Gisborne Network Operating Framework

Transcription

1 First steps and Appendix scoping 1 Gisborne Network Operating Framework NZ Prepared for Gisborne District Council 23 August August 2017 Cardno i

2 Contact Information Cardno Ltd Level 5, IBM Building, 25 Victoria Street, Petone, Lower Hutt, New Zealand 5012 P.O. Box Wellington Mail Centre, Lower Hutt 5045 Document Information Prepared for Gisborne District Council Project Name File Reference 0.1 Job Reference NZ Date 23 August 2017 Telephone: Version Number 1.0 Author(s): Stephen Carruthers Senior Consultant Effective Date Insert date Approved By: Selwyn Blackmore Infrastructure Director Date Approved: Insert date Document History Version Effective Date Description of Revision Prepared by: Reviewed by: /5/17 First draft for client feedback Stephen Carruthers Selwyn Blackmore /8/17 Final version Stephen Carruthers Selwyn Blackmore Cardno. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Cardno and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person other than by agreement with Cardno. This document is produced by Cardno solely for the benefit and use by the client in accordance with the terms of the engagement. Cardno does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any use or reliance by any third party on the content of this document. 23 August 2017 Cardno ii

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction How this report is set out 1 2 Introducing the Network Operating Framework 2 3 Methodology Workshop Geographical boundary for the framework Timeframe for the framework Workshop output 5 4 Indicative objectives Review of Gisborne s key strategic transport documents Development of each indicative objective General traffic Freight Public Transport Cycling Pedestrians 10 5 Road use hierarchy General traffic Freight Public Transport Cycling Pedestrians Combining the modes pressure points 14 6 Conclusion and recommended next steps Proposed process Programme and risks Decisions sought 16 7 Appendices 17 Appendix 1. Indicative objectives Appendix 2. Indicative road use hierarchy maps 23 August 2017 Cardno iii

4 1 Introduction At present there is no integrated transport network plan for helping Gisborne plan its future transport network. Consequently, transport/land use projects and initiatives are often developed in isolation, which at times has led to suboptimal outcomes for Gisborne s transport network. In response, and in order to understand the potential requirements of an integrated transport plan, Gisborne District Council (GDC) decided to develop a Network Operating Framework (the framework). The framework is a transport planning process that seeks to integrate all transport modes with land use, and link strategic direction to the planning and operation of the transport network. GDC have engaged Cardno to complete the first two steps of the framework (that is, development of the Indicative objectives and Road use hierarchy) as part of a scoping exercise in order to inform a decision to complete the remaining steps of the framework. This report briefly describes the framework, and documents the key discussions and issues that were identified during a two-day workshop on the Indicative objectives and Road use hierarchy. Representatives from GDC, Tairawhiti Roads and Transport Agency attended this workshop, which was held on 1 and 2 May Ultimately, the workshop attendees agreed that there would be significant value to be gained from completing the remaining steps of the framework to ensure that a robust platform is put in place for guiding future integrated transport decisions in Gisborne. To complete the framework, it will be necessary to undertake Steps 3 to 5 of the framework s process, which comprises of identifying of network performance deficiencies, testing initiatives to improve the performance of the transport network and developing a Network Operating Plan. 1.1 How this report is set out This report is set out as follows: Section 1 Summarises the origin of the project and the recommended next steps. Section 2 Introduces the concept of the framework and briefly describes its five developmental steps. Section 3 Describes the methodology followed to develop the Indicative objectives and Road use hierarchy, as well as describing the parameters of the project. Section 4 Describes the Strategic objective for each mode of transport, and summaries the key discussion points from the workshop. Section 5 Describes the development of the Road use hierarchy. Section 6 Set outs the recommended next steps for developing Gisborne s Network Operating Plan. Appendix 1 Contains a summary of the Indicative objectives. Appendix 2 Contains the Road use hierarchy maps. 23 August 2017 Cardno 1

5 2 Introducing the Network Operating Framework In brief, a Network Operating Framework is a transport planning process that seeks to integrate all transport modes with land use, and link strategic direction to the planning and operation of the transport network. The purpose of the framework is to identify how the network should be managed in the future, including any performance gap(s) between the existing network and the future state of the transport network, and what interventions or activities might be required to reduce or remove those gaps. The framework is premised on collaboration with key stakeholders, and is founded on a series of workshops where key decisions are made together. There are five steps in the framework, as shown in Figure 1 below and briefly summarised below. Figure 1. The five steps of the Network Operating Framework Step 1. Strategic objectives The strategic objectives are a reflection of the key stakeholder s strategic direction for each mode of transport. They are generally based on the outcomes identified for each mode of transport in the relevant strategic transport documents. Importantly, the process for developing the framework is not about developing new transport strategies, but rather it is a process for converting existing strategies into meaningful objectives that can be applied to planning the transport network. Once in place, the Strategic objectives then guide how the road use hierarchy is to be mapped in Step 2. For this report, the Strategic objectives are referred to as Indicative objectives, until such time as they are approved. Step 2. Road use hierarchy The road use hierarchy is a series of maps that identifies the primary and secondary routes for each mode of transport. A primary route means that a specific mode is to be strongly encouraged to use that corridor, while a secondary route has a lower level of encouragement. The routes are generally agreed at a stakeholder workshop following a mapping session, and reflect the strategic objectives agreed in Step 1. Step 3. Network performance A relatively simple transport-planning tool is developed to support the framework. The road use hierarchy network is mapped within the tool, along with volumes of people movements per mode and levels of service scores, which are attributed to the network. The tool is then used to identify the operating gaps. An operating gap is where the network is not performing as well as the road use hierarchy expects. This gap highlights where investigation is required, and where network interventions may be needed to improve network performance. Step 4. Network fit assessment The network fit assessment is the process whereby possible network interventions are tested to see whether they achieve, or move closer, to the expectations of the road use hierarchy. This is demonstrated by reducing the operating gap. Step 5. Network Operating Plan 23 August 2017 Cardno 2

6 The network operating plan is a document that records the discussions and decisions made throughout the development of the framework, and recommends actions for further investigation, including opportunities to make relatively small operational changes to achieve the outcomes sought by the strategic objectives and road use hierarchy. In summary, the framework is a process that encourages collaboration and a strategic network view to be taken for transport planning. It is a relatively low cost process that sets the foundation for various planning activities, and paves the way for efficient and effective decision-making. 23 August 2017 Cardno 3

7 3 Methodology 3.1 Workshop In order to develop the indicative objectives (Step 1) and road use hierarchy (Step 2) a workshop was convened on 1 and 2 May Workshop attendees included representatives from GDC, Tairāwhiti Roads and the Transport Agency. The workshop was facilitated by representatives from Cardno. In summary, the key steps for the workshop were as follows: Overview of the framework process, Overview and discussion of Gisborne s key strategic documents, Discussion and agreement on each transport mode s indicative objective, which was then followed by a road use hierarchy mapping session (for that particular mode), and A transport network drive over by workshop participants. Sections 4 and 5 of this report document the steps and the associated discussion in more detail. 3.2 Geographical boundary for the framework Workshop attendees discussed three geographical boundary options for the framework. The options were as follows: 1. Gisborne City CBD only, 2. Gisborne City, including key surrounding state highway and local arterial networks, and 3. All of Gisborne district. Attendees agreed that option 2 was the preferred geographical boundary for the framework as set out in Figure 2 below: Figure 2. Network Operating Framework Boundary 23 August 2017 Cardno 4

8 3.3 Timeframe for the framework Workshop attendees decided that the time horizon for the framework would be 2018 to 2028 in order to coincide with long term planning and regional transport planning processes. 3.4 Workshop output The output of the workshop was a report to document the key outcomes of the workshop, including the attendee s recommended indicative objectives and road use hierarchy. 23 August 2017 Cardno 5

9 4 Indicative objectives 4.1 Review of Gisborne s key strategic transport documents The first step in development of the indicative objectives was to review Gisborne s key strategic transport documents to ensure the strategic intent for each mode of transport was taken into account. The key strategic documents reviewed were as follows: 1. Gisborne District Council - Regional Land Transport Plan 2015 to Regional Land Transport Strategy Infrastructure Strategy Gisborne Urban Development Strategy Gisborne Regional Public Transport Strategy NZ Transport Agency - Gisborne Strategic Case Eastland Port Access Detailed Business Case 2017 (draft) 3. Tairāwhiti Economic Action Plan (February 2017) A notable discussion point following the review of the strategic documents was future forestry harvesting projections. The discussion focused on the current prediction that there will be significant increases in logging activity over the next 20 years. As logs are transported via road to the Eastland Port (and sometimes via inland processing plants) the number of logging trucks on the road network is expected to increase. Workshop attendees felt this outcome would have an impact on the efficiency of the road network and on the surrounding communities. As such, freight was considered a priority for development of the framework. 4.2 Development of each indicative objective Following the review of the key strategic documents, workshop attendees agreed the indicative objectives and principles for each mode of transport. The principles were developed to help guide attendees when mapping the primary and secondary routes. A summary table of all of the indicative objectives can be found in Appendix 1. The discussion for each indicative objective is summarised in the following sections. 4.3 General traffic Gisborne City has an approximate population of 36,100 as at June 2016 (source: Statistics NZ). Workshop attendees noted that although Gisborne s regional population had decreased between the 2006 and 2013 Census s (source: Statistics NZ) there was an expectation from GDC that this trend would be reversed. Statistics NZ has forecast moderate population growth for the Gisborne district of an additional approximate 2500 people by This growth is forecast to be concentrated in the urban area with 75% of the household growth forecast to occur in the western part of the city including areas such as the Taruheru block. Gisborne also has one of the lowest GDP per capita, and associated low vehicle ownership in New Zealand. However, 86.9% of trips to work were by a private vehicle in June 2013 (source: Statistics NZ). The road network is generally single lane in each direction, and the majority of intersections are controlled by give way, stop signs or roundabouts. However, some intersections within the CBD are controlled by traffic signals. Future traffic growth forecasts are reasonably modest, and it is noted that traffic volumes on some roads between had been decreasing. The primary exception to forecasted growth is Wainui Road 23 August 2017 Cardno 6

10 (SH35), which is located to the immediate north of the CBD (near the Eastland Port). This section of SH35 has seen an increase of about 2,500 vehicles per day over the past 10 years (its Annual Average Daily Traffic count was 19,600 in 2015). Overall, and with the exception of Wanui Road, congestion on the network was not identified as being particularly problematic on the road network by workshop attendees. Overall general traffic growth is modest relative to larger urban areas however some parts of the local road network have been experiencing significant traffic growth. Most notably Wainui Rd near the Harris St intersection past the Port and Inner Harbour has experienced significant growth from an estimated average 16,849 vehicle movement s per day in 2012 to in 2015, approximately 16.5% growth in 3 years. Forecast population and economic growth is expected to result in further growth of vehicle movements. While the overall network is expected to continue to be fit for purpose there may be areas where the impacts of forecast growth will need to be monitored. Workshop attendees agreed the following indicative objective for general traffic: Promote routes that support economic growth & connectivity, while minimising the impacts on communities. This objective is supported by the following mapping principles: - Preferred routes: Efficient through traffic routes that minimise adverse effects on communities - Traffic routes: Provides for longer distance travel and connecting the preferred routes - Local primary access routes: Provide access to and from local destinations 4.4 Freight The Gisborne economy is heavily reliant on primary industries, such as agriculture, forestry and fishing. In 2013, 22.4% of Gisborne s total employee population worked in these industries as opposed to 5.7% nationally (source Statistics NZ). These industries rely on an efficient road network to get their goods to market, which in many instances is via Eastland Port. There has been dramatic growth in export log volume through the Gisborne Port having risen to approximately 2.5 million tonnes in It is forecast to grow further to an estimated 4 5 million tonnes per year by This growth is placing significant pressure on the network. The transport network surrounding Eastland Port can be relatively busy during peak periods. Over the next 20+ years forestry exports are projected to significantly increase, which will in turn affect Gisborne s road network. As noted above, workshop attendees felt that freight was a key priority for development of the framework. For the purposes of developing the framework, workshop attendees agreed that possible re-use of the rail network to assist with the growing freight task was out-of-scope. There is currently no freight rail in Gisborne, and while it is frequently a point of political discussion, there is no realistic expectation that it would be available during the agreed 2018 to 2028 timeframe. Workshop attendees agreed that providing good access to market is critical for Gisborne. However, as with general traffic, they also agreed that such access needed to be balanced with the community areas along the edge of the road corridors. 23 August 2017 Cardno 7

11 Workshop attendees agreed the following indicative objective for freight: Improve connections to markets that minimises the impact on communities. This objective is supported by the following mapping principles: - Primary routes: Efficient through traffic routes that minimise the adverse effects on community - Secondary routes: Routes that provide connections between key local freight destinations and origins 4.5 Public Transport GizzyBus operates Gisborne s bus service. They own two buses, that run six routes on a 45-minute rotation. Workshop attendees confirmed that these bus services currently have capacity for more patronage without adding extra buses or services. Workshop attendees also noted that existing school bus services are well used by students. It was noted that Gisborne is part of the Total Mobility Scheme. This scheme is a national initiative that provides subsidised taxi fares for eligible people with permanent or short-term impairment, which prevents them from safely using public transport. In Gisborne, a 50% taxi voucher subsidy applies per trip, up to a maximum fare of $12. Given the relative ease that people have to move around the road network via private car, workshop attendees felt that there was no strong incentives for encouraging them onto buses. Therefore, it was agreed that the key objective for public transport was to promote the existing bus service to those without a private car, or other travel options. Workshop attendees agreed the following indicative objective for public transport: Promote public transport routes to and from schools and key community facilities for those with limited transport options. This objective is supported by the following mapping principles: - Primary routes: Continue to provide existing routes, and improve the level of service - School routes: Continue to provide existing routes, and improve the level of service 4.6 Cycling Cycling is a mode that is being actively encouraged by GDC. A number of existing routes have cycle lanes to provide greater protection for cyclists, as well as some off road routes. GDC also has an Active Transport Network Plan that anticipates more cycle routes around the City. A key issue identified by workshop attendees for cycling was the perceived conflict between cyclists and logging trucks. Workshop attendees noted that this conflict is not reflected in the crash statistics, but there is a perception that there are safety issues. They also agreed that it was likely that this perception was hindering the greater uptake of cycling, particularly for novice cyclists. Workshop attendees agreed the following indicative objective for cycling: 23 August 2017 Cardno 8

12 Improve the level of service on key cycle links to activity areas. This objective is supported by the following mapping principles: - Primary routes: Provide cycling routes that are direct to key destinations with dedicated cycle facilities that cater for novice riders, as well as experienced commuting cyclists - Secondary routes: Provide recreational cycling routes for less direct travel, and less experienced riders 23 August 2017 Cardno 9

13 4.7 Pedestrians Workshop attendees did not identify any particular issues or pressures for pedestrians. They agreed that there was generally good pedestrian access across the city, and walking is to be encouraged as a mode of transport through the Active Transport Network Plan. Workshop attendees agreed the following indicative objective for pedestrians: Promote walking in, to and from areas of high pedestrian activity. This objective is supported by the following mapping principles: - Primary routes: Routes with active frontages in areas that encourage shopping and social activities - Secondary routes: Key pedestrian desire lines into and around the CBD linking key 23 August 2017 Cardno 10

14 5 Road use hierarchy Once the indicative objectives had been agreed for each mode of transport, workshop attendees mapped the indicative primary and secondary routes for each mode of transport in order to develop a draft road use hierarchy. For freight and general traffic this mapping was largely based on current use. The exception to this rule was for general traffic where there were three layers of hierarchy mapped (e.g. preferred routes, traffic routes, local primary access routes). At the workshop, attendees first identified the key land uses that either generated or attracted transport activity, were sensitive to noise or had safety concerns (e.g. schools). The attendees then discussed each mode individually agreeing the indicative primary and secondary routes (as well as the indicative local primary access routes for general traffic). The network for each mode was then mapped on large A0 maps, which gave a good perspective of how the network was shaping up. These maps have now been digitised and can be found in Appendix 2. The key points from the workshop discussion for each mode are summarised below. 5.1 General traffic Key land uses were identified as follows: the central CBD, Gisborne Airport, Gisborne Hospital, the beachfront and Inner Harbour. Indicative preferred routes (Efficient through traffic routes that minimise adverse effects on communities): SH35 and SH2 were identified as preferred routes reflecting their role as state highways for moving traffic over long distances. Ormond Road and Rutene Road were also identified as preferred routes as they are part of the entry into Gisborne. Both roads are also used by general traffic and heavy vehicles as they are the most direct routes into and through the city from the west. Some workshop attendees noted that classifying both roads as preferred routes might be contentious as some sections were located in heavily built up residential and retail areas. Workshop attendees also discussed the inclusion of the Esplanade (between Rutene Road and Wainui Road). In particular, attendees noted that this road had urban amenity values, and consequently the decision to include it in the road use hierarchy might need to be revisited in the future. Indicative traffic routes (Provides for longer distance travel and connecting the preferred routes): Workshop attendees discussed which roads were the best traffic routes between Back Ormond Road and SH2. The two options identified were either Harper Road or King Road. Although attendees noted that the decision on preference was more relevant to logging vehicles (see below), it was accepted that any decision on heavy vehicle routes would also apply to general traffic routes. Ultimately, King Road was selected as the preferred traffic route (for the reasons set out below). However, attendees noted that the inclusion of King Road in the Road use hierarchy might need to be revisited in the future. Main Road, Gladstone Road, Chalmers Road, Childers Road and Lytton Road were also selected as traffic routes as they provide access into industrial employment areas, the airport and connect SH2 and SH35. Indicative local primary access routes (Provide access to and from local destinations): Workshop attendees agreed that the local primary access routes were to provide access into the CBD, to link to the traffic routes and needed to avoid the shopping section of Gladstone Road where traffic wasn t to be encouraged. The agreed local primary access routes included Gladstone Road (between Lytton Road and Roebuck Road only), Stanley Road, Palmerston Road, Grey Street and De Lautour Road. Points of interest: 23 August 2017 Cardno 11

15 Workshop attendees agreed that Wainui Road is particularly busy during peak travelling periods, and the intersection of Wainui Road and Gladstone Road required attention. Aside from these two points, mapping the general traffic network did not generate any significant issues amongst attendees. 5.2 Freight As noted above, mapping of the freight network generated most of the discussion amongst workshop attendees. The key issue at debate was the need to balance improved connections to market, whilst minimising the impact heavy vehicles might have on the communities along the key freight routes. It was agreed that the most sensitive routes were Ormond Road, Esplanade, Crawford Road, and Harper/King Road. Indicative primary routes (Efficient through traffic routes that minimise the adverse effects on communities): Both SH2 and SH35 were classified as primary routes by the workshop attendees in order to reflect their roles as state highways. Attendees noted that whilst the southern end of SH35 would be preferred from a community impact perspective (as it would have less urban amenity impacts); it was a less direct route for many freight trips. It was also noted that if freight was to be encouraged to use the state highway network only, rather than to use Ormond Road, it would likely result in freight operators incurring additional vehicle operating costs. Ormond Rd was discussed as a potential freight route largely based on current usage. Attendees believed that this reflected how this road is currently used given that it is the most direct route to Eastland Port for freight trips from the west. Attendees noted that to discourage or ban freight vehicles from using Ormond Road may also require special intervention (such as, local bylaw). On the other hand, attendees also expressed appreciation that Ormond Road is a highly built up urban street with many land uses and associated movements of people, and there may be infrastructure maintenance and investment benefits from encouraging heavy freight onto the state highway network where practicable. The Esplanade is commonly used by freight vehicles to access Eastland Port from Ormond Road. Workshop attendees noted that the Esplanade has some important public amenity values, including providing access to the Waimata River and the War Memorial. One attendee also noted that the War Memorial might be suffering from vibration effects as consequence of localised heavy vehicle movements. Attendees also discussed alternative freight routes between Ormond Road and Eastland Port, and agreed that Hirini Street might be an option. If an alternative route was to be ultimately selected, then the priority afforded to the Esplanade would need to be revisited. Indicative secondary routes (Routes that provide connections between key local freight destinations and origins): As noted above, a key discussion point at the workshop were the options for secondary freight routes between Back Ormond Road and SH2. Both Harper Road and King Road were identified as the two main options. King Road was considered by the workshop attendees to provide a more direct route for freight operators and had a much wider carriageway when compared to Harper Road. It also noted that Harper Road would need to be significantly widened, the existing a one-way bridge would need to be replaced (as it has poor forward visibility), and close-by property access-ways would cause side friction if it was to be chosen as the preferred secondary route. However, it was noted that one of the intersections on King Road was located very close to Makauri School. On balance, and as noted above, workshop attendees agreed that King Road was the preferred secondary route in this location. However, it was noted that there might need to be further discussion on this decision, particularly with regard to the concerns that Makauri School had previously raised regarding freight vehicles. The other secondary routes selected by workshop attendees included: Dunstan Road, MacDonald Road, Main Road, the southern end of Gladstone Road, and Lytton Road. These routes were selected as they provide access into key industrial areas. The potential urban amenity and local school conflicts at the top end of Lytton Road was discussed by attendees, however it was ultimately decided that as Lytton Road had already been confirmed as SH35 s diversion route it was therefore a secondary route. The final point of discussion was the use of Crawford Road as a potential alternative freight route between SH35 and Eastland Port. Some workshop attendees noted that use of this road might remove some of the 23 August 2017 Cardno 12

16 heavy vehicle pressure along the busy Wainui Road on the problematic Hirini Street intersection. It was also noted that freight vehicles historically used Crawford Road to access the Eastland Port, but this had diminished over time. This option is likely to require further consideration in the future, as it is likely to be raised through future public consultation exercises. However, at this particular point in time, attendees decided it was not to be included in the Indicative road use hierarchy. Finally, it was noted that the intersection of SH2 and Main Road had caused some issues for heavy vehicles negotiating the corner. 5.3 Public Transport As discussed in section 4.5, Gisborne s public transport service is relatively limited and there is still additional capacity on existing services. Workshop attendees agreed that it is unlikely that any additional services or routes would be added to the existing network during the time-period. Therefore, the public transport road use hierarchy was agreed to be the existing GizzyBus and school bus routes. 5.4 Cycling As noted in section 4.6, Gisborne has an Active Transport Network Plan. It was agreed by workshop attendees to replicate the cycling routes identified in the Plan in the Road use hierarchy map. In addition, attendees mapped the key recreational cycling land uses, including Mountain Bike Park and the cycling track on Kaiti Hill. Indicative primary routes (Provide cycling routes that are direct to key destinations with dedicated cycle facilities that cater for novice riders, as well as experienced commuting cyclists): Workshop attendees agreed that the primary routes were to be all within the urban area of Gisborne, and were to link the residential areas with the CBD. The location of schools was also a factor taken into consideration. The agreed links included Lytton Road, Ormond Road, Rutene Road, Wainui Road, Gladstone Road, Childers Road, Stanley Road and Grey Street. Indicative secondary routes (Provide recreational cycling routes for less direct travel, and less experienced riders): The workshop attendees agreed that the secondary routes were to include the Wainui Bridge along the river and the Waikanae beachfront. Some attendees noted that a cycleway along the Waipaoa River stopbank has been planned for. Crawford Road was also included as a secondary route as it provided access to the Inner Harbour. 5.5 Pedestrians Workshop attendees identified that pedestrian activity was high at the following locations: Gladstone Road (CBD), schools, rest homes, Gisborne Hospital, the public swimming pool, Inner Harbour, the Domain and at the YMCA s netball court. Indicative primary routes (Routes with active frontages in areas that encourage shopping and social activities): Workshop attendees identified only one primary route along Gladstone Road from Grey Street over the Wainui Bridge and into Inner Harbour. This reflects the active shopping and café environment on Gladstone Road, and links to the Inner Harbour where there are a number of cafes and restaurants. Indicative secondary routes (Key pedestrian desire lines into and around the CBD linking key destinations): Workshop attendees identified the following secondary route links: Lytton Road, Ormond Road, Rutene Road, Wainui Road, Harris Street, Esplanade, Cheeseman Road, Childers Road, Stanley Road, Grey Street, Peel Street, Fitzherbert Street, and the two footbridges between Stout Street and Aberdeen St/Thomson St. 23 August 2017 Cardno 13

17 5.6 Combining the modes pressure points Following the workshop, the primary routes were then combined to better understand where the key conflicts or pressure points are on the transport network. The Wainui Bridge is the only location on the network where the primary routes for all five transport modes overlap. This is reasonable in some respects as it is the primary access over the Waimata River and connects the east and west of Gisborne. Further consideration will be required to test whether this level of priority can be shared elsewhere on the network. There are also several links where the primary routes for four transport modes overlap (aside from the pedestrian primary route as it only covers a small section of the network). These overlaps are as follows: Ormond Road, Rutene Road, Wainui Road and Customhouse Street. Further consideration will also be required to test whether this level of priority can be shared elsewhere on the transport network. 23 August 2017 Cardno 14

18 6 Conclusion and recommended next steps The development of the first two steps of the framework (Indicative objectives and the Indicative road use hierarchy maps), and the associated workshop attendee discussions, has identified a need for an integrated transport plan for Gisborne to be developed. In particular, workshop attendee discussions identified that freight movements through Gisborne was the key issue that needed urgent attention. The proportion of heavy vehicles carried on Gisborne s local roads is on average much higher than can expected for local roads, and in some instances up to 21% of the traffic mix comprises of heavy vehicles. These local roads often service a mixture of land uses and community functions, and in most cases are not designed to accommodate such high proportions of heavy vehicles. This situation has created safety and efficiency concerns for freight operators as well as for local communities. In the future, this situation will be further exacerbated if logging exports double by 2020 as currently predicated (and assuming all of the actions identified in the Tairāwhiti Economic Action Plan come to fruition). To successfully managed current and future increases in heavy vehicles requires further transport planning. Such planning will help to identify where and how freight movement is to be encouraged and/or discouraged, and what the likely impact of such decisions might be on the rest of the transport network and local communities. Further to this, and as discussed in section 5.6, there are several roads, including Ormond Road, Rutene Road, Wainui Road and Customhouse Street that have been used by most modes of transport. This may not be the most efficient or effective way to manage the transport network, and needs further consideration. The workshop attendees concluded that there would be significant value created by completing the remaining steps for the framework (with the end outcome being a Network Operating Plan for Gisborne). The attendees understood the framework process and could see the benefit in talking through land use, mapping the transport modes and identifying the location of key issues. In particular, attendees believed that without deliberate and planned intervention, freight operators would continue to take the most efficient and cost effective routes and this would create conflicts with local communities and amenity values at key locations. The need to balance the competing interests between freight operators and local communities, when undertaking the next steps in the development of the framework, is important and has therefore been reflected in the indicative objectives. Before progressing with the framework s next steps, is it important that the Indicative objectives and Indicative Road use hierarchy be approved. Following this decision, three workshops will be required to complete the next steps. The workshops will be designed so that participants make the decisions in a transparent way. In between the workshops, there will be framework development tasks that will need to be undertaken in order to develop the framework tool and the network interventions. The timing of the workshops will depend on participant s availability. However, in order to maintain momentum, it is recommended to hold workshop 3 as soon as possible. Approximately 4 weeks will then be required between workshops 3 and 4 to gather data, build the framework tool and to prepare for the next workshop. Another 3 weeks will be required between workshops 4 and 5 depending on the number of interventions and data requirements. 6.1 Proposed process The following section describes the tasks and decisions required from the remaining workshops in order to complete the framework: Workshop 3 (as soon as possible) - Reconfirm / approve the Indicative objectives and Road use hierarchy, - Collect relevant data, identify the gaps in the data and agree how to resolve them, and - Agree the level of service categorisation and application principles. 23 August 2017 Cardno 15

19 In between workshops - Cardno to build the network within the tool, and enter volumes and levels of service. Workshop 4 (4 weeks following workshop 3) - Confirm that the tool is accurate, and that the level of service allocations are appropriate. - Analyse, confirm and prioritise the operating gaps, and - Develop and agree network interventions to be tested. In between workshops - Cardno to run the interventions through the tool, and develop recommendations. Workshop 5 (3 weeks following workshop 4 depending on the number of interventions) - Discuss the performance of the network interventions, - Agree to a prioritised list of network interventions. Following the workshop - Cardno to prepare the draft Gisborne Network Operating Plan for feedback and approval(s). 6.2 Programme and risks If the remaining developmental steps are smoothly progressed, it is then estimated that a draft Gisborne Network Operating Plan could be delivered to GDC by the end of October A key decision regarding the development and timing of the framework is whether GDC or other stakeholders would like to undertake public consultation to support the framework s development. If consultation is required, then there may be opportunities to align framework consultation with the consultation needed for the upcoming regional land transport plan in early Although such a decision would delay the delivery of the framework until next year. The lack good transport data is a key project risk, which could ultimately hinder the development of the framework. If the existing transport data is found to be insufficient, additional time will be needed to collate the required data. This outcome would have cost implications for the project. The final project risk is the timing of the key stakeholder approval processes. To this end, it is noted that workshop attendees should be empowered by their respective organisations to make key decisions in order for the framework to be completed in a timely manner. 6.3 Decisions sought In order for development of the framework to progress, the following key decisions are required: - Agreement to complete the remaining developmental steps of the framework, and - Instruction on whether or not public consultation on the framework is required. If yes, then with whom and when. 23 August 2017 Cardno 16

20 7 Appendices 23 August 2017 Cardno 17

21 Appendix 1. Strategy objectives

22

23 Appendix 2. Indicative road use hierarchy maps

24

25

26

27

28

29