UR0/20/2

Moved: Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded: Cr Jako Abrie

That the Minutes of the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting held on 27 November 2019 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

Point of Clarification

Following the temporary closure of the underpass at Arataki, a safety audit for the new pedestrian crossing at Arataki had been carried out. Staff had been on site to monitor pedestrian movements. It was not expected that staff would monitor the site long-term.

7 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

It was noted that the Tangata Whenua representative, Te Pio Kawe, was a staff member of Boffa Miskell.

8 Business

8.1 Submissions to draft National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity, Resource Management Systems Reform & Urban Development Bill

Staff Andy Mead (Manager: City & Infrastructure Planning)

Brad Bellamy (Project Leader: Urban Planning)

Steve Tuck (Policy Planner)

At 9.12am, Cr Dawn Kiddie and Cr Andrew Hollis arrived at the meeting.

Key points

· The Government released a series of documents at the end of 2019 seeking public input. These included an issues and options paper on the review of the resource management system, a draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS-IB) and the Urban Development Bill (UD-B).

· Issues and options paper on the review of the resource management system

- The issues and options paper was released in late November 2019 and identified 14 key issues.

- Tauranga City Council (TCC) had chosen to respond to the following seven issues:

§ legislative architecture

§ purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991

§ recognising Te Tiriti of Waitangi and Te Ao Māori

§ strategic integration across the resource management system

§ addressing climate change and natural hazards

§ national direction, and

§ policy and planning framework

- Submissions were due by 3 February 2020 and TCC’s response was lodged by the Chief Executive on that date.

In response to questions

- The opportunity for submitters to present their submissions was not available. Written submissions only were requested.

- TCC’s Takaweanga Unit was included in the engagement process.

- TCC’s submission requested that the national direction be carefully considered as this did not always reflect local regional issues.

· Draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS-IB)

- The methodology required to identify and classify significant natural areas (SNAs) was unnecessarily complex and did not include any implementation guidance. This could lead to inconsistency of application across territorial authorities.

- The proposed target for indigenous vegetation cover within urban areas was 10%. Significant ecological areas in TCC’s City Plan represented approximately 4%.

- Identifying and mapping new SNAs would take considerable time and cost.

- The proposed requirement to review SNA schedules every two years was considered to be onerous.

At 9.45am, Mayor Tenby Powell arrived at the meeting.

In response to questions

- The submission process was TCC’s best opportunity to influence the development and framing of the NPS.

- TCC’s submission aimed to highlight the cost, time and resource required to implement the policies and rules being developed.

- 4% represented the area currently mapped as significant ecological areas in the District Plan which included areas within the harbour, however other areas within other conservation zones identified in the district plan could add significantly to the 4%.

- Staff had consulted with senior ecological consultants.

- Staff presented to Te Rangapu Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana in December 2019 on the NPS-IB and the review of the resource management system.

- Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) had circulated their draft submission and had met with TCC staff to discuss both submissions.

- At a high level, the NPS was looking to standardise practice across the country.

· Urban Development-Bill (UD-B)

- TCC’s overall concerns with the Bill included the following:

(i) the extensive powers provided to Kainga Ora and that the range of these powers may not be complete to enable delivery of urban development;

(ii) the streamlined process available to Kainga Ora that local authorities did not have direct access to;

(iii) the overall stance of “development at any cost”; and

(iv) the impact of the specified development project process on councils, in particular obligations relating to targeted rates and development contributions levied by Kainga Ora.

In response to questions

- The UD-B should provide opportunities for partnering with Māori land trusts to deliver urban growth projects and this was reflected in TCC’s submission.

- The issue of targeted rates was far reaching, from providing increased amenities to recovering infrastructure costs.

- There was a process available through the courts to remove covenants but it was a difficult process and involved risk and cost.

Committee Resolution UR0/20/3

Moved: Cr Andrew Hollis

Seconded: Cr John Robson

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee:

(a) Receives the submission (Attachment 1) on the Issues and Options paper for the Resource Management Systems Reform lodged with the Resource Management Review Panel on 3 February 2020.

In Favour: Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes, Dawn Kiddie, John Robson and Tina Salisbury

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

(b) Endorses the draft submission (Attachment 2) on the draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity for submission to the Minister for the Environment.

In Favour: Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Andrew Hollis, Dawn Kiddie, John Robson and Tina Salisbury

Against: Crs Jako Abrie and Heidi Hughes

carried 7/2

(c) Endorse the draft submission (Attachment 3) on the Urban Development Bill for submission to the NZ Government’s Environment Committee.

In Favour: Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes, Dawn Kiddie, John Robson and Tina Salisbury

Against: Nil

carried 9/0

8.2 Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency - Arataki Document Feedback

Staff Alistair Talbot (Team Leader: Transport Strategy & Planning)

Key points

· Arataki was New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) 10 year view of current priorities and long-term outcomes for the land transport system.

· Arataki (Version 1 for engagement) was released in December 2020 and feedback was requested by 13 March 2020.

· NZTA would provide an updated version of Arataki in April 2020 and a further version would be published in August 2020.

· The key matters raised through TCC’s review related to the role and purpose of Arataki, housing demand and supply and freight movement and the Port of Tauranga.

· Staff discussions with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council identified consistent issues.

Committee Resolution UR0/20/4

Moved: Cr John Robson

Seconded: Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee:

(a) Receives the report.

(b) Endorses the proposed feedback to the New Zealand Transport Agency on its Arataki project.

Carried

9 Discussion of Late Items

Nil

The meeting closed at 10.33am.

The minutes of this meeting are to be confirmed at the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting to be held on 17 March 2020.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Agenda

17 March 2020

8.2 Natural Hazards & Resilience Planning - Release of Natural Hazards Information, (Open Coast Erosion, Liquefaction & Lateral Spread)

File Number: A11277912

Author: Brad Moore, Project Leader: Urban Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To inform the Urban Form and Transport Committee of recent findings associated with Council’s natural hazards and Resilience Planning projects, specifically coastal erosion, liquefaction and lateral spread. Alert the committee of the intended methods for public release of information and recent findings.

Recommendations

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee:

(a) Receives the report ‘Natural Hazards and Resilience Planning – Release of Natural Hazards Information, (Open Coast Erosion, Liquefaction and Lateral Spread)’.

Executive Summary

2. Tauranga City Council has a long history of planning for, mapping and releasing natural hazards information for planning, building and civil defence purposes. Currently Council has a wide range of natural hazard planning projects underway.

3. With an increase in understanding of known natural hazards and the City’s susceptibility to such events, the City will be better placed to determine risk and the necessary strategies to avoid, defend or adapt long-term. This will result in improved resilience along with the ability to deliver more effectively the work programs associated with delivering greenfield planning projects, intensification and urban growth.

4. As part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan, Council considered and initiated a Resilience Project, with a focus on urban form and infrastructure planning. This was initiated to create a cohesive framework for addressing the natural hazards appropriate to Tauranga in specific regard to existing infrastructure, future infrastructure provision and the current urban form. Further it considers how our planning may need to change to address the potential effects of natural hazards, shock events and climate change.

5. As part of the Resilience Project, or through joint planning initiatives with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council, the Council has a wide range of natural hazard planning projects underway. These are focused firstly on understanding each of the hazards through susceptibility mapping, and providing that information to landowners so they are sufficiently informed of the issues relevant to those researched hazards and their property. These hazard planning projects have a range of technical inputs, however a key one which drives the increase of hazard risk is that of sea level rise.

6. The next hazard information to be released is that of open coast erosion and liquefaction and lateral spread. This will occur on the 16 March 2020. New and updated information will then be used in Councils long term planning process, regulatory processes (such as in building consents and subdivision consents) and the information presented within LIMS, and in the public domain (i.e Council website).

Background

7. For over two decades Council has undertaken a range of assessments which have informed planning and infrastructure design within Tauranga. Coastal erosion, liquefaction and storm surge studies were among the first to be assessed and planned for, with these hazards being considered within Building and Resource Management Act processes, along with that information being placed on LIMs.

8. Significant natural events such as Christchurch 2011, localised flood event events in 2005, 2009, 2013 and the recent storm surge event of January 2018, combined with more focus on addressing natural hazard risks in legislation and regional plans, have driven the need for natural hazard assessment and consideration of the risks associated with these events, including how risk will increase due to climate change, (and specifically sea level rise).

9. Consequently, Council has initiated and shared additional natural hazard information with the community regarding flooding from intense rainfall events, tsunami (through the tsunami survive project) and also through its wider new community (greenfield) planning projects.

10. As part of planning for the above, Council has entered a Natural Hazards Charter with Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Bay of Plenty Regional Council to fund and plan for these assessments and risk assessments.

11. In 2018 Council initiated a Resilience Project, with a focus on urban form and infrastructure planning. Outputs of this work have been the production of new natural hazard information.

12. Implementation of this known information is through a range of regulatory acts, including this information being placed on property files and LIMs, and shared with affected landowners

Strategic / Statutory Context

13. Council’s natural hazards and resilience planning sit within a wider national context established under the Local Government Act, Resource Management Act, Building Act and Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. Regionally, the operative Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement provides the framework for roles and responsibilities on natural hazard planning which must be given effect to in all plan making processes. TCC and the other two councils within the Western Bay Sub Region collectively work and progress natural hazard planning and risk assessment through an agreed Charter. This includes joint funding of planning projects and collaborative partnerships in natural hazard planning.

COASTAL EROSION

14. With the existence of long-established residential dwellings along the open coast between Mauao and the Papamoa, a key piece of work in the current natural hazards planning program is that which seeks to better understand the effects of coastal erosion along the open coast resulting from sea level rise. This work has built on the knowledge already developed through previous studies, reports and monitoring. The outcomes offer a more comprehensive assessment of the dynamics of our coastal environment and the extent of change we might expect in future years from the projected effects of sea level rise.

15. The coastal erosion maps illustrate areas likely to be affected by erosion along the open coast when considered against time and potential future sea level rise. Nine erosion scenarios have been mapped which reflect the likelihood of erosion occurring within the timeframes of present day, 2080 and 2130 Natural process variability is represented by “likely” and “extremely unlikely”, (but still possible), scenarios being shown for each timeframe. ‘Likely’ erosion has a 66% probability of the mapped distance being exceeded within that specified timeframe. Similarly, the ‘extremely unlikely’ scenario has only a 5% chance of exceedance.

16. A map showing the extent of erosion along the open coast is provided in Attachment A.

17. The information is now available on public mapping systems, with wording notations on the existence of the information on LIMS. The process to release this information follows that of those prior hazard projects. It is noted that this information is an update of prior information currently contained within the operative City Plan and is used within Building Act and Subdivision consent processes.

lIQUEFACTION & LATERAL SPREAD

18. Following a range of recent earthquake events in Tauranga, and as part of the Resilience Project, Citywide assessments were undertaken to update existing understandings of liquefaction and lateral spread. This work has looked at existing and future land damage resulting from earthquake, taking into account potential changes in the groundwater table from the effects of sea level rise.

19. This work now shows that in the event of a significant seismic event, extensive areas of Tauranga City are potentially at risk from liquefaction and lateral spread. Rising groundwater levels due to sea level rise are also expected to exacerbate this issue within the city.

20. This work goes some way to further our understanding and update existing information on liquefaction already held by Council. It also provides additional information to that already held on LIMS.

21. The Tauranga liquefaction land damage hazard and vulnerability maps identify potentially liquefaction prone areas throughout Tauranga City based upon a range of earthquake events. These maps have been prepared following the framework methodology developed by the MBIE (2017). They replace maps prepared as part of a previous study completed in 2002 (Western Bay of Plenty Lifelines Engineering, Microzoning for Earthquake Hazards for the Western Bay of Plenty).

22. The land damage maps are an output of geological and geomorphic interpretation and mapping, physical ground investigations and soil sampling, and quantitative analysis completed by Council and its technical advisors. The maps provided show predicted land damage in five given earthquake scenarios, (1-in-25 year, 1-in-100 year, 1-in-250 year, 1-in-500 year and 1-in-1000 year ground shaking events).

23. A total of 10 land damage maps have been produced, each representing the anticipated effect of liquefaction in each design event based on current groundwater levels, while taking into consideration anticipated future groundwater levels resulting from the effects of climate change (i.e 1.25m of sea level rise).

24. As an example, a 1 in 500-year return period liquefaction map taking into account 1.25m sea level rise is provided in Appendix B.

RELEASE of information

25. External communication is required to inform and assist the community to understand various projects underway and how they may be affected in the future.

26. Regarding open coast erosion, communication with the community and key stakeholders will include letters to directly affected landowners, which will also include information on the project and findings. Open days will be held to provide information to the community and the opportunity for residents to speak directly with staff and technical experts.

27. In regard to liquefaction and lateral spread, council staff have recently presented the latest findings to registered Category 1 members of the local engineering fraternity with two further presentations to the wider design community scheduled for the coming weeks. Presentation material and subsequent discussions will cover its implementation and generate better awareness and understanding of the latest ground shaking model, and the implications for the design and building process. Practitioners from the local planning, architectural and building community have been invited to attend these further presentations with attendees encouraged to participate and discuss the implications for future land use and the built form of the city.

28. A media release will also be used to draw the community’s attention to the new information related to liquefaction and lateral spread and will reference the fact that we have a dedicated web page with an FAQ and links to all the related technical reports. Staff will also be available to answer questions to any landowner or stakeholder wishing to understand the information further.

29. The Council website has been updated to specifically cover natural hazards and will be updated as projects progress, including the provision of dedicated viewers on these hazards to enable the community to explore the varying scenarios to aid in understanding of the information modelled.

future hazards work (2020)

30. Council has a significant work program to understand natural hazards into the future and enhance the City’s resilience.

31. This information aids landowners to make decisions on land purchase and development and assists Council to plan for emergency management purposes and through a range of planning processes.

32. This work is specifically necessary for Council to plan for the following key growth projects:

(a) Implementation of new urban growth areas (greenfield growth in Te Tumu and Tauriko West);

(b) Plan Change 27 – Intense Rainfall Events and the wider Integrated Stormwater Project (and infrastructure design);

(d) Meeting national and regulatory requirements for the review of the Tauranga City Plan and meeting obligations set through the Regional Policy Statement that Council has a statutory obligation to give effect to.

33. Following the release of information on open coast erosion and liquefaction and lateral spread, work will be progressed on slope stability, with that information being released into the public domain once completed.

Significance

34. This issue is of high significance as it affects a wide range of people and has large consequences. The release of information is of low significance as it relates to data and mapping.

Next Steps

35. TCC will continue the natural hazards program with its partners, Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Bay of Plenty Regional Council. This will enable the Council to understand the spectrum of natural hazards and incorporate this in the next Tauranga City Plan review thus reducing risk over time.

36. Council’s Resilience Project will continue with the outputs being fed into the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

Attachments

1. Open Coast Erosion Scenarios - Erosion Extent - A11297892 ⇩

2. Liquefaction Land Damage Map: 1 in 500-year return period event - A11297893 ⇩

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Agenda

17 March 2020

8.3 Park and Ride - quick win study

File Number: A11313597

Author: Peter Siemensma, Senior Transport Planner

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To provide the Urban Form and Transport Committee (UFTD) with a summary of the findings of the ‘Tauranga Park and Ride “Quick Win” Options Investigation Study’ (the Study) and to obtain direction from UFTD on the Study’s options assessment, conclusions and recommendations to confirm the next steps with this investigation.

Recommendations

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee:

(a) Agrees not to progress further investigations on potential Park and Ride trial facilities ahead of outcomes from the Urban Form and Transport Initiative, the Tauranga System Plan and other relevant planning processes.

(b) Approves further work to progress potential Park and Ride trial facilities at:

i. The privately owned site in Papamoa; and/or

ii. The privately owned site in the south of Tauranga; and/or

iii. BayPark;

And

(c) Retains Attachments A and B in confidential on the grounds that withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Executive Summary

2. The current year financial budget includes $1m capex to deliver Park and Ride facilities in Tauranga. A Study into delivering a Park and Ride facility in Tauranga in the short-term (18 months) has been undertaken. The Study considered many potential sites against criteria that generally support the delivery of successful Park and Ride outcomes. The Study has identified three potential site options that meet some, but not all, of the identified success criteria. Given the findings of the Study, staff seek feedback from UFTD on the issues, opportunities and constraints of the three Options and direction on next steps with implementing a Park and Ride facility in the short-term.

Background

3. The Western Bay of Plenty PT Blueprint, 2017 (the Blueprint), endorsed by the SmartGrowth Council partners, identifies that Park and Ride facilities will support bus patronage in the Western Bay. At the time of its development the Blueprint identified that park and ride facilities at Ōmokoroa and Tauriko would be of most benefit to support its outcomes. Accordingly, investigating suitable Park and Ride facilities is also included as an activity in the Public Transport Implementation Plan.

4. However, the Blueprint also identifies that the relative low price of car parking in Tauranga city centre compared to the price of a return bus journey, as well as a large quantity of free car parking spaces within a 5-10 minute walk from the city centre means that there currently no financial incentive for commuters to take the bus or use a park and ride. The Blueprint recommends ‘Changes to car park pricing to better reflect the cost of car travel and bus fares (parking fees no less than 120% of adult bus fares)’ in order to support the outcomes it identifies.

5. The Annual Plan 2019/2020 includes an activity for the development of a Park and Ride facility in Tauranga. The Annual Plan identifies a budget of $1 million (capital budget) for implementing any park and ride options for the City that may arise in the current financial year.

6. As part of the development of a Parking Strategy for the City, a Technical Memo has been prepared on the issue of Park and Ride facilities. This memo was been presented at the Workshop with Council on the 9^th of September 2019. This memo is attached to this report. In brief, it comprises a literature review, provides recommendations on the most suitable locations for park and ride facilities and to ensure value for money is achieved through investments made.

7. A number of other studies have either been undertaken in the last few years or are currently underway which consider the potential for park and ride facilities and the conditions to support their success. These studies include the B2B Park and Ride Pre-Feasibility Study (2016) and the developing Urban Form and Transport Initiative. In addition, Park and Ride opportunities are being considered in planning for Te Tumu and as part of the Tauriko Network Connections business case led by NZTA.

Strategic / Statutory Context

8. Park and Ride facilities are important elements of a successful multi-modal transport system. They have the ability to provide a public transport alternative for residents that would not otherwise have access, support a reduction in congestion, and make bus services more attractive and thereby reduce demand for private car travel.

9. The delivery of successful park and ride facilities will support the Community Outcomes most related to:

(a) Is well planned, with a variety of successful and thriving compact centres

(b) Is inclusive, safe, resilient and healthy

10. The delivery of a park and a ride facility requires approval under the Resource Management Act. The implications of this on each of the three short-list options have been considered in the Study. In brief, any development (including a park and ride facility) that exceeds 25 car parking spaces would be treated as a restricted discretionary activity (rule 4B.4.3) and require resource consent.

Options Analysis

11. The option analysis was guided by the Key Success Factors, ownership and other criteria related to matters such as cost, catchment, vicinity to arterial roads, ability to accommodate at least 50 parking spaces, distance to the CBD, and accessibility.

12. More broadly, the MRCagney Technical Note also acknowledges the potential risks and disadvantages associated with establishing Park and Ride facilities, these were:

(a) Undermining existing public transport services, and potentially reducing distance travelled by public transport.

(b) Inappropriately located Park and Ride facilities can create / induce localised traffic congestion.

(c) Land that is serviced by high quality public transport may be used more efficiently with other type of developments than a Park and Ride (eg medium and high density housing).

Key Success Factors

13. The Key Success Factor criteria considered were as follows:

(a) CBD car parking shortage and high car parking prices.

(b) Vehicular traffic congestion on routes feeding CBD, with bus priority lanes separated from regular traffic.

(d) Sufficient population catchment near Park and Ride site.

(e) Close proximity to main arterial roads.

Ownership

14. Due to the focus on the short-term (12-18 months) delivery of a Park and Ride facility the Study initially investigated only publicly-owned sites. This was seen as potentially avoiding the potentially longer timeframes associated with negotiating access and use of a privately owned site.

15. However, following the initial site identification process the Study team identified that the process of developing a new park and ride, including preliminary design, detailed design, groundworks and construction is unlikely to be developed within the anticipated timeframe. Therefore, the Study team decided to also look at some privately owned sites that have attributes suitable to delivery of a Park and Ride facility in the short-term. This led to the inclusion of some privately owned sites with established parking lots into the optioneering process.

Assessing the success factors for the three shortlisted sites

16. In total 16 sites were assessed in detail. This included assessing each of the 16 identified sites against listed criteria. The assessment is included in the Study appended to this report. That assessment lead to three sites being identified for further investigation, they were:

(a) Privately owned site in the South of Tauranga

(b) Privately owned site in Papamoa

17. The following Table provide a summary of the assessment against these three sites.

Success Factors	South	Papamoa	Baypark
A cost advantage for users where the cost of a two-way bus ticket is attractively lower than the cost of driving and parking in the CBD	x	x	x
Traffic congestion on CBD routes and bus priority that provides bus users a travel time advantage	x	✓	✓
Frequent public transport services that minimise delay for car – bus transfers (e.g. 10-15 min headway)	x	x	x
Close proximity to arterial routes so the site is convenient to access for car drivers and bus users	✓	✓	✓ assuming direct access can be provided

Option Analysis

18. The assessment is discussed further in the following paragraphs.

Privately-owned site to the South of Tauranga & privately-owned site in Papamoa

19. Further details of the analysis of these sites are included in the confidential attachment due to the private nature of landholdings and that no engagement has occurred with the owners.

BayPark

20. Baypark has a variety of positive attributes which could make this a suitable site for the Park and Ride facility. Baypark is strategically positioned next to SH2 and SH29A. This would be useful for potential users accessing the site, including those in Papamoa, Papamoa East and Te Puke. Travel time for a potential direct service would take approximately 22 minutes, utilising the existing bus priority lanes along Links Avenue and Hewlett’s Road. The facility also has access via Truman Lane and has an abundance of sealed parking available to use (with permission of Bay Venues Limited) for users.

21. Note however the current access via Truman Lane is a long and slow route and this additional delay would detract from the suitability of the site. Direct access is proposed as part of the Baylink project but the timeframe for this is uncertain. Also, with construction of Baylink likely to continue for another two years and no form of bus priority through the Baylink site there is risk of buses being delayed in this area which will impact on the attractiveness of the site from a user perspective.

Delivery timeframe (within 12-18 months)

22. The delivery of Park and Ride facility should generally be undertaken in tandem with an increase in bus service frequency and/or re-routing of existing bus services.

23. Consultation with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) has been undertaken throughout the Study. The anticipated additional service costs of each short-listed option is estimated to be in the order of $300,000 - $400,000 per annum.

24. The BOPRC have identified that any significant changes to the network need to be considered as part of their Council’s Long Term Plan process. In addition, service changes would need to be agreed with operator. Accordingly, it is expected that the earliest delivery of any increased or re-routed services would be by around mid-2021.

25. TCC staff have asked BOPRC whether, should TCC Mayor and Councillors elect to fund the operational costs, the introduction of the service could be brought forward from mid-2021. At the time of writing the report a response had not yet been received. Staff will update on this matter at the meeting.

26. In addition, in respect to the Baypark site, it is noted that the construction works are likely to continue for approximately another two years. Whilst this does not prevent delivery of a park and ride facility at this location it is likely to impact its success. For example, the access route to the site and journey through the construction works would add delay to a potential users journey thereby reducing a park and ride facilities attractiveness relative to other modes (primarily the private car).

Assessment

27. Based on the Study’s findings, none of the three shortlisted sites meet all success factors, which were key criteria against what the options were assessed. For example, none appear to offer a cost-advantage for users (compared to parking in the CBD). In addition, all options would require additional public transport spend associated with improving and extending the bus services to be successful and offer a discernible benefit and be attractive to users (in the order of $300,000 - $400,000 per annum).

28. However, all three sites are located in a suitable location nearby an arterial route and with a suitable catchment area, while only two sites benefit from existing bus priority lanes (noting limited travel time advantages).

29. Given this context, our assessment is that the establishment of a Park and Ride Facility at any of the three shortlisted sites, may not deliver significant benefits associated with reduced congestion and/or parking stress in the CBD. Despite the potential limited benefits, the establishment of a Park and Ride facility would promote public transport as an alternative to private car travel. This needs to be balanced against the risk of low patronage due to the lack of supporting conditions, e.g. price advantages and travel time benefits for users.

30. Overall, given the conditions and uncertainties, any of the three sites could be developed as a trial (e.g. for a time period of two years) during which other planning work will continue to progress and help to identify or deliver the required elements to better support a Park and Ride facility at the trial location or elsewhere in the City or subregion. However, this needs to be balanced against the broader financial constraints the council faces currently and in the future, especially in regard to the prioritisation of capital expenditure.

Staff Advice

31. The investigation advises of success factors (i.e. cost advantage; route congestion but with bus priority to provide a travel time advantage; frequent bus services; proximity arterial routes) which are important to the attractiveness and success of a park and ride facility. Currently none of the short-listed sites meet all the identified success factors. In particular, it is noted that the cost advantage for users and frequent public transport services are two factors that none of the sites currently meet. The consequence of this is that the use and patronage of a park and ride facility at any of the short-listed sites at this time is likely to be limited and therefore the usual benefits (mode-shift; congestion relief) of investment in park and ride at this time are unlikely to be realised. There is also a risk that establishing a park and ride facility in the absence of key success factors delivers poor user experiences that then detracts people from using park and ride facilities in the future when key supporting factors are in place.

32. Staff advice is not to proceed with a park and ride facility at this time based on the assessed advantages and disadvantages. However, staff note that the Mayor and Councillors may decide to proceed due to broader considerations and therefore the recommendations section of this report provides options.

The Study’s ‘Further Recommendations’

33. The Study identifies ‘further recommendations’ which are associated with considering alternative sites for a Park and ride outside the Tauranga City Council boundaries (e.g. near Te Puke, Te Puna). It is noted that these matters are to be considered through UFTI, the Transport System Plan project and potentially through other initiatives such as the delivery of the Tauranga Northern Link and four-laning to Ōmokoroa.

Financial Considerations

34. The Study indicated that the delivery costs for the three sites are generally the same. This is based on the assumption that existing parking lots can be utilised. Construction costs are estimated to be in the order of $30,000 for signs, timetables, shelters, etc.

35. The Annual Plan identifies a budget of $1 million (capital budget) for implementing any park and ride options for the City that may arise in the current financial year.

36. The required increase in bus services to support a park and ride facility are estimated to be in the order of $300,000 - $400,000 per annum. The BoPRC have advised that their ability to commit to these costs would be subject to consideration through the next LTP process.

37. There may also be costs associated with leasing car parks from a privately owned site and potentially Baypark. An estimate of these costs is not yet available and dependent on discussions with the management of each facility.

Legal Implications / Risks

38. There are no significant legal risks associated with the three identified options. There would of course need to be negotiations with the site management to confirm lease arrangements.

Consultation / Engagement

39. To date consultation has been undertaken with the BoPRC. Engagement and promotion of the activity with the community and bus users is recommended to support successful implementation of any park and ride facility.

Significance

40. From a financial perspective, both construction costs and annual operating costs are considered to be classified as of ‘low’ significance. The implementation of a park and ride facility may be of wider public interest depending on the location(s) chosen.

Next Steps

41. The next steps are dependent on the UFTD Committees direction on the issues, opportunities and constraints of each of the short-listed options and whether further work should be progressed to deliver a park and ride facility in the short-term. If this is the preferred approach the next steps would be to initiate discussions with site owner/management to understand lease arrangements, develop a detailed design for a park and ride facility and continue to develop cost estimates for services to input into the BoPRC LTP process. A further report would come to UFTD before a decision was made to proceed with one or more Park and Ride facilities.

Attachments

1. Park and Ride Quick Study, assessment of two privately owned sites - A11282137 - Public Excluded

2. Beca report - Tauranga Park and Ride "Quick Wins" Options Investigations Study (2020) - A11311654 - Public Excluded

3. Beca report - B2B Park and Ride Pre-Feasibility Study (2016) - A7979032 ⇩

4. MRCagney Technical Note 7: Park and Ride (part of the Parking Strategy) 2019 - A10624307 ⇩

Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Agenda

17 March 2020

8.4 Shared E-scooter Trial

File Number: A11286938

Author: Andy Vuong, Programme Manager - Cycle Plan Implementation

Authoriser: Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. Inform Council on a framework and conditions to conduct a shared e-scooter trial.

Recommendations

That the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee:

(a) Receives the Report;

(b) Endorses a shared e-scooter trial with the recommended framework and operating conditions;

Executive Summary

2. Tauranga City Council (TCC) have been investigating what framework and conditions should be put in place if Council decides to proceed with a trial.

3. Investigations included experiences and lessons learned of other local authorities, including; Auckland Council, Wellington City Council, Hamilton City Council and Queenstown Lakes District Council. These cities represent experiences where trials are planned to begin shortly, trials that are nearing completing, and where shared e-scooters have been approved to operate as on-going service.

4. Key findings:

(a) E-scooters have proven to be a viable transport choice

(b) E-scooter operators have addressed a number of safety and nuisance concerns that appeared during early trials

(c) Councils have put in place conditions for operators to comply with that are perceived to reduce risks to users and non-users of e-scooters and potential costs of council

(d) A trial with multiple operators requires a significant amount of staff time to monitor operations and respond to residents, media, and official enquiries

(e) A trial similar to those conducted by other Councils is considered suitable for Tauranga.

5. Lime NZ has been engaging with council staff about the possibility of operating a shared e-scooter trial in Tauranga. This includes a detailed proposal from Lime NZ highlighting their capabilities, lessons learned from other trials and deployment approach specific to Tauranga.

Background

6. Transport trends in recent years have seen:

· the proliferation in shared devices made possible by advances in mobile phone and GPS technologies

· an increase in popularity of electric micro-mobility devices made possible by advances in battery technology.

7. The first shared e-scooter trials in New Zealand occurred in 2018 when Auckland and Christchurch Councils launched with Lime NZ. There are now six shared e-scooter companies (4 international, 2 local NZ) operating in ten cities across NZ.

8. TCC has been approached by several e-scooter operators to discuss potential trials, but Lime NZ is the only operator to submit detailed proposals on how they plan to operate.

9. Lime NZ is the largest shared e-scooter operator in New Zealand and currently permitted to operate 3000 e-scooters in five cities. To date, they have participated in all but two e-scooter trials in New Zealand and has achieved approximately 500,000 unique ride and five million total rides traveling seven million kilometres.

10. In early 2019, Lime NZ e-scooters experienced an issue of unexpected stopping that affected less than 0.005% of rides, but led to injuries and widespread media attention. Lime’s investigation identified an over the air firmware update as the problem, leading to stricter technology and management processes across their entire global operations. Since firmware updates in February 2019 to resolve the issue, there have not been any incidents of unexpected stopping.

11. Auckland Council published its trial evaluation report in December 2019 and announced that shared e-scooters would be an on-going fixture on the city’s streets. The evaluation report included an independent review of Auckland’s e-scooter trial framework, code of practice, and outcomes.

12. An in-depth evaluation has been undertaken of Auckland’s trial evaluation report and we have also reviewed other relevant e-scooter media coverage, policy documents, and reports. Discussions were held with representatives from Auckland Council, Wellington City Council, Hamilton City Council, Queenstown Lakes District Council, Waka Kotahi NZ Transit Agency, and Lime NZ.

13. A consistent message from other councils was to be prepared for the significant amount of staff time required during a trial, most of which will be in addition to their standard workload and job responsibilities. Other Council’s experienced an additional 1-3 FTEs of work distributed among the following activities:

(a) setup, monitoring, enforcement, and evaluation of operator/s and trial results

(b) receiving and responding to community feedback about granting a license for shared e-scooters operators

(d) Note: Issues related to the use of an e-scooter or nuisance concerns from non-users will be directed to and handled exclusively by the operator/s customer service team.

14. A reduction in the number of operators may reduce the workload impacts of the trial. This consideration was incorporated into the recommended approach. Lime NZ was deemed as an appropriate operator for the trial based on their technology capabilities, deployment approach, and lessons learned with trials in other small to medium sized cities in New Zealand.

15. The recommendation for Lime NZ to be the licensed operator for Phase 1 of the trial period does not violate procurement rules since Council is not buying a service or product. This recommendation applies to Phase 1 of the trial only, and does not provide Lime NZ preferential treatment should shared e-scooters be permitted on an on-going basis.

Strategic / Statutory Context

16. In New Zealand e-scooters are regulated by Waka Kotahi NZ Transit Agency (The Agency) and fall within their “low powered vehicle” classification. The Agency also sets how and where e-scooters can be used.

a) E-scooter device requirements for low powered vehicles:

(i) Designed in the style of a traditional push scooter, with a footboard, two or three wheels, and a long steering handle

(ii) Wheel widths do not exceed 355mm

(iii) Maximum power output of the motor is less than 300W.

b) E-scooter usage rules:

(i) No registration required or license to operate (like mobility scooters or e-bikes

(ii) Use allowed on the footpath and road but not in designated cycle lanes

(iii) No requirement to wear helmets, although recommended

(iv) No specified speed limits on footpaths (“operate the device at a speed that does not put other footpath users at risk”).

17. Users of e-scooters, whether privately owned or part of a shared rental scheme, must follow the rules set by the Agency who is also responsible for their enforcement along with NZ Police. Local Councils have no authority to impose additional rules or enforce scooters that are in motion.

18. Shared e-scooter operators (as businesses) provide local authorities some ability to regulate by designating what trading license is to operate required based on the local relevant bylaws. Conditions can then be applied to that license which operators must adhere to, or risk their license to operate being revoked.

19. In Tauranga, shared e-scooter operators would fall under the Street Use and Public Places 2018 Bylaw. A review of this bylaw determined:

a) No change is necessary to the existing bylaw if a trial were to commence.

b) A specific e-scooter rental scheme license will be required.

TRIAL FRAMEWORK MODEL

20. In the event a shared e-scooter trial is to proceed, the framework and ongoing operating conditions being recommended by staff include:

(a) Governance structure

(i) A steering committee composed of infrastructure, regulatory and compliance, and people & engagement leadership.

(ii) A project/trial manager to be the point of contact for Council leadership and for the operator/s. He/she will also coordinate and manage the responsibilities of the working team.

(iii) A working team monitoring composed of enforcement officers, transportation safety engineers, IT, and comms and engagement to conduct on-going monitoring, responses to the public, and trial evaluations.

(b) Duration, operators, and device caps

(i) Twelve months in total with two six-month phases to provide the ability for staff to observe and evaluate seasonal demand and user behaviours.

Phase 1 (May 2020 – October 2020)

· Monitor demand, assess usage patterns and behaviours, and gather information about impacts on riders and pedestrians via a single operator.

· Lime NZ is the recommended operator to be licensed during this phase.

· Dynamic cap not to exceed 400 e-scooters.

Phase 2 (November 2020 – April 2021)

· Continue monitoring of usage and behaviours during summer season and the opportunity for staff to understand pros and cons of multiple operators if desired.

· Not more than two operators are recommended to be licensed during this phase.

(a) Lime NZ to continue pending Phase 1 performance and compliance review

(b) Selection and licensing of a new operator(s) via an Expression of Interest (EOI) process

· Device caps are yet to be determined and will be based on analysis of Phase 1.

(c) Geographic Area

(i) No restricted territorial area is currently planned.

(ii) Operator/s will likely determine their own operational areas based on demand.

(d) Hours of Operation

(i) Description

· Start/finish times within which e-scooters can be used. Outside of these times the e-scooters are locked down by the operator and are not operational.

(i) Key learnings

· Broader hours of operation provide more opportunity to understand true demand when public transport and other shared modes are not available.

· E-scooter use later in the evening and through the weekend in entertainment locations is perceived to result in a higher likelihood of a rider having consumed alcohol with the probable consequence of bad riding behaviour and in some cases, vandalism against the e-scooter.

(ii) Recommendation for Phase 1

· Operational hours: 5:00AM to 11:00PM, Monday – Sunday.

· Outside of operational hours all e-scooters will be deactivated.

· For designated areas of downtown Mount Maunganui and Tauranga city centre an additional restriction will apply:

(a) A broader curfew – start time of 9:00PM (from 11:00PM) on Friday and Saturday.

(b) E-scooters must be collected within 60 minutes of the curfew times, 7 days a week by the operator.

(c) Council has the right to impound e-scooters and impose a release fee per device, where collection has not occurred within the 60-minute timeframe.

(e) Restricted Zones

(i) Description

· Areas in which e-scooters are not allowed to operate at any time due to cultural sensitivity, terrain, or safety measure.

· If a user enters a restricted zone their scooter will slowly come to a stop and the user will continue to be charged until it is parked in an authorised area.

(ii) Key learnings

· GPS technology has limitations of accuracy and can be affected by building heights. It will not be practical to try to designate a footpath as restricted but allow use on the adjacent road.

· Operators can notify users when they are near restricted zones via their ‘App’, but users aren’t able to see them since phones should not be used during riding. Physical signage and education prior to a ride should be made available to users.

(iii) The following will be designated as restricted zones:

· All cemeteries (from the nearest footpath or road boundaries).

· Mauao access trails (restricted at Adams Ave / Marine Parade).

· All unsealed pathways in council parks and reserves.

· Further engagement will be undertaken on other potential culturally sensitive areas and will be implemented pending further discussions.

(f) Courtesy Speed Zones

(i) Description

· Areas where the maximum e-scooter speed is reduced on both the road and footpath to 15 km/h

· When entering a courtesy speed zone, the e-scooter will slow and upon exiting the zone the e-scooter will be permitted to increase speeds.

(ii) Key learnings

· GPS technology has limitations of accuracy and can be affected by building heights

· Courtesy speed zones will apply in the areas where there is a high likelihood of interaction between e-scooter users and pedestrians and in areas with uneven or slippery surfaces.

(iii) The following will be designated as courtesy speed zones and are highlighted in the attachment to this report:

· Mount business district and tourist zone

· Central Business District

· Greerton Village business district

(g) Start / End of Trip restricted zones

(i) Description

· Areas where users can travel through but not start or end their trip.

· Areas where operators are not allowed to deploy or rebalance scooters.

(ii) Key learnings

· Implement on bridges, overpasses, or next to waterways to reduce risk of vandalism and dumping.

· Implement in an area that has additional curfew restrictions in place (for example; Tauranga city centre on Friday or Saturday after 9:00pm).

· GPS technology has limitations of accuracy and can be affected by building heights.

(iii) The following will be designated as start/end restricted zones and are highlighted in the attachment to this report:

· All parks and reserves (must be parked outside of park boundaries)

· All bridges and overpasses

· Note: special restricted zones will operate as no start/end restricted zones during Friday and Saturday curfew hours

(h) Designated parking / deployment zones

(i) Description

· Areas designated for e-scooter devices to park and be deployed from.

· Key learnings

(ii) Designated parking zones should be clear of footpaths.

· Implement in known areas of high start/end of trips.

(iii) No designated parking and deployment zones are planned at the start of trial but will be considered and implemented based on trip data and user behaviours following the first 14 days of operations.

Financial and resouce Considerations

21. The costs of an e-scooter trial will likely exceed the potential revenue received from the operator/s via licensing fees. This is based on the information received from Councils who have undertaken an e-scooter trial.

22. Staff are considering the following types of fees to be imposed an operator to assist in cost recovery:

(a) Application and licensing fees

(b) E-scooter deployment fees per device

(d) Non-compliance of operating conditions fees.

Legal Implications / Risks

23. While a shared e-scooter trial has been deemed suitable for Tauranga, it does not mean incidents such as injuries, vandalism, and nuisance complaints will not occur. The recommended framework, operating conditions, and commitments in Lime NZ’s proposal are intended to reduce the risks of those incidents occurring.

24. Some operator/s and interested parties may feel they were not given an opportunity to be considered as the licensed operator for Phase 1 of the trial.

Consultation / Engagement

25. As part of the Phase 1 trial, opportunities will be provided for people to provide feedback. Additional opportunities will be available during Phase 2 and as part of an evaluation process to help staff formulate a recommendation to continue, modify, or stop on-going licensing.

26. A communications and engagement plan will be created once a decision has been made on proceeding with a trial and expected timeframes.

Significance

27. Under the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy the decision with regard to the shared e-scooter trial is of low significance as the impact on the wider community is considered minor.

Next Steps

28. If recommendations in this report are approved staff will:

(a) Continue discussions with Lime NZ on fees, educational requirements, and the proposed deployment approach to Phase 1 of the trial.

(b) Finalize development of operator fees for Phase 1 of the trial.

(c) Develop a shared e-scooter code of practice and license to operate that incorporate the framework, fees, and operating conditions.

(d) Establish trial governance structure and develop comms and engagement plan.

(e) Report back to the Council meeting on 21 April 2020 for final approval to commence a trial and the associated fees.

Attachments

1. Proposed shared e-scooter restriction zones - A11313111 ⇩


AGENDA Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting Tuesday, 17 March 2020
I hereby give notice that an Urban Form and Transport Development Committee Meeting will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 17 March 2020
Time:	9am
Location:	Tauranga City Council Council Chambers 91 Willow Street Tauranga
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive