Joint Nelson
Tasman Regional Transport Committee Agenda – 09 July 2024
7 Reports
7.1
Nelson Tasman
Speed Management Plan Deliberations
|
Report
To:
|
Joint
Nelson Tasman Regional Transport Committee
|
|
Meeting
Date:
|
9
July 2024
|
|
Report
Author:
|
Bill
Rice, Senior Infrastructure Planning Advisor - Transportation
|
|
Report
Authorisers:
|
Dwayne
Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager
|
|
Report
Number:
|
RNTRTC24-07-2
|
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 This
report has been prepared to assist the Joint Nelson Tasman Regional Transport
Committee (RTC) to deliberate on the submissions received on the Draft Nelson
Tasman Speed Management Plan (Draft Plan) and to consider changes due to the
recent release of the Draft Speed Limits Setting Rule 2024. Staff recommend a
range of changes to the Speed Management Plan, prior to it being submitted to
the Joint Council Committee for final approval.
2. Report Summary
2.1 This
report has been prepared to assist the Joint Regional Transport Committee to
deliberate on the submissions received on the Draft Nelson Tasman Speed
Management (Draft Plan).
2.2 The
Draft Plan was approved on 20 November 2023 for formal consultation, in
compliance with the 2022 Speed Limit Setting Rule (the current Speed Rule). The
current Speed Rule requires the councils to develop a Speed Management Plan and
to lower speeds around schools, but otherwise gives the councils considerable
latitude as to what speed limit changes they make.
2.3 Consultation
occurred between 29 November 2023 and 29 February 2024. Four options for urban
roads and four options for rural roads were covered in our consultation
material, and the draft Plan itself contained urban option C and rural option
3. This approach was intended to provide a good basis for understanding the
community’s views and preferences and to provide scope for the final Plan
to reflect these.
2.4 A
total of 2,247 individual submissions were received and accepted. 44 people
spoke to their submissions on 29 and 30 April. The most support was for urban
option A and rural option 1, with most submissions in favour of these.
2.5 On
13 June 2024, the Minister of Transport released the draft Land Transport Rule:
Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024 (the Draft Speed Rule) for public
consultation. Among other things, the Draft Speed Rule proposes to revise the
acceptable speed limits for different road classes, reverse certain speed limit
changes introduced since 2020, and retains a requirement to lower speed limits
around schools (albeit modified). This Draft Speed Rule is not in force yet,
and we expect to submit our final Plan for certification under the current
Speed Rule.
2.6 A
draft submission on the Draft Speed Rule is also being considered at this
meeting of the RTC.
2.7 Staff
recommend that the councils pursue speed limit changes that largely reflect
urban option A and rural option 1 with some other specific roads targeted. The
speed limits in the Amended Plan (and Schedule of Speed Limit Changes) have
been modified to be consistent with both the current Speed Rule and the Draft
Speed Rule’s proposed speed limits. Staff propose that all changes come
into force after 2024, with staged implementation from that date. This
minimises the risk of having to change any speed limit back once the Draft
Speed Rule is finalised and comes into force later this year. There are three
exceptions where staff propose speed limit changes that are not consistent with
the Draft Speed Rule related to
2.7.1 urban roads without footpaths (30 km/h);
2.7.2 some rural sealed roads that have limits greater than
80km/h, and which have on-road sections of the Great Taste Trail (60 km/h); and
2.7.3 rural residential streets which are not on the urban
fringe (50 – 60km/h).
2.8 The
RTC’s draft submission on the Draft Speed Rule recommends changes to the
rule to enable these limits.
2.9 The
Draft Speed Rule also proposes that cost-benefit analyses be undertaken and
consulted on for each road for which a speed limit change is proposed. We have
undertaken a cost benefit analysis on the eight consultation options in
parallel with a lengthy consultation period. While this analysis was not
undertaken on a road-by-road basis, it was undertaken using standard
methodology as outlined in NZTA’s Monetised Benefits & Costs
Manual. In addition, we have subsequently undertaken a cost benefit
analysis on proposed speed limit reductions for four of Tasman’s higher
risk rural roads. This analysis generally indicates that speed limit reductions
to urban roads generate negative benefit cost ratios, and positive benefit cost
ratios result from speed limit reductions on high speed rural roads.
2.10 Staff
recommend that the Amended Plan (Attachment 1) is sent to the Joint Council
Committee for approval, along with the Schedule of Speed Limit Changes
(Attachment 2) detailing the speed limit changes for individual roads. We
have received advice that if the plan and proposed speed limit changes are
submitted to the Director of Land Transport, before the final Speed Rule comes
into force, the councils are unlikely to need to re-consult on the Draft Plan.
However, this may depend on the requirements within the final Speed Rule, once
adopted. Discussions with the Ministry of Transport at the time this report is
being finalised indicates that the Draft Speed Rule may be changed so that
speed limits which are certified, but not registered, at the time the new rule
comes into effect may need to be reconsidered.
3. Recommendation
That the Joint Nelson
Tasman Regional Transport Committee
1. receives the Nelson Tasman Speed Management Plan
Deliberations report RNTRTC24-07-2; and
2. notes that a majority of submitters supported or strongly supported
options A and 1 in the consultation material, indicating our communities want
less ambitious speed limit changes; and
3. notes
the changing government direction for setting new speed limits which should
also be considered alongside consultation feedback, and also supports
undertaking fewer and less ambitious speed limit reductions; and
4. notes the risks around changes to the Draft Speed Rule, once
finalised, and in particular the risk that all or some elements of the proposed
speed limit changes may require re-consultation; and
5. agrees not to pursue
urban option C and rural option 3, as proposed in the draft Speed Management
Plan, instead making speed limit changes around schools and other targeted changes
as outlined in resolution 6; and
6. agrees
to recommend speed limit changes for the following road
classes:
(a) variable speed
limits outside schools, as per table 1 of Attachment 2 to this report with the
exception of Cambridge Street (Richmond), Ellis Street (Brightwater), and
Edward Street (Wakefield - between SH6 and Pitfure Street), which would all
have permanent 30 km/h; and
(b) tortuous
unsealed roads (to 60 km/h), as per table 2 of Attachment 2 to this report; and
(c) rural
residential/peri-urban roads (50 to 60 km/h) as per table 3 of Attachment 2 to
this report; and
(d) urban
roads with no footpaths (to 30 km/h) as per table 4 of Attachment 2 to this
report; and
(e) specified
high risk roads (to 80 km/h) as per table 5 of Attachment 2 to this report; and
(f) on
road sections of the Great Taste Trail - 60 km/h and 80 km/h depending on
road), as per table 6 of Attachment 2 to this report; and
(g) specific
road list, as per table 7 of Attachment 2 to this report and for 17 other roads
that have the incorrect speed limit contained within the national speed
register, as per table 2 of Attachment 2 to this report; and
(h) Council
operated carparks within Tasman (to 10 km/h); and
7. delegates
authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Joint Nelson Tasman Regional
Transport Committee to approve changes to the Amended Plan and Schedule
of Speed Limit Changes as per resolutions 5 and 6, and for any minor editorial
amendments, prior to being submitted to the Joint Committee of
Nelson City and Tasman District Councils.
Recommendation to the Joint Committee of
Nelson City and Tasman District Councils
That the Joint Committee of Nelson City and Tasman District Councils
1. approves the amended Joint Speed Management Plan 2024 (Attachment 1
to the report); and
2. approves
the Schedule of Speed Limit changes (Attachment 2 to the report); and
3. authorises
the Chief Executive of each Council to approve, within their District:
(a) minor
corrections to the Schedule of Speed Limit Changes
extents; or
(b) changes
to the implementation date in the Schedule of Speed Limit Changes as needed to
account for NZTA funding decisions or contractor roll out considerations; or
(c) allows
the removal of components of the Speed Management Plan if not able to be
implemented following the introduction of the final Speed Rule.
4. Background
and Discussion
4.1 The
Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022 (the current Speed Rule)
requires Road Controlling Authorities to set speed limits for roads under their
control through Speed Management Plans. The previous government required
councils to complete this by mid-2024. The current rule required the councils
to develop a Speed Management Plan and to lower speeds around schools, but
otherwise gives the councils considerable latitude as to what speed limit
changes they make.
4.2 The RTC is
responsible for developing and consulting on a joint Nelson Tasman Speed
Management Plan and recommending a final plan for consideration by the Joint
Council Committee. The Draft Plan is a joint document, with Nelson City Council
(NCC), Tasman District Council (TDC), to create a plan for implementation of
speed management in Nelson Tasman based on a consistent approach. This plan
excludes speeds on State Highways.
4.3 The draft
Speed Management Plan (Draft Plan) was informed by the Speed Management
Guidance which gave speeds for specific road categories. This approach brings
greater certainty for road users on what speed limits are for the different
road categories.
4.4 Three RTC
workshops were held (4 April 2023, 11 May 2023 and 27 October 2023) to
understand the key issues, opportunities and benefits on the management of
speeds. In addition, there have been specific Nelson City Council (20 May 2024)
and Tasman District Council workshops (6 May 2024 and 2 July 2024). There have
also been workshops with Golden Bay and Motueka Community Boards.
4.5 The Draft
Plan was approved on 20 November 2023 for formal consultation, which occurred
between 29 November 2023 and 29 February 2024. Four options for urban roads and
four options for rural roads were covered in our consultation material, and the
draft Plan itself contained urban option C and rural option 3. This approach
was intended to provide a good basis for understanding the community’s
views and preferences and to provide scope for the final plan to reflect these
views.
Consultation process and feedback
4.6 During
the consultation, online maps showing each of the four options for every road
in the region were available. To encourage submissions from a wide demographic,
Council officers attended 23 engagement sessions over the consultation period,
including A&P Shows and markets. Consultation was also promoted via social
media, print media and in-person sessions at the region’s
libraries.
Table 1
Table 2
4.7 The
four options which were consulted on are outlined in Tables 1 and 2 above.
4.8 A
total of 2,247 individual submissions were received and accepted. 44 people
spoke to their submissions on 29 and 30 April.
4.9 From
the submissions the following high-level overview has been prepared based on
the key themes from submissions. The first nine questions in the consultation
document were demographic type questions.
· 56% of submitters
identified as urban, 27% identified as rural residential and 17% identified as
rural; and
· 38% of respondents came
from Nelson, 19% of respondents came from Richmond, 17% from Motueka. 24% came
from other areas of Tasman.
4.10 The
graph below shows the responses in relation to the Urban Options (Question 10).
Question 10: Tell us what you think
about the options for the urban areas (93.5% response rate)
4.11 Urban
Option A, safer speeds outside schools only, has the highest public support.
4.12 The
graph below shows the responses in relation to the Rural Options (Question 11).
Question 11: Tell us what you think
about the options for the rural areas (94.5% response rate)
4.13 Rural
Option One, safer speeds outside schools only, has the highest public support.
It is difficult to ascertain from these results whether those who did not
support Rural Option One did so because they favoured other options more, or
they did not favour any option at all.
4.14 We
also had written feedback on our open-ended questions:
· Are there changes that you would like us to consider to specific
roads or areas? (Question 12)
· Do you have any more comments on the proposed options? (Question
13).
4.15 All
comments relating to the two questions were tagged into categories.
4.16 Reduce speed was the most common tag
with 752 comments. The tag, current speed is an issue was applied when
speed at a specific location was identified in the commentary. There were 529
specific mentions. Retaining the status quo was noted 380 times.
4.17 The
mostly commonly mentioned themes supporting or opposing speed limit reductions
in submissions are shown below.
Table 3
|
|
Support a
reduction in speed
|
Oppose reductions
|
|
|
Tag used
|
#
|
Tag used
|
#
|
|
1
|
reduce speed
|
n=752
|
status quo
|
n=380
|
|
2
|
current speed an
issue on specific road
|
n=529
|
raise state highway speeds
|
n=123
|
|
3
|
reduced speed makes
walking and cycling safer
|
n=312
|
drivers need more education rather than
speed reductions
|
n=118
|
|
4
|
creates a safer
environment
|
n=298
|
more road maintenance
|
n=107
|
|
5
|
children
walking/cycling nearby
|
n=205
|
concerns about cost of implementation
and/or cost on businesses for slower speeds
|
n=101
|
|
6
|
reduce accidents
|
n=181
|
frustration at slow speeds
|
n=94
|
|
7
|
around schools
|
n=164
|
people should just drive to the
conditions
|
n=60
|
|
8
|
narrow and/or winding
roads
|
n=128
|
prefer status quo but want school speeds
to be reduced only at school times
|
n=43
|
|
9
|
rural roads need to
be lowered
|
n=120
|
rural roads should remain at status quo
|
n=37
|
|
10
|
residential streets
need to be lowered
|
n=90
|
congestion will be caused as a result of
slow speeds
|
n=33
|
4.18 We had a range of
general concerns related to speed management. These comments were from people
who were both supportive and not supportive of speed reductions.
· other
road improvements requested n=123
· dangerous
behaviour on roads was noted n=108
· consistency
of speed signs was important n=82
· more
enforcement n=74
· need
intersection improvements n=63
4.19 82
people made comments for speed limits needing to be consistent
across the District, 44% of people said that different speed limits could be
confusing (n=36). 30% of people stated that speed limits should be kept
simple(n=25). Some stated that urban limit should be 30km/h, and rural 80km/h,
others recommended 50km/h and 100km/h. There was a clear theme that consistency
should be a key criterion, this would minimise signage and reduce ambiguity.
4.20 There
were many requests for additional enforcement on the roads. Within the comments
tagged ‘More Enforcement’ n=74
· 56%
wanted more police enforcement on speeds n=41
· 10%
wanted harsher penalties on driver infringements n=7
· 33%
wanted more speed cameras in general or in specified locations. n=24
Alignment
with new government direction
4.21 The new government
amended the current Speed Rule in December 2023 to make Speed Management Plans
(SMPs) discretionary.
4.22 On 13 June 2024, the
Ministry of Transport released the draft Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed
Limits 2024 for consultation which closes on 11 July 2024.
4.23 The
Draft Speed Rule would:
4.23.1 alter the schedule of speed limit
classifications for each road type (Attachment 2);
4.23.2 reverse speed limit reductions on local
streets with widespread 30km/h speed limits surrounding a school, arterial
roads;
4.23.3 reverse speed limit reductions on rural
State Highways (unless there is demonstrated public support to keep lower
speeds);
4.23.4 require variable speed limits outside
school gates;
4.23.5 retain the definitions and process for
determining school categories 1 and 2;
4.23.6 remove the requirement for a 10-year vision
or taking a whole of network approach;
4.23.7 require a cost benefit analysis (CBA) for
each road proposed for speed limit reductions. A CBA needs to consider safety,
travel time and implementation costs; and
4.23.8 require CBAs as part of the public
consultation material.
4.24 The
draft Plan provided eight options for consultation. Eight options were included
in order to provide flexibility for decision makers as it was anticipated that
the new government might alter the current Rule during 2024. The eight options
were based on road classes.
4.25 The
range of possible speed limits for each road in the Amended Plan are shown in
Attachment 3 ‘Speed Limits for different classes of road’’.
Existing speed limits can remain as they are.
4.26 The
following tables, using a traffic light system, show how our proposed options
in the Draft Plan meet criteria for the setting of limits in the Draft Speed
Rule (Green meets Draft Speed Rule, Orange: Partially meets the Draft Speed
Rule, Red: does not meet the Draft Speed Rule, Grey: is an existing speed limit
which is not proposed to change, but is not consistent with the Draft Speed
Rule).
Urban Options
Table 5
|
Option
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
|
Outside schools
within 100m of boundary
|
30
|
30
|
30
|
30
|
|
School neighbourhoods
|
50
|
30
|
40
|
30
|
|
Selected town centres
and tourist areas
|
50
|
30
|
40
|
30
|
|
Local urban streets
|
50
|
50
|
40
|
30
|
|
Urban connector
streets with separated cycle facilities
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
Rural Options
Table 6
|
Option
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
Outside schools
|
30-60
|
30-60
|
30-60
|
30-60
|
|
Rural residential
areas
|
100
|
50-60
|
50-60
|
50
|
|
Unsealed rural roads
(winding or narrow)
|
100
|
60
|
80
|
60
|
|
Unsealed rural roads
|
100
|
100
|
80
|
60
|
|
High risk roads and
adjacent roads
|
100
|
80
|
80
|
60-80
|
|
Sealed rural roads
(winding or narrow)
|
100
|
100
|
80
|
80
|
|
All other sealed
rural roads
|
100
|
100
|
80
|
80
|
4.27 For
our urban options, the only option available to Council that meets the Draft
Speed Rule would be a modified Option A around schools.
4.28 Our
four rural options mostly align with the speeds shown in the Draft Speed Rule.
For more information regarding the specific ranges for road classifications
refer to the table below and Attachment 3.
4.29 Our
draft options do not meet the requirements of the Draft Speed Rule for the
following reasons:
· Outside Schools for all Urban and Rural options - permanent speeds are not permitted (except in very limited
situations), the draft Rule requires speed limits outside schools to be
variable only.
· Option 1 Unsealed rural roads (winding and narrow) meets the Draft Speed Rule partially as rural roads that are
mountainous or hill corridors can have a 60-80km/h speed band.
· Option 1 & 2 Unsealed - existing
100km/h was greyed out because it is higher than the limits shown in the Draft
Speed rule. It is not proposed to change these existing limits.
· Option 4 High risk rural roads - 60km/h
is not allowable under the Draft Speed Rule for rural roads.
· Option 1-2 Sealed rural roads (winding or narrow) - sealed rural roads have a range between 80-100 in the Draft
Speed Rule. If the alignment is tortuous, this can be reduced to 60-80
Feedback in relation to the road classes as shown in the
Amended Speed Management Plan
4.30 Following
the written submissions, hearings, RTC and individual council feedback and the
recently released Draft Speed Rule staff recommend speed limit changes
associated with:
· schools
· tortuous unsealed roads
· rural residential
roads/peri-urban roads
· urban roads with no
footpaths
· higher risk rural roads
· specific roads
· on road sections of the
Great Taste Trail
· Tasman District Council
controlled car parks.
4.31 Table
7 shows how staff recommended speed limit changes for these roads relate to the
current Speed Rule and Draft Speed Rule. It is worth noting that the Draft
Speed Rule does not have a separate classification for rural roads with cycle
trails on them, urban streets with no footpath, or rural residential streets
which are not on the urban fringe. These are three areas where we will be
seeking some speed limit changes that are not consistent with the draft rule.
Staff propose the RTC seek changes to the Draft Speed rule to enable these.
Staff also propose a limited number of other specific speed limit changes in
relation to feedback on these roads in submissions (discussed below).
Table 7
|
Road Class
|
Current guidance (Safe and Appropriate speeds)
|
Draft Speed Rule
|
Amended Nelson Tasman Speed Management Plan (recommended by
staff)
|
|
Rural
|
km/h
|
km/h
|
These only apply to specific roads in the Plan
|
|
· Adjacent to a school (Category one)
· Adjacent to a school (Category two)
|
· Permanent 30 (variable on main
roads)
· Permanent or variable 60km/h
|
· Variable 30 between 8-9.30 and
2.30-4pm
· Variable 60km/h or less
|
· Variable between 8-9.30 and
2.30-4pm
· Variable 60km/h or less
|
|
Unsealed roads
|
60
|
60-80
|
601
|
|
Mountainous or hill corridors that the alignment is
tortuous
|
60
|
60-80
|
601
|
|
Peri-urban (including rural residential roads)
|
50 – 80
|
50 - 80
|
50-60[1]
|
|
Rural Connectors (high risk rural roads)
|
60-100
|
80-100
|
801
|
|
Rural roads that have on road
cycleways
|
Not specified
|
Not
specified as a separate category for other rural roads
|
60 – 80 1
|
|
Urban
|
km/h
|
km/h
|
|
|
Adjacent to a school
|
Variable 30km/h between 8-9.30 and 2.30-4pm
|
Variable 30km/h between 8-9.30 and 2.30-4pm
|
Variable 30km/h between 8-9.30 and 2.30-4pm
|
|
Urban streets that do not have a
footpath
|
30 (Local Street class)
|
Not specified as a separate category from other residential
streets
|
301
|
|
Car Parks
|
Not specified
|
Not specified
|
101
|
Proposed speed
limit changes in detail
Schools
4.32 1,157
people strongly supported or supported Urban Option A which was to lower speed
around schools. 485 people did not support Urban Option A but it is unclear
whether this is because they supported the other options or did not support any
speed changes.
4.33 There
were 164 written submissions relating specifically to lowering speeds around
schools:
4.13.1 60% of respondents who mentioned schools in their
comments also wanted to see speed limits lowered in general;
4.13.2 40% of respondents mentioned a specific school which
they supported lower speeds for; and
4.13.3 51% of respondents who mentioned schools in their
comments stated that they wanted their children to be able to walk or cycle
safely to school and lower speeds meant that the school journey felt safer.
4.34 Around
15% of submitters who made specific comments about schools wanted to keep the
status quo, citing reasons such as impact on travel times, frustration at
slower speeds, and the impact on congestion if speeds were slower. 10% of those
who wanted the status quo did support speed reductions around schools but did
not want to see other speed changes.
4.35 The
Amended Plan now shows a variable speed limit (from 8.00 am to 9.30 am and 2.30
pm to 4.00 pm) outside schools for all urban and rural roads (30km/h) in line
with the Draft Speed Rule except for:
a)
Maitai School in Nelson: Maitai School is excluded because it is
scheduled to relocate to Salisbury School before the changes are required to be
in force.
b) Wakefield
School as the existing permanent 30km area in the town centre is adjacent
to the school so it is proposed to extend this area by 240m from Arrow Street
to Pitfure Road.
c) Richmond
School: Cambridge Street, links Richmond School to the existing 30km/h area
on Queen Street. Richmond’s largest playground, and Town Hall are
both on Cambridge Street. It is proposed that Cambridge Street is changed to
30km/h permanently to be consistent with Queen Street. The length of the street
is 222 m.
d) Brightwater
School: Brightwater town centre is currently 40km/h. The Brightwater
Community Association has requested that the town centre speed limit is changed
to 30km/h rather than have a 30km/h variable limit within a 40km/h zone. It is
proposed to change the 40km/h limit to 30km/h.
It is noted that the Draft Speed
Rule’s consultation material states that ‘the proposed lengths
[for variable limits] will not work for every road outside a school gate and
the Rule allows for variation to meet specific circumstances’.
Tortuous
Unsealed Roads
4.36 There
are 33 roads which meet the tortuous unsealed roads class for their entirety.
17 other unsealed roads have sections which are tortuous.
4.37 There
were no specific questions pertaining specifically to tortuous unsealed roads
within the consultation material. Option 2 does include unsealed rural roads
(winding or narrow) along with rural residential and higher risk roads and
their adjacent areas. Option 2 received 31% support.
4.38 There
were 34 submissions specifically on unsealed roads with 77% of these
respondents wanting speeds reduced, 9% did not want speeds reduced. 63% of
respondents were speaking in generalised terms and 37% were site specific.
Those who mentioned a reason for lowering speeds on unsealed roads mentioned:
· dust and effects
on other road users; and
· found high
speeds dangerous.
4.39 A
previous survey undertaken in 2019 asked the question: What speed is
appropriate for our Rural – Narrow, Winding Roads? Most of the 1,965
responses thought a speed of 60km/h was appropriate for this type of road. 59%
agreed with 60km/h (1,051 answers), 32% agreed with 80km/h roads (572 answers).
9% agreed with 100km/h roads (154 answers). This is shown on page 13 of
Attachment 6.
4.40 Staff
recommend this classification of road change) to a 60km/h speed limit, and this
is included in the Amended Plan and related Schedule of Speed Limit Changes.
This is consistent with the speed limit ranges of the current and Draft Speed
Rules, which is 60-80km/h for unsealed roads and 60-80km/h for mountainous or
hill corridors.
Rural
residential areas
4.41 There
were no specific questions pertaining to rural residential roads within the
consultation questions.
4.42 Seventy
respondents commented on rural residential areas, 69% of respondents who
mentioned the rural residential area wanted speeds reduced. 11% of rural
residential respondents mentioned that roads were narrow, had many driveways,
and have pedestrians or cyclists using the roads.
4.43 Responses
related to rural residential streets by ward:
· 15% in the Motueka Ward
· 23% in the Golden Bay
Ward
· 21% in the Moutere
Waimea Ward.
4.44 A
previous survey undertaken in 2019 asked the question: What speed is
appropriate for our Rural Residential Subdivisions Roads? Most of the 1,965
responses thought a speed of less than 50km/h was appropriate for this type of
road. 22% agreed with 40km/h (397 answers), 47% agreed with 50km/h (855
answers). 20% agreed with 60km/h (369 answers). This is shown on page 11 of
Attachment 6.
4.45 Both
councils over the years have had a series of requests for lower speeds on rural
residential streets. The majority of these roads are not through routes. Rather
than a piecemeal approach of addressing individual streets, a consistent
approach based on road class is recommended to be adopted so that when a road
is identified as rural residential as a result of the land use, that road will
be given the classification of peri-urban and the speed is set to 50-60km/h.
These lower speeds were consulted on under Option 1, 2 and 4 of the Draft Plan.
Specific details for each area are shown on Table 3 of Attachment 2.
4.46 It
should be noted that the current definition of peri-urban roads in the Draft
Speed Rule only refers to ‘roads that primarily provide access for
residential property on the urban fringe, where the predominant adjacent
land use is residential , but usually at a lower density than in urban
residential location’. Tasman has many rural residential roads that
are peri-urban in nature but are not on the urban fringe. There is no
classification in the current and Draft Speed Rule that caters for these roads.
Our submission on the Draft Speed Rule has requested the words “on the
urban fringe” be removed.
Higher Risk
Rural Roads
4.47 In
terms of site specific feedback, our higher risk rural connectors received the
highest number of mentions within submitter feedback.
Table 8
|
Rural Connector
|
#
|
Feedback
|
|
Moutere Highway
|
n=41
|
93% of submitters who mentioned the Moutere Highway wanted
speeds reduced. 27% requested that the speed at Main Road Lower Moutere was
reduced to lower than 70km/h
|
|
Neudorf Road
|
n=17
|
91% of submitters who mentioned Neudorf Road wanted speeds
reduced. 23% wanted speeds reduced on Neudorf and Dovedale roads.
|
|
Motueka Valley Highway
|
n=22
|
91% of submitters who mentioned Motueka Valley Highway
wanted speeds reduced around Ngatimoti. 33% wanted speeds reduced on the
Motueka Valley Highway.
|
|
Cable Bay Road
|
n=27
|
96% of submitters who mentioned Cable Bay Road wanted
speeds reduced.
|
4.48 Crash
data from 2014 to 2023 on these roads indicate that the Moutere Highway is also
a High Risk Road. Given traffic numbers, road geometry and hazards, staff also
consider Motueka Valley Highway, Dovedale Road, Neudorf Road, and Edwards Road
as higher risk and should be reduced from 100km/h to 80km/h.
4.49 A
reduction for on these specific rural connectors from 100 km/h to 80 km/h is
acceptable under the draft Speed Rule and recommended is by staff.
Table 9
|
High Risk Rural Road
|
Fatal
|
Serious
|
Minor/Non injury
|
Travel Time increase
|
|
Moutere Highway (Redwood Valley to Edwards
Road)
|
3
|
18
|
80
|
1 to 2 min
|
|
Motueka Valley Highway
|
|
7
|
109
|
2 to 3 min
|
|
Neudorf Road
|
1
|
2
|
20
|
<1 min
|
|
Dovedale Road (Neudorf to Motueka
Valley Highway)
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
<1 min
|
|
Edwards Road
|
0
|
0
|
13
|
<1 min
|
|
Cable Bay Road
|
0
|
1
|
12
|
<1 min
|
4.50 One
part of the Moutere Highway (Main Road Lower Moutere) is proposed to be changed
to peri-urban to recognise the types of activities that occur there and reflect
community support for slower speed. Staff recommend this also be reduced
from 70km/h to 60km/h from 300m south of the Lower Moutere school southern
boundary to Hursthouse Road, as listed in Attachment 2
4.51 Additional
travel times for these roads have been included in the table above. The
comparison is against operating speed data, not the current speed limit.
On Road
Sections of the Great Taste Trail
4.52 The
Great Taste Trail is a mix of off-road, on-road and shared pathways. Nelson
Tasman Cycle Trails Trust put in a submission regarding the Great Taste Trail
stating that they strongly supported the slowest speed limit proposed in the
review where the trail is on-road, where riders cross a road, and wherever the
trail is beside a road.
4.53 As
part of a Tasman District Council workshop on speed management options post
hearings, reduced speeds for on-road sections of the Great Taste Trail were
considered where speeds were 80km/h and above.
4.54 Our
submission on the Draft Speed Rule includes a recommendation for roads that
have a formal cycleway such as a Great Ride to have an exception class that
enables speeds to be reduced to 60km/h.
4.55 Staff
recommend speed reductions on Goodall Road, sections of Lower Queen Street and
Pugh Roads as these roads are unsealed and can be reduced to 60km/h under the
Draft Speed Rule. Staff recommend that 100km/h roads in the Lakes Murchison and
Moutere-Waimea ward, and the 80km/h roads in the Motueka ward are reduced to
60km/h. Motueka River Valley Road is recommended to reduce to 80km/h as listed
in Attachment 2.
Urban Roads
with No Footpaths
4.56 This
was not a specific classification for urban roads with no footpaths in the
draft Plan. 30km/h was asked to be included by Councillors subsequent to the
Hearings for urban roads with no footpaths. Nelson City Council adopted this
approach to select areas of Nelson in 2020. Staff support this approach. The
lower speed environment provides better opportunity for users to see each other
and thus gives them more time to react and accommodate the other users when
needed. The majority of these roads are not through routes and are
predominantly residential in nature.
4.57 There
was not a specific question regarding urban roads with no footpaths.
4.58 Of
the people who mentioned walking and cycling, more footpaths and cycleways were
requested by 24% of people. 75% of these requests were site specific and
25% were general comments.
4.59 A
previous survey undertaken in 2019 asked the question: What speed is
appropriate for our Residential Street with no footpath? 83% of the 1965
responses thought a speed of less than 50km/h was appropriate for this type of
road. 40% agreed with 30km/h (726 answers). 43% agreed with 40km/h roads (785
answers). This is shown on page 8 of Attachment 6.
4.60 Staff
recommend that Urban Roads with No Footpaths is retained within the Amended
Plan.
4.61 These
changes are proposed to occur after the completion of the school speed limit
changes for Tasman and with the roll out of the schools for Nelson provided it
is enabled by the final speed rule.
Specific
Roads
4.62 There
were 21 roads identified that require a speed reduction, and which do not fit
into our other categories. The reasons for these speed reductions are to
reflect roadside hazards, recreational use, and changes to the urban or
peri-urban environment.
4.63 Requests
for the speed limit on specific roads to change were made through submissions
during consultation, requested in recent years through Service Requests, or
identified by staff. Staff have assessed these against the Draft Speed Rule and
discussed them with Ward Councillors and the relevant Community Boards.
4.64 The
table below shows the requests for speed reductions from the consultation in
relation to the specific roads listed in Table 7 Attachment 2.
Table 10
|
Road Name
|
Location
|
Number of Requests
|
|
Abel Tasman Drive
|
Pohara
|
5
|
|
Aniseed Valley Road
|
Hope
|
10
|
|
Chamberlain Street
|
Moutere
|
3
|
|
Collingwood Quay
|
Collingwood
|
3
|
|
Collingwood-Puponga
|
Pakawau
|
1
|
|
Fairfax Street
|
Murchison
|
1
|
|
Kaiteriteri-Sandy Bay Road (to
Riwaka Sandy Bay Road)
|
Kaiteriteri
|
3
|
|
Main Road Lower Moutere
|
Motueka
|
13
|
|
McShane Road
|
Richmond
|
11
|
|
Paton Road
|
Hope
|
6
|
|
Riwaka-Kaiteriteri
|
Kaiteriteri
|
5
|
|
Robinson Road
|
Lower
Moutere
|
2
|
|
Sandy Bay-Marahau Road
|
Kaiteriteri
|
2
|
|
Seaton Valley Road
|
Mapua
|
5
|
|
Tadmor Valley Road
|
Tapawera
|
2
|
|
Wharf Road
|
Motueka
|
1
|
|
Cable Bay Road
|
Nelson
|
21
|
|
Māori Pa Road
|
Nelson
|
2
|
4.65 In
addition, there are 17 roads which staff have been identified as errors in the
National Speed Limit Register. The speed limit on these roads is inconsistent
with the surrounding roads. There are urban streets which have been incorrectly
registered with 100km/h limits for example Ara o Paki Paki in Wakefield, as
well as rural residential subdivisions where one section of the road is 50km/h
and one section is 100km/h.
4.66 Changes
to the speed limits for the roads shown in Table 7 of the Schedule are
recommended.
Tasman District Council Carparks
4.67 The
draft Plan proposed restricting speed limits to 10km/h within Tasman District
Council operated car parks, and staff still recommend this. No lawful limits
are in place at present. Speed limits within Nelson City Council operated car
parks are already in place.
Cost Benefit
Analysis
4.68 At
the start of the year, staff engaged ViaStrada to undertake a cost benefit
analysis (Attachment 7) on the eight options of the Draft Plan. This assessment
was undertaken before the Draft Speed Rule was released. It used standard NZTA
Monetised Benefits & Costs Manual (MBCM, v1.6, Apr 2023) parameters and
related safety evidence of the likely benefits and dis-benefits related to
lowered travel speeds on some roads. This manual stipulates the methodology
which should be used for all roading projects and activities. However, the
Draft Speed rule is proposing a bespoke, and significantly different
methodology for speed limit cost benefit analyses.
4.69 For
the Tasman-Nelson network, an estimate of the likely changes in speeds from the
existing recorded mean speeds was undertaken. From this, the benefit (or
dis-benefit) values were determined for each consultation option in terms of:
• expected
reductions in crashes and casualties;
• expected
impacts on travel times;
• expected
changes in vehicle operating costs; and
• expected
changes in vehicle emissions.
4.70 There
are some limitations associated with economic assessments of speed limit
changes.
It is difficult to accurately
predict changes in travel time, vehicle operating costs, and emissions in
complex and/or congested urban environments without using complex and costly
traffic models. The methodology used estimates average changes in speed, which
does not consider accelerating and braking in congested environments. It
is therefore likely to underestimate vehicle operating and emission costs,
particularly for urban environments.
4.71 In
an urban area, there are also likely to be other benefits from speed management
that are more difficult to accurately quantify and monetise particularly in
relation to urban amenity, and likely mode shift to active modes.
4.72 Notwithstanding
these limitations, the cost benefit analysis indicates there are net costs for
speed limit reduction in urban areas and net benefits for speed limit
reductions on rural roads. This is largely due to significant expected crash
reductions and reductions in vehicle operating costs and emissions for higher
speed rural roads, all of which outweigh any increases in travel times.
4.73 The
amended Plan in the rural space aligns more closely with Option 2 than Option 1
so it is expected that the cost benefit estimate and ratio would be
approximately within the low estimate of the ranges given for Option 2. Urban
Option A results are shown in the table below as this Option most aligns with
the Amended Plan option presented.
Table 11
|
|
Urban Option A - Schools
|
Rural Option 1 - Schools
|
Rural Option 2
|
|
Crash savings
|
$185k to $310k
|
$240k to $360k
|
$7,180k to $10,765k
|
|
Travel Time changes
|
-$1,220k to
-$2,480k
|
-$480k to -$1,270k
|
-$2,450k to
-$3,950k
|
|
Vehicle Operating Costs
|
-$53k to -$128k
|
$31k to $55k
|
$320k to $435k
|
|
Emission changes
|
-$12k to -$25k
|
-$1k to -$5k
|
$6k to $8k
|
|
Combined Benefits
|
-$1,100k to -2,320k
|
-$211k to -$857k
|
$5,050k to $7,250k
|
|
Sign Install Cost
|
$1,100k
|
$500k
|
$1,000k
|
|
Benefit Cost Ratio (MBCM)[2]
|
--1.0 to -2.1
|
-0.4 to -1.7
|
5.1 to 7.3
|
|
Benefit Cost Ratio (SLSR)[3]
|
0.08 to 0.09
|
0.24 to 0.20
|
2.1 to 2.2
|
Cost benefit
analysis – High Risk Rural Connectors
4.74 A
separate cost benefit analysis was carried out on the high risk rural connector
roads. The results of this analysis showed that the reduction in speed on
these roads is expected to result in significant benefits. These are shown in
the table below.
Table 12
|
|
Moutere Highway
|
Motueka Valley Highway
|
Neudorf Rd / Dovedale Rd
|
|
Crash savings
|
$960k to $1,440k
|
$3,000k to $4,500k
|
$125k to $190k
|
|
Travel Time changes
|
-$185k to -$320k
|
-$650k to -$750k
|
<$5k
|
|
Vehicle Operating Costs
|
$30k to $50k
|
$100k to $115k
|
<5k
|
|
Emission changes
|
$1k to $2k
|
$3k to $4k
|
<5k
|
|
Combined Benefits
|
$800k to $1,200k
|
$2,400k to $3,900k
|
$125k to $190k
|
|
Sign Install Cost
|
$8k
|
$20k
|
$8k
|
|
Benefit Cost Ratio (MBCM)2
|
100 to 150
|
125 to 200
|
17 to 25
|
|
Cost Benefit Ratio (SLSR)3
|
4 to 5
|
5 to 6
|
17 to 25
|
5. Options
5.1 The
RTC must deliberate and decide what it recommends to the Joint Council
Committee, after considering the submissions received and new government
direction. There are three options available and the advantages and
disadvantages of each are shown below.
|
Option 1: Recommend to the Joint Council Committee an amended Nelson Tasman
Speed Management Plan and associated Schedule of Speed Limit Changes, based
on the new direction of the draft Speed Rule and updated road classifications
|
|
Advantages
|
· Crash savings/harm reduction especially those associated with our
higher risk rural roads can be realised early.
· Proposed amended plan involves fewer and more targeted speed limit
changes, more in line with community feedback.
· It is expected that this option will satisfy the requirements of
the Director of Land Transport.
· Implementation can occur in priority areas in 2025.
· Potentially avoids the need to undertake further cost benefit
analysis and consultation (depending on the final Speed Rule, once adopted).
· Can accommodate some amendments if sought by the RTC.
This is the option recommended by staff.
|
|
Risks and
Disadvantages
|
· There may be changes to the Draft Speed Rule following consultation.
This can be mitigated by not starting to implement the new Plan before the
final Speed Rule is adopted, this would avoid any potential reversal under
the final Speed Rule.
· The revised draft may not satisfy submitters whose views have not
been incorporated into the amended document.
· The final Speed Rule may include new provisions that affect our
ability to implement approved changes such as the need to reconsult and
undertake road by road benefit costs calculations.
|
|
Option 2: Proceed with original Speed Management Plan,
comprising options C and 3.
|
|
Advantages
|
· 40km/h
is not covered by 30km/h reversal rule in Draft Speed Rule.
· Safer for all road users.
· Will encourage more active ways of travelling, reducing congestion
and improving health.
· High level of crash savings in rural areas shown in our Benefit
Cost Ratio.
· Consistency of speed limits will be easier to understand.
· Rural Option 3 meets the speed limit requirements in Draft Speed
Rule.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Does not have public acceptance with 59% of respondents opposing
Urban Option C, 55% of respondents opposing Rural Option 3.
· Urban Option 3 does not meet the speed limits requirements in
Draft Speed Rule.
· May be considered as a blanket change and potential for public and
central government backlash.
· The final Speed Rule may include new provisions that affect our
ability to implement approved changes such as the need to reconsult and
undertake road by road benefit costs calculations.
· This option is not recommended by staff.
|
|
Option 3: Proceed
with a ‘do minimum’ amended plan largely comprising changes only
around schools, in line with the Draft Speed Rule.
|
|
Advantages
|
· Has public acceptance with 60% of respondents supporting Urban
Option A: School zone only and 56% Rural Option 1: School zone only.
· Aligns with the Draft Speed Rule.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Crash savings associated with our higher risk rural roads will not
be realised.
· Does not acknowledge or respond to community requests for specific
speed limit changes.
· Many speed limit changes were put off between 2019-2023 awaiting
the outcome of this Speed Management Plan, a delay to addressing community
concerns will be viewed negatively by these communities who are pushing for
changes.
· This option is not recommended by staff.
|
|
Option 3: That no Speed Management Plan is adopted at
this stage. Staff await the adoption of the new Speed Rule and then release a
revised speed plan.
|
|
Advantages
|
· Speed changes will meet the requirements of the new Speed Rule.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· Crash savings associated with our higher risk rural roads will not
be realised in the short term.
· Any future speed changes will require an individualised cost
benefit analysis (CBA) which will come at a cost to Council. The cost of the
CBA may be more than the cost of the speed change.
· There will be substantial costs to reproduce a revised plan in
terms of staff time and consultation costs.
· The public may get frustrated with further consultation.
· There will be a delay implementing speed changes meaning areas
that have been waiting for change will need to wait longer.
· Council may be encouraged to take a piece meal approach to address
the most urgent changes to speed limits under the ‘alternative
method’ rather than a regionally consistent approach via a Speed
Management Plan
· This option is not recommended by staff.
|
6. Strategy
and Risks
6.1 The
key risks with making a decision at this time are associated with the
government Draft Speed Rule change and what the final Speed Rule may encompass.
For example:
(a) introducing
permanent 30 km/h areas around school, which the government has indicated will
be reversed;
(b) introducing
permanent 30 km/h areas elsewhere, which are not covered by the reversal clause
in the Draft Speed Rule but may be included in the final Speed Rule;
(c) other
speed limit changes being covered by a reversal clause in the final Speed Rule;
(d) being
required to reconsult on any speed changes under the final Speed Rule before
they come into effect; and
(e) being
required to calculate road by road benefit cost analysis on any speed changes
under the final Speed Rule before they come into effect.
6.2 Staff
have tried to partially mitigate risks A-C by ensuring that the plan and
proposed speed limit changes are likely to meet the final Speed Rule. Any
residual areas of non-compliance can be mitigated through delayed
implementation. The following road types are not included in the road
classifications in the Draft Speed Rule:
· urban roads without footpaths;
· peri-urban/rural residential: specifically rural residential streets
that are not adjacent to an urban area;
· on-road sections of the Great Taste Trail.
6.3 Staff
propose the RTC advocate for these roads to be included in the new
classification systems through the public consultation phase on new Speed Rule.
6.4 There
remains a risk that the new rule, when finalised, will require re-consultation
and cost benefit assessments before any or some changes come into force. This
is not currently in the Draft Speed Rule, but staff understand the Ministry of
Transport is considering it. This point is also addressed in the proposed
submission on the Draft Speed Rule. If this occurs, staff will be recommending
that the councils consult only on the Amended Speed Plan (excluding variable
30km/h outside schools) and no other changes to minimise further disruption,
costs and time.
6.5 The
other main risk associated with the process relates to how some members of the
community will perceive the Councils pursing changes at this time. Staff
propose that the councils stress in communication the much more limited scope
of proposed changes, strong community support for changes around schools,
consistency with the government Draft Speed Rule for most changes, safety
benefits, and limited impact on travel times for key routes like the Moutere
Highway.
7. Important
considerations for decision-making
|
7.1 Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
The decisions in this report enable decisions on the setting of
speed limits to enable the safe use of roads in Nelson and Tasman.
|
|
7.2 Consistency with Community Outcomes
and Council Policy
Development of and consultation on Speed
Management Plans were a requirement of the current Speed Rule, prior to
December 2023. As noted in the Strategy and Risks section, these requirements
are changing, and the changes proposed by staff try to meet the requirements
of both the current Speed Rule and Draft Speed Rule (with some exceptions).
|
|
7.3 Financial
impact
Tasman’s and Nelson’s Long Term Plans
2024-2034 provide budgets for the implementation of the speed management plan
and assume NZTA funding is provided. The timing of the proposed speed limit
changes takes this into account, with changes around schools being
prioritised.
If NZTA funding is not provided, or is at lower level than
assumed, the programme of changes will take longer to roll out. For this
reason, staff recommend that the Chief Executive of each Council is
authorised to approve, within their district, changes to the
implementation date in the Schedule of Speed Limit Changes.
If Option 4 was chosen, or the Councils must reconsult on
proposed changes under the final Speed Rule, the Councils would face
additional costs:
· staff time to develop a new Plan
· costs associated with a road by road benefit cost calculation
· staff time to undertake public consultation sessions
· cost of printed materials for public consultation sessions
· cost to advertise on radio, print and social media
|
|
7.4 Degree of significance and level of
engagement
The process to
date is of high significance because some of the
changes being consulted on are potentially extensive and far reaching. Many
people are passionate about speed limit changes (for and against). The
setting of speed limits rule specifically excludes speed management plans
from Special Consultative Procedures. Due to the extent of change being consulted on, the
RTC followed a process similar to a Special
Consultative Procedure. The extent of engagement with communities during this
process was considerable and is covered earlier in this report.
A key part of this process was that the
Councils consulted on 4 options for urban areas and 4 options for rural
areas. These options comprised packages of speed limit changes, with
different speed limits for different classifications of roads. The Amended
Plan and proposed Schedule of Speed limit Changes contain changes that are
covered within the options presented, with one principal exception - the
speed limits around schools. Many were proposed to be variable, but others
were proposed to be permanent. Staff are proposing all (with three
exceptions) be variable in line with the Draft Speed Rule.
Staff do not consider that the Council
needs to reconsult on these given the variable speed limits around schools
are proposed to be compulsory by the Draft Speed Rule, and because the
variable speed limits propose fewer restrictions on the travelling public
than were proposed.
|
|
7.5 Climate
Impact
The adoption
of the Speed Management Plan (and accompanying speed limit reductions) is
expected to have little climate impact.
In the
instances where rural speed limits are reduced from 100km/h, fuel consumption
is expected to reduce and therefore reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
are shown in the cost benefit analysis.
Reducing
limits around schools from 50km/h to 30km/h may result in a small increase in
fuel consumption in situations where vehicles are frequently decelerating and
accelerating between different speed limits. Overall, the climate impact of
possible speed limit changes is expected to be small.
|
|
7.6 Inclusion
of Māori in the decision-making process
The speed
management process was discussed at engagement hui with each of the Iwi, and
feedback sought. A specific hui was held with Te Āwhina Marae to
discuss specific speed issues on the roads adjacent to the Marae. Generally,
the Marae sought speed reductions in the roads close to their site. However,
this would be outside of the scope of the new Draft Speed Rule. Consequently,
staff do not recommend these changes.
|
|
7.7 Delegations
The RTC has
the responsibility for “preparing a joint Speed Management Plan,
including undertaking all required consultation processes relating to the
preparation of this plan.” (Terms of Reference Joint Nelson Tasman
Regional Transport Committee - clause 3.2.3). It must recommend a final plan
for adoption to the Joint Council Committee.
|
8. Conclusion
8.1 The
public response to the Draft Speed Management Plan was high with 2,247
submissions and 44 people who spoke to their submissions in the hearings.
8.2 The
Ministry of Transport have released a new Draft Speed Rule which results in
substantial changes in relation to the speed limits Road Controlling
Authorities can set on specific road types and includes a requirement to
include a road by road Cost Benefit Analysis.
8.3 Staff
have considered the community feedback and Draft Speed Rule and propose an
Amended Plan that includes variable speed limits outside
schools, and speed limit reductions on a limited number of other roads or road
classification. It targets our higher risk rural roads with a lower
speed that should substantially reduce road crash and trauma, and protects our
most vulnerable outside the school gates. It also targets those areas where we
have received the highest number of requests for lower speed limits.
8.4 A
cost benefit analysis has been undertaken by staff and it indicates for the
Preferred Option a BCR of approximately 7 for the rural changes and -1.5 in the
urban areas.
8.5 The
Amended Plan presents a pragmatic way to improve road safety outcomes through
safer speeds within the framework allowable under the recently released Draft
Speed Rule. Staff recommend that the RTC recommend this plan and the schedule
of speed limit changes to the Joint Council Committee for approval.
8.6 NZTA
have indicated they will assess and certify a Speed Management Plan under the
current rule if submitted while the current rule is in force. However, there is
a risk that the Draft Speed Rule, once finalised, may require the Councils to
reconsult on elements of the speed limit changes proposed before they come into
effect.
9. Next
Steps / Timeline
9.1 Following
the deliberations staff will:
a) make the necessary wording changes to the Draft
Plan, to give effect to the recommendations of the RTC; and
b) submit
the proposed final Speed Management Plan to the Joint Council Committee for
formal adoption.
|
1.⇩
|
Amended
Nelson Tasman Speed Management Plan
|
29
|
|
2.⇩
|
Schedule
of Speed Limit Changes
|
47
|
|
3.⇩
|
Speed
Limits for different classes of road
|
57
|
|
4.⇩
|
Overview
of changes to Draft Speed Management Plan
|
60
|
|
5.⇩
|
Overview
of Speed Management Feedback
|
62
|
|
6.⇩
|
Nelson
Tasman Community Speed Limit Feedback 2019
|
75
|
|
7.⇩
|
Cost
Benefit Analysis
|
89
|
|
8.⇩
|
Draft
Nelson Tasman Speed Management Plan
|
105
|
