city infrastructure committe - city of gold coast · 2019-06-23 · january 2016, covered by...

716 Adopted Report

of the

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

held

Thursday 12 May 2016 at

9am

City of Gold Coast Council Chambers 135 Bundall Road Surfers Paradise

716th Council Meeting 24 May 2016 2 City Infrastructure Committee Meeting 12 May 2016 Report

Index 716 Report

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting Thursday 12 May 2016

9am

Item Direct. File Page Subject

1# CI TT1017/1082/08/03(P1) 4 Light Rail To Southern Gold Coast Consultation Results

2 CI LG115/1326/01/2016(P1) 22 City Infrastructure Action List And Forward Planning Schedule

3 CI FN334/375/02(P41) 25 2015-16 Local Area Works Program - Additions

4 CI ER409/154/-(P3) 33 Haulage Route (Extractive Industries) Review

5 CI TT1017/113/21/04(P1) 42 Review Of Car Sharing Trial And Conclusion Of Services

General Business

6 CI CM787/788/05(P4) 49 Familiarisation Of Works Undertaken By City Infrastructure

# Officer’s Recommendation changed by Committee KEY: OCEO - Office of the Chief Executive Officer CI - City Infrastructure GCW - Gold Coast Water CS - Community Services OS - Organisational Services EDMP - Economic Development & Major Projects PE - Planning & Environment

716th Council Meeting 24 May 2016 3 City Infrastructure Committee Meeting 12 May 2016 Report ADOPTION BY COUNCIL 24 MAY 2016 RESOLUTION G16.0524.006 moved Cr D Crichlow seconded Cr G Baildon That the Report of the City Infrastructure Committee Meeting of Thursday, 12 May 2016, covered by Recommendations numbered CI16.0512.001 to CI16.0512.006, be adopted.

CARRIED

ATTENDANCE Cr D M Crichlow OAM (Chairperson) Cr T R Tate (Mayor) (left meeting at 9.34am) Cr G J Baildon AM Cr W M A Owen-Jones Cr P J Young Cr H H C Vorster Cr P C Young Cr D I McDonald Cr G O’Neill (Visitor) Cr P Taylor (Visitor) Cr C Caldwell (Visitor) Mr A Twine Director City Infrastructure Mr K Deutscher Manager Transport & Traffic Branch Mr M Hulse Manager Infrastructure Delivery Branch Mr M Ash Manager City Assets Branch Mr A Stewart Coordinator Network Development and Policy (Part) Mr J Brook Coordinator Transport Futures (Part) Mr D Dickson Chief Executive Officer (Part) Mr W Sinclair Manager Corporate Communication (Part) Julianne Foley Agenda Coordinator APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil PRESENTATIONS Light Rail To Southern Gold Coast Consultation Results – Mr K Deutscher, Manager Transport & Traffic

716th Council Meeting 24 May 2016 4 City Infrastructure Committee Meeting 12 May 2016 Report ITEM 1 TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC BRANCH LIGHT RAILTO SOUTHERN GOLD COAST CONSULTATION RESULTS TT1017/1082/08/03(P1) Refer 8 page attachment 1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY Not Applicable. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Not Applicable. 3 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to;

1. Provide Council with the results of the “Light Rail Southern Gold Coast” consultation that was undertaken by the Mayor’s office in December 2016; and

2. Seek Council endorsement of a preferred route alignment to guide the City’s detailed planning activities that are being undertaken for Stage 3 of the Gold Coast Light Rail.

4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CIW16.01.0127.006 motion moved Cr Crichlow seconded Cr Owen-Jones 1 That the information in this report be noted

2 That a joint steering committee involving relevant Managers from City Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Finance and Economic Development and Major Projects and Community Services oversee the next phase of investigations and Community consultation to determine the preferred Gold Coast Light Rail Stage 3 corridor and alignment.

3 That Transport and Traffic Branch continue to seek the involvement of the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads in joint planning for the Gold Coast Light Rail Stage 3.

4 That Transport and Traffic officers be authorised to brief relevant State and Federal elected members of Parliament on the Aurecon study and its findings.

5 That a summary of the Aurecon study into corridor opportunities be placed in the City’s website.

CARRIED ADOPTED AT COUNCIL 29 January 2016 RESOLUTION G16.0129.013 moved Cr Taylor seconded Cr McDonald That the Report of the City Infrastructure & Water Committee Meeting held on Wednesday 27 January 2016, covered by Recommendations numbered CIW16.0127.001 to CIW16.0127.014, be received.

CARRIED

716th Council Meeting 24 May 2016 5 City Infrastructure Committee Meeting 12 May 2016 Report ITEM 1 (Continued) LIGHT RAILTO SOUTHERN GOLD COAST CONSULTATION RESULTS TT1017/1082/08/03(P1) 5 DISCUSSION The Gold Coast Light Rail (GCLR) project is the largest transport infrastructure project ever undertaken on the Gold Coast.

GCLR Stage 1, which extends from Gold Coast University Hospital in Southport to southern Broadbeach, commenced operation of passenger services in July 2014. It has significantly outperformed patronage targets set for the system and by the end of March 2016, the system had carried almost 12.5 million passengers with average daily ridership continuing to grow to almost 23,000 passengers per day in March 2016.

GCLR Stage 2 will extend from the Gold Coast University Hospital to connect with the regional rail at Helensvale. Construction commenced in May 2016 with the system planned to be operational prior to the commencement of Commonwealth Games in 2018. Given that the construction of GCLR Stage 2 is proceeding, attention is now being focused on the detailed planning and business case activities required to progress GCLR Stage 3.

A report approved by Council on 29 January 2016 authorised the undertaking of further extension studies, the establishment of governance arrangements, and further consultation and briefing of State and Commonwealth officials.

Public consultation on the future planning of light rail was undertaken by the Corporate Communications Branch on behalf of the Mayor’s Office at a number of locations, accessible by all residents, between 30 November to 20 December 2015. The City sought feedback on seven (7) route options which focused on developing the light rail west to Robina and south towards the Gold Coast Airport (Attachment 1.1):

· Idea 1: Broadbeach to Burleigh Heads · Idea 2 (A): Nobby Beach to Robina (via Bond University) · Idea 2 (B): Nobby Beach to Robina (via Bond University and Varsity Lakes Rail

Station) · Idea 3: Burleigh Heads to Varsity Lakes Rail Station · Idea 4: Varsity Lakes Rail Station to Gold Coast Airport (via the M1/ regional rail

corridor) · Idea 5 (A): Burleigh Heads to Gold Coast Airport (A) (via GC Highway) · Idea 5 (B): Burleigh Heads to Gold Coast Airport (B) (via Palm Beach Ave and M1

Western Alignment)

“Listening posts” were set up on nominated days in Coolangatta, Palm Beach, Robina and Burleigh Heads to provide information and answer questions from the community on the seven (7) light rail route options being considered. Community feedback was sought on each route option via a user preference survey that was available at the listening posts and on the GCHaveyoursay web site.

716th Council Meeting 24 May 2016 6 City Infrastructure Committee Meeting 12 May 2016 Report ITEM 1 (Continued) LIGHT RAILTO SOUTHERN GOLD COAST CONSULTATION RESULTS TT1017/1082/08/03(P1) The consultation was widely advertised to ensure that there was equitable opportunity for people to have their say. Awareness was generated through advertising across, Sea FM, Gold FM, 4 CRB, Juice and Hot Tomato radio coverage. It included boosted posts through social media and Friday Flyer to all residential addresses. Results of the consultation: A total of 4,728 responses (online survey and hardcopy) were received.

Of this figure 3,606 responses were from the community with a further 1,122 responses being treated as a coordinated submission. The reasoning was that the 1,122 submissions had identical answers to survey questions and many of these responses were from the same IP addresses.

The 3,606 responses represent a significant response from the community.

Of the 3,606 valid submissions received; · 1,833 (51%) of respondents were male, 1,689 (47%) were female. (2% did not answer)

· The greatest number of submissions was received from the following age groups. o 696 (19.5%) - 55-64 o 670 (18.5%) - 35-44 o 670 (18.5%) - 45-54 o 570 (16%) - 25-34 o 543 (15%) - 65-74

· The following suburbs had the highest number of respondents;

o 243 (7%) - Robina o 201 (5.5%) - Palm Beach o 151 (4%) - Varsity Lakes o 126 (3.5%) - Southport o 125 (3.5%) - each for Elanora and Burleigh Heads o 124 (3.5%) - Burleigh Waters


ITEM 1 (Continued) LIGHT RAILTO SOUTHERN GOLD COAST CONSULTATION RESULTS TT1017/1082/08/03(P1) The survey results for each route option were as follows:

Idea Presented

Idea 1 Broadbeach to Burleigh Heads

Idea 5 (A) Burleigh Heads to Gold Coast Airport (via GC Hway)

Idea 4 Varsity Lakes to Gold Coast Airport

Idea 2 (A) Nobby Beach to Robina Town Centre (via Bond Uni)

Idea 5 (B) Burleigh Heads to Gold Coast Airport (M1 alignment)

Idea 2 (B) Nobby Beach to Robina Town Centre (via Bond Uni and Varsity Lakes Rail Stn)

Idea 3 Burleigh Heads to Varsity Lakes Rail Stn

Support 2855 2522 2338 1748 1732 1635 1600 Oppose 438 667 863 984 1137 1081 1137 Neutral / No Answer 315 417 405 874 737 890 869

Figure 1 - Level of Support for Route Options

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Idea 1 -Broadbeach toBurleigh Heads

Idea 5 (A) -Burleigh Heads toGold Coast Airport

via Gold CoastHighway, Tugun?

Idea 4 - VarsityLakes train station

to Gold CoastAirport?

Idea 2 (A) - NobbyBeach to RobinaTown Centre andStadium via Bond

University?

Idea 5 (B) -Burleigh Heads toGold Coast Airport

via Gold CoastHighway and M1

corridor?

Idea 2 (B) - NobbyBeach to RobinaTown Centre andStadium via Bond

University andVarsity Lakes?

Idea 3 BurleighHeads to Varsity

Lakes trainstation?

Support Oppose Neither/DNA


ITEM 1 (Continued) LIGHT RAILTO SOUTHERN GOLD COAST CONSULTATION RESULTS TT1017/1082/08/03(P1) General observations: · There was a greater level of support for light rail compared to opposition across all route

options presented in the consultation.

· The highest level of support and lowest level of opposition was received for the following routes (refer figure 1 above):

o Idea 1 - Broadbeach to Burleigh Heads, 2,855 (79%) support / 438 (12%) opposition

o Idea 5 (A) - Burleigh Heads to Gold Coast Airport (via Gold Coast Highway, Tugun), 2,522 (70%) support / 667 (18%) opposition.

· The lowest level of support and highest level of opposition was received for the following routes (refer figure 1 above):

o Idea 3 - Burleigh Heads to Varsity Lakes Rail Station, 1,600 (44%) support / 1,137 (31.5%) opposition

o Idea 2 (B) - Nobby Beach to Robina (via Bond University and Varsity Lakes Rail Station), 1,635 (45%) support / 1,081 (30%) opposition

o Idea 5 (B) - Burleigh Heads to Gold Coast Airport (via Gold Coast Highway and M1 corridor), 1,732 (48%) support / 1,137 (31.5%) opposition

· In relation to Idea 2 – Nobby Beach to Robina Town Centre; o 1,385 (38.5%) preferred Option B (via Bond University and Varsity Lakes Rail

Station) o 1,066 (29.5%) preferred Option A (via Bond University) o 1,042 (29%) neither Option A or Option B

· In relation to Idea 5 – Burleigh Heads to Gold Coast Airport;

o 2,103 (58.5%) preferred Option A (via Gold Coast Highway) o 797 (22%) preferred Option B (via Gold Coast Highway and M1 corridor) o 609 (17%) neither Option A or Option B

6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND

OPERATIONAL PLAN The Gold Coast City Transport Strategy 2031 (The City Transport Strategy) is Council’s blueprint for developing and managing the city’s transport network over the next 20 years. A key action within the strategy is to extend the light rail network across the city with support from the private sector. The strategy identifies a desired light rail network for the City which includes a number of future extensions to the existing GCLR system. · Broadbeach to Gold Coast Airport (via Elanora); · Preservation of a corridor to Coolangatta town centre; · Nobby Beach to Robina Town Centre; · Surfers Paradise to Bundall; · Main Beach to the Spit; and · Parklands to Biggera Waters.


ITEM 1 (Continued) LIGHT RAILTO SOUTHERN GOLD COAST CONSULTATION RESULTS TT1017/1082/08/03(P1) The State Government released a brochure in November 2015 that provided facts on the current GCLR Stage 2 project. The brochure depicted the coastal corridor from Broadbeach to the Gold Coast Airport as being the State’s preferred alignment for future stages of GCLR. The routes depicted within Ideas 1, 2 and 5(A) of the consultation are consistent with the State Government and City’s strategic vison for the light rail network. The further extension of light rail is also supported by the new City Plan. The strategic intent of the scheme:

· envisions development intensity in the city’s urban area in alignment with improved public transport services, spearheaded by light rail

· depicts light rail as a catalyst to transform the city into a highly connected, compact city with a focus on vibrant centres and specialist precincts

· designates a light rail urban renewal area to be a cohesive corridor of distinctive, high quality urban environments that optimises accessibility to light rail services and economic development opportunities

· identifies the need to investigate extending the light rail network to places such as Burleigh Heads, Robina, Bundall, The Spit and the Gold Coast Airport.

7 COMMONWEALTH GAMES IMPACT As this event is less than 2 years away, it is not feasible that any of the GCLR route options presented within the consultation could be constructed in time for the 2018 Commonwealth Games. 8 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS Budget/Funding Considerations Related GCLR studies by City Infrastructure and City Planning were funded out of respective 2015/16 operating budgets. Transport and Traffic is currently finalising a study that investigated a number of corridor options for extending the GCLR from Main Beach to the Spit. City Planning are also finalising their first round of detail corridor planning for the high capacity public transport corridor that extends from Helensvale to Coolangatta along the coastal corridor. Funding has been requested in the relevant operating budgets of Transport and Traffic, City Planning and Major Projects in 2016/17 to develop the GCLR Stage 3 planning in more detail. The outputs of this GCLR consultation will directly influence this future planning work.


ITEM 1 (Continued) LIGHT RAILTO SOUTHERN GOLD COAST CONSULTATION RESULTS TT1017/1082/08/03(P1) 9 RISK MANAGEMENT Corporate Risk Mitigation CO000507 “Transport Strategy is not fully funded resulting in whole of city impacts with poor transport infrastructure and transport service choices for the community”.

CM000962 “Work with the Department of Transport and Main Roads to deliver major public transport improvements focussing on the extension of the light rail and improved high frequency rapid bus services through integrated transport planning, town planning and partnership funding using the Transport Improvement Levy funding”.

10 STATUTORY MATTERS Not applicable. 11 COUNCIL POLICIES Not applicable. 12 DELEGATIONS Not applicable. 13 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION Name and/or Title of the Stakeholder Consulted

Directorate or Organisation

Is the Stakeholder Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate)

Wayne Moran – Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor Yes

Alton Twine - Director City Infrastructure City Infrastructure Yes

Warwick Sinclair - Manager Corporate Communication Office of the CEO Yes

Catharine Scott – Research and Engagement Officer Office of the CEO Yes

Jonathon Morris – Marketing Strategist Office of the CEO Yes

14 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS External / community stakeholder Impacts The results of this consultation are relevant to future decisions on a preferred corridor for the next stage of light rail. The community needs to be informed of the consultation results as well as Council’s decision to prioritise further planning works on a preferred route option.


ITEM 1 (Continued) LIGHT RAILTO SOUTHERN GOLD COAST CONSULTATION RESULTS TT1017/1082/08/03(P1) The State and Commonwealth Governments are key stakeholders and funding partners for the first two stages of light rail. In particular, the State Government (TMR) is the lead agency in the delivery of the GCLR Stage 2. TMR has indicated a preference for the light rail to continue south from Broadbeach to eventually reach the Gold Coast Airport. Transport and Traffic Branch will continue to engage with TMR to agree to a joint approach to further GCLR Stage 3 corridor planning. It would also be beneficial to brief relevant State and Federal members of Parliament on the results of the consultation and previous planning work undertaken by Aurecon to assist in building stakeholder support for the GCLR Stage 3. Internal (Organisational) Stakeholder Impacts Several directorates will be involved in further detailed design work in relation to the extension of light rail, including City Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Economic Development and Major Projects, and Community Services. These directorates continue to be represented on steering committees and working groups that have been formed to progress and coordinate future GCLR planning activities. 15 TIMING GCLR Stage 3 needs to be kept on the agenda for discussion with the State and Commonwealth Governments, although in practical terms no work is likely to commence on a third stage of light rail until the opening the Gold Coast Light Rail Stage 2, from Gold Coast Health and Knowledge Precinct to Helensvale Regional Rail Station in early 2018. Pursuant to the adopted recommendations of CIW 16.01.0127.006 , further work is programed to occur in the FY16 -17 to progress the feasibility planning and business case development of GCLR Stage 3. A number of projects addressing transport and engineering feasibility, value sharing, corridor uplift and urban design will be undertaken across Directorates to inform the drafting of a preliminary business case which will be presented to Council in mid-2017. 16 CONCLUSION Advocating and supporting further extensions of the light rail across the city is a key action in both the Corporate Plan and the City Transport Strategy and is supported by the new City Plan. The results of the community consultation undertaken in 2015 provide an important indication of community preferences in regard to future states of GCLR. It is clear that the high level of support for the coastal route (Ideas 1 and 5(A)) provides confirmation of previous preferences expressed by both the State and the City that the next priority GCLR route should be along the coastal corridor between Broadbeach and the Gold Coast Airport. This route is also fully consistent with the City Transport Strategy. A future extension to Robina Town Centre from Nobby Beach (Idea 2) is also consistent with the City Transport Strategy and has received a good level of support in the consultation process. This could be planned as a future light rail corridor for construction once the connection to the airport is made.


ITEM 1 (Continued) LIGHT RAILTO SOUTHERN GOLD COAST CONSULTATION RESULTS TT1017/1082/08/03(P1) The following Ideas generally received low levels of public support and further consideration of these routes for future planning would not be consistent with the City Transport Strategy;

· Idea 3 - Burleigh Heads to Varsity Lakes Rail Station · Idea 4 - Varsity Lakes Train Station to Gold Coast Airport (via the M1) · Idea 5(B) - Burleigh Heads to Gold Coast Airport (Palm Beach Ave/ M1 Alignment)

17 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council resolves as follows: 1 That the results of the “Light rail southern Gold Coast” consultation as presented in this

report be noted.

2 That a summary of the public consultation results be placed on the City’s website.

3 That Ideas 1 (Broadbeach to Burleigh Heads) and 5(A) (Burleigh Heads to Gold Coast Airport), as presented within the consultation, are endorsed as priority routes to guide future planning activities relating to GCLR Stage 3.

4 That further planning is undertaken to protect a light rail corridor between Gold Coast Airport and Coolangatta town centre as per the City Transport Strategy.

5 That other light rail routes identified within the City Transport Strategy including;

· Nobby Beach to Robina Town Centre;

· Surfers Paradise to Bundall;

· Main Beach to The Spit, and

· Parklands to Biggera Waters.

be maintained as future options for ongoing consideration and planning.

Author: Authorised by: Andy Stewart Alton Twine Executive Coordinator Transport Planning and Policy

Director City Infrastructure

21 April 2016 TRACKS REF: iSpot # 54759267v3; Attach # 54825838


ITEM 1 (Continued) LIGHT RAILTO SOUTHERN GOLD COAST CONSULTATION RESULTS TT1017/1082/08/03(P1) Changed recommendation COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CI16.0512.001 moved Cr Tate seconded Cr Owen-Jones 1 That the results of the “Light rail southern Gold Coast” consultation as presented

in this report be noted. 2 That a summary of the public consultation results be placed on the City’s website. 3 That the priority route from Broadbeach to Coolangatta via the airport is endorsed

to guide future planning activities relating to GCLR Stage 3. 4 That further planning is undertaken to protect a light rail corridor between Gold

Coast Airport and Coolangatta town centre as per the City Transport Strategy. 5 That other light rail routes identified within the City Transport Strategy including;

· Nobby Beach to Robina Town Centre;

· Surfers Paradise to Bundall;

· Main Beach to The Spit, and

· Parklands to Biggera Waters be maintained as future options for ongoing consultation, consideration and planning.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY


Attachment 1.1


ITEM 2 CITY INFRASTRUCTURE CITY INFRASTRUCTURE ACTION LIST AND FORWARD PLANNING SCHEDULE LG115/1326/01/2016(P1)

CITY INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Item Action Officer Action/Previous Resolution

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting (all meetings)

Action List and Forward Planning Schedule A Twine – Director City Infrastructure

Standing Item

2015-16 Capital Works Program - Approvals M Hulse – Infrastructure Delivery Report as required. 2015-16 Local Area Works Program – Additions M Hulse – Infrastructure Delivery Report as required. 2015-16 Capital Works Program – Works Completed or Under Construction

M Hulse – Infrastructure Delivery Report quarterly.

(717) City Infrastructure Committee Meeting – 26 May 2016

Response To Petition From Residents Of Andrews Road Who Require Flood Investigation (Ex. CIW15.1008.003)

S Fong – City Assets That a report be brought back to CIW providing the results of the flood study.

Dudley Street Catchment, Mermaid Beach Stormwater Upgrade (Ex. CIW16.0127.011)

S Gorman / S Fong – City Assets That a further report be brought back to Council in April 2016 addressing outlet structure options for consideration

(718) City Infrastructure Committee Meeting – 9 June 2016

Seawall Progress Report K Bowra – City Assets Provide update to Council

Tugun to Bilinga Oceanway (Ex. G15.0007.020)

T Clark – Transport & Traffic To respond to a petition submitted to Council requesting the construction of the Oceanway facility.

Response to Petition – Ghilgai Road Merrimac (Ex. G16.0129.025)

B Kudzius – Transport & Traffic To respond to a petition submitted to council


ITEM 2 (Continued) CITY INFRASTRUCTURE ACTION LIST AND FORWARD PLANNING SCHEDULE LG115/1294/01/2016(P1)

(719) City Infrastructure Committee Meeting – 12 July 2016

Palm Beach Shoreline Project K Bowra – City Assets To provide detailed project explanation. Motorcycle Parking On Footpaths (Ex. CP15.0010.011)

J Brook – Transport & Traffic Present the mechanism to allow motorcycle parking on footpaths and a design manual / assessment criteria to allow the installation of spaces in safe and appropriate locations.

Legislative Requirements And Implementation Of Clearways (Ex. CIW15.1105.014)

K Deutscher – Transport & Traffic That a report be brought forward to the City Infrastructure & Water Committee in relation to the implementation of clearways in the city and the legislative requirements to give effect to enforcement.

Report on Upgrade Works On Kopps Road, Oxenford (Ex. CIW15.1105.012)

K Deutscher – Transport & Traffic That a report be brought forward to the City Infrastructure & Water Committee on the timing of upgrade works on Kopps Road, Oxenford

(721) City Infrastructure Committee Meeting – 11 August 2016

Stormwater Drainage Management Plan S Fong – City Assets Provide Council an updated development of stormwater drainage for the City.

(723) City Infrastructure Committee Meeting – 8 September 2016

Program of Works for Road Verge Drainage Treatment D McNeilage – City Assets Development of Capital Works program to address stormwater drainage issues in water sensitive urgan design - semi-rural estates.


ITEM 2 (Continued) CITY INFRASTRUCTURE ACTION LIST AND FORWARD PLANNING SCHEDULE LG115/1294/01/2016(P1)

(726) City Infrastructure Committee Meeting – 3 November 2016

Gold Market Drive Reserve Asset Management Plan (Ex. G15.1102.002)

C Bridges – City Assets That further water testing be conducted in twelve months and reported back to the City Infrastructure and Water Committee.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council resolves as follows: That the City Infrastructure Directorate Action List and Forward Planning Schedule for the City Infrastructure Committee be noted.

Authorised by: Alton Twine Director City Infrastructure iSPOT#52917032 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CI16.0512.002 moved Cr Owen-Jones seconded Cr Vorster That the City Infrastructure Directorate Action List and Forward Planning Schedule for the City Infrastructure Committee be noted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY


ITEM 3 INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY BRANCH 2015-16 LOCAL AREA WORKS PROGRAM – ADDITIONS FN334/375/02(P41) Refer 5 page attachment 1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

1.1 I recommend that Attachment 3.2 of this report be considered in Closed Session pursuant to section 275 (1) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the reason that the matter involves the local government’s budget.

1.2 I recommend that Attachment 3.2 be deemed a confidential document in accordance

with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009 and that the documents remain confidential unless Council decides otherwise by resolution.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Not Applicable. 3 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is for Council to approve additions to the 2015-16 Local Area Works Program as detailed in Attachment 3.1. 4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS Not Applicable. 5 DISCUSSION Councillors in conjunction with City officers have suggested that the projects in Attachment 3.1 be added to the 2015-16 Local Area Works Program. 6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND

OPERATIONAL PLAN These projects satisfy the following: 1.0 The best place to live and visit

1.4 We have fast, frequent and reliable public transport. We can get around the city easily and cheaply.

2.0 Prosperity built on a strong diverse economy 2.3 We have infrastructure that supports productivity and growth. We have connected and vibrant economic precincts.

3.0 People contribute to a strong community spirit

3.6 We are an active community. We enjoy the city and its enviable climate.

7 COMMONWEALTH GAMES IMPACT Not Applicable.


ITEM 3 (Continued) 2015-16 LOCAL AREA WORKS PROGRAM – ADDITIONS FN334/375/02(P41) 8 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS Funds are available within the various Local Area Works allocations to carry out the works as indicated in Attachment 3.1 within the 2015-16 financial year. Details of the additional annual operational/maintenance costs, estimated new/upgrade and renewal costs and estimated useful life of the new assets created are shown in Attachment 3.1. The new/upgrade cost is the cost to create or upgrade the asset. The renewal cost is the cost to renew the asset in today’s dollars and includes disposal costs and design costs as required at the end of the asset’s estimated useful life. The works proposed in this report can be maintained and operated adequately based on the current 10 year financial plan's growth factors and maintenance budgets. 9 RISK MANAGEMENT City Infrastructure’s project teams will mitigate risk through project development and delivery phases in accordance with the risk management procedure 6-3 which is aligned with the Risk Management Standards AS/NZS 31000:2009.

10 STATUTORY MATTERS Not Applicable. 11 COUNCIL POLICIES Local Area Works and Services Program Policy (iSPOT #48181699). 12 DELEGATIONS Not Applicable. 13 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION Name and Title of the Stakeholder Consulted



Cr W Owen-Jones Division 2 Councillor Cr P Taylor Division 10 Councillor C Berg, Asset Renewal Project Officer

City Infrastructure Yes

N Bartley, Senior Specialist DPO – Pavements


A Purchase, Senior Transport Assets Officer


B Castelijn, Project Officer City Infrastructure Yes D Bruen, Senior Project Officer



ITEM 3 (Continued) 2015-16 LOCAL AREA WORKS PROGRAM – ADDITIONS FN334/375/02(P41) 14 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS The community, ratepayers and visitors to the Gold Coast will benefit from the new and improved facilities funded from the Local Area Works Program as listed in Attachment 3.1. 15 TIMING Projects listed with “TBA” will be added to the Local Area Works Program once formally approved by Council and included in Design/Construction Programs for implementation in conjunction with other priority works. 16 CONCLUSION The proposed additions to the Local Area Works and Services Program as suggested by divisional councillors in conjunction with City officers are listed in Attachment 3.1. It is recommended that Council approve the additions in order that they can be implemented as soon as practicable. 17 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council resolves as follows: 1 That Attachment 3.2 be deemed a confidential document in accordance with sections

171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009 and that the attachment remain confidential unless Council decides otherwise by resolution.

2 That the additions listed in Attachment 3.1 be approved for the 2015-16 Local Area

Works Program. Author: Authorised by: Garry Ellis Alton Twine Program Coordinator Project Management Unit Director City Infrastructure 27 April 2016 iSPOT: #54822821; Atts: #54822973 & #54823254 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CI16.0512.003 moved Cr Owen-Jones seconded Cr Vorster 1 That Attachment 3.2 be deemed a confidential document in accordance with

sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009 and that the attachment remain confidential unless Council decides otherwise by resolution.

2 That the additions listed in Attachment 3.1 be approved for the 2015-16 Local

Area Works Program.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY


Attachment 3.1

CITY INFRASTRUCTURE – ADDITIONS

Project

Manager

Div

Project

No

Location

Description

Proposed Local Area Works Allocation

New / Upgrade. Preliminary Estimated

Capital costs $

Additional

Annual Operations

& Maintenance

Costs $

Estimate

Useful Life Years

B. Castelijn (CR256023)

2

26104

Reserve Road, Upper Coomera

Increase the allocation for Project #26104 by $11,400 from $12,500 to $23,900 to reconfigure the wombat crossing by removing the existing barrier kerb, laying 23t of asphalt, applying street bond and reconstructing 9m² of concrete path at the entrance to the Highland Reserve State School.

11,400

Minimal

25

D. Bruen (CR259486)

10 TBA Benowa Road, Benowa

Initial estimate to construct a 30m right turning lane from Benowa Road into Marbella Drive.

53,600 1,000 25

D. Bruen (CR257377

10 TBA Bordeaux Parade, Mermaid Waters

Construction of a 75m x 1.5m wide concrete path, 2 x pedestrian ramps and the adjustment of a Telstra pit from #10 to #16. The works also include the reconstruction of 8m² of residential driveway.

30,000 Minimal 50

D. Bruen (CR250413)

10 TBA Margaret Avenue, Broadbeach

Reconfigure the existing, and construct additional car parking adjacent to the Broadbeach State School. The works include the construction of 80m of barrier kerb, 400m² of road pavement with an asphalt surface, line-marking and signage.

77,500 1,000 25

iSPOT: #54822973


ITEM 4 CITY ASSETS BRANCH HAULAGE ROUTE (EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES) REVIEW ER409/154/-(P3) Refer 2 page attachment 1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY Not Applicable. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Not Applicable. 3 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of the report is to advise Council of the recently completed audit of currently active quarry sites within the city and to provide an updated list of extractive haulage routes. 4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS Ex Minute No E99.0408.009: “That Council adopt the Extractive Industries (Quarry) Haul Routes Map and Listing as the basis for allocation of funds for future expenditure programmes.” Ex Minute No CI04.0909.010 (in part): 1 That Council note that heavy haulage vehicles associated with extractive industry damage

many roads that are not adjacent to the industries. 5 DISCUSSION Extractive Industry Levy Extractive industry property owners currently contribute to the Extractive Industries Road Maintenance Differential Rate Levy. As part of the City’s capital budget, revenue is received from extractive industry property owners through this levy. The rate is levied to obtain funding for the ongoing maintenance of roads affected by heavy vehicle haulage associated with extractive industry operations. The Rate Levy does not reference specific haulage routes or definition of a haulage route. Extractive industry operations involve the removal of raw material such as sand, rock, crushed rock or natural gravels/soil deposits. These materials are transported from the quarry source to a variety of industry locations throughout the City. The type of industry which uses the raw materials as produced at the quarry source, or reconstituted to form composite materials, include: · Concrete batching plants · Asphalt and aggregate sealing operations · Landfills and Bulk Filling · Garden nursery industry · Civil Infrastructure, domestic and commercial building operations


ITEM 4 (Continued) HAULAGE ROUTE (EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES) REVIEW ER409/154/-(P3) Active Quarry Sites and Routes City Assets branch recently undertook a review of the Active Quarry Sites Register and concluded that the following properties have ceased quarry operations and are no longer subject to Extractive Industry Differential Levy.

· Lot 41 SP198109 - Wharf Street, Pimpama · Lot 11 SP258752 - 34 Maudsland Road, Oxenford The above properties will be removed from the Active Quarry Sites Register and the City’s records and maps will be updated accordingly. Attachment 4.1 provides the City’s mapped active quarry sites and routes while Attachment 4.2 contains a comprehensive list of extractive industry routes and current active quarry sites. No additional sites were identified in the review. 2016-17 Proposed Rate Structure The following tables summarise the proposed 2016-17 Differential Rate Component. Detailed explanations are provided below on the proposed expenditures for 2016-17. In 2016-17, the Extractive Industries component contained within Differential General Rate is proposed to increase from a total (p.a.) of $1,460,000 to $1,497,000 representing an increase of $37,000 (2.53%). This proposed revenue is raised from the properties contained in the City’s 4P Differential General Rate Category (Land that is used for quarry or extractive industry purposes) and based on the rateable valuation of the land. The Differential Rate will be considered by Council as part of the 2016-17 budget deliberations. Extractive Industries Differential Rate Component Purpose of Expenditure 2015-16

Rate $ 2016-17 Rate $

Variance $

Extractive Industries 1,460,000 1,497,000 37,000 Total Proposed Differential Rate 1,460,000 1,497,000 37,000


ITEM 4 (Continued) HAULAGE ROUTE (EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES) REVIEW ER409/154/-(P3) 2016-17 Proposed Expenditure – Differential Rate Component Item Proposed

Expenditure $

Proposed Revenue

$ Extractive Industries Revenue raised is directed towards additional road maintenance on roads that form quarry haulage routes in acknowledgment of the additional wear and tear caused by heavy haulage trucks operating out of the various extractive industry sites. The program is under development and subject to a report to Council. The program includes the following projects at this stage:

_

1,497,000

Cuthbert Drive Yatala, From Computer Road (630) to Yatala Brewery Access (1002) – Asphalt Overlay

$298,069

Darlington Drive Yatala, From Cuthbert Drive (0) to Seal Change (1835) - Reseal

$165,990

Old Coach Road Upper Coomera, From Coomera Springs Boulevard (3114) to change of seal (3512) – Full Pavement Reconstruction

$249,518

Pimpama Jacobs Well Road Jacobs Well, From Huth Road (1505) to Kerkin Road (4211) - Reseal

$219,977

Wharf Road Pimpama, From Pimpama Jacobs Well Road (0) to chain 150 - Full Pavement Reconstruction

$86,493

Reserve Road Upper Coomera, From Number 632 (6253) to Tamborine (6600) - Full Pavement Reconstruction

$339,471

Reserve Road Upper Coomera, From Lakes End (5929) to Number 632 (6253) - Full Pavement Reconstruction

$137,482

Totals 1,497,000 1,497,000 Acquittal of Expenditure 2015-16 Rate Revenue

The current year’s program is 100% complete. The funding is exclusively used for quarry roads to ensure that the safety of the road user is maintained and the respective road pavements are structurally fit for purpose. Effects of Heavy Traffic Loadings Currently the City’s extractive road network is experiencing:

· Increased demand for the use of heavy vehicle combinations, particularly B-double articulated trucks

· Progressive increases in regulated heavy vehicle mass and dimension limits · Strong growth in long-distance freight and cumulative long-term investment in major

road infrastructure, particularly the realignment and duplication of parts of the inter-capital national highway network.

The City aims to focus on road user needs and expectations based on meeting "reasonable" maintenance operation targets and sound asset management programs relative to the extractive industry and haulage road network functions.


ITEM 4 (Continued) HAULAGE ROUTE (EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES) REVIEW ER409/154/-(P3) A broader (whole of city) freight transport study is currently being led by the City’s Transport and Traffic Branch. The study investigates a number of freight issues including heavy vehicle movements within the city. Some of the key objectives in relation to heavy vehicles are as follows: · Review existing roads hierarchies and heavy traffic swept path requirements · Investigate heavy freight movements · Identify traffic generation and road network capacity · Traffic implications to the road network in terms of traffic efficiency and road safety. · Consult with DTMR, City Directorates and other stakeholders · Update extractive industry sites and haulage routes A key deliverable for the whole of City freight strategy will be to provide detailed traffic composition data for current and future traffic conditions. This will identify heavy vehicle loadings on the strategic road network within the City’s defined industrial areas. This information will set an accurate baseline for determining accelerated maintenance and replacement costs associated with haulage routes. The impacts of extractive industry heavy vehicle loadings on City roads needs to be assessed, giving consideration to expected current and future traffic movements, pavements structural capacity and accelerated deterioration rates, public safety (swept path analysis for intersections and turning lanes) and budgetary constraints. Accelerated damage to pavements can be linked to increased heavy haulage vehicles associated with major development along historic haulage routes, as well as along new routes to newly developing areas. It is anticipated that the heavy freight transport study will be completed in early 2017. On completion, the Quarry Roads Register and the Differential Rate Levy will be revised and a report will be presented to Council for its consideration. City of Gold Coast Management Support Documentation

The management support documentation comprises a folio of support documents, each of which has a key function: · Active Quarries Sites Register · Extractive Industry Map · City Infrastructure Sustainable Pavement Management draft Plan (SPMP) ; and · City Infrastructure Asset Management Plan (Pavement) · City of Gold Coast City Plan and Land Development Guidelines (LDG) · Gold Coast City Transport Strategy 2031 · Department of Transport and Main Roads Guidelines “Guidelines for Assessment of

Road Impacts of Development (GARID) 2006” · National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020 · Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, Truck productivity:

sources, trends and future prospects Report 123 – 2011. · Multi-Combination Route in Queensland map from Department of Transport and Main

Roads · Yatala Enterprise Area Local Area Plan


ITEM 4 (Continued) HAULAGE ROUTE (EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES) REVIEW ER409/154/-(P3) 6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND

OPERATIONAL PLAN

This agenda satisfies the following Organisational objectives: Key focus area 3 - A city connecting people and places We have integrated, accessible transport networks that connect people and places, locally, regionally and internationally. · 3.1 – There is a choice of transport systems serving the city. · 3.2 – Public transport and other environmentally friendly modes of travel are attractive

and desirable for people to use. · 3.3 – The transport network is well maintained and meets relevant safety standards. Gold Coast City Transport Strategy 2013

Theme 18 of the City of Gold Coast Transport Strategy 2013 states “Plan, invest in and manage the road network to provide a match between the transport function of each road with the places it goes and the users who need priority”. 7 COMMONWEALTH GAMES IMPACT Nil. 8 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS Budget/funding considerations Funding for the pavement preservation and reseal program works will come from Extractive Industries Budget Centre C12580C005 and Cost Centre 1003792. People and Culture

No extra staff will be required for this project. 9 RISK MANAGEMENT City Infrastructure project teams will mitigate risk in accordance with the requirements of the risk management procedure outlined in the City Infrastructure Operating Procedures Manual. 10 STATUTORY MATTERS Not Applicable. 11 COUNCIL POLICIES The procurement, pavement design and construction processes have been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Procurement Policy and the Land Development Guidelines. 12 DELEGATIONS Not Applicable.


ITEM 4 (Continued) HAULAGE ROUTE (EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES) REVIEW ER409/154/-(P3) 13 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION The following stakeholders have been involved and have participated in the content and recommendations as they relate to them:-

Name and/or Title of the Stakeholder consulted


Is the Stakeholder satisfied with content of this Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate)

Alton Twine– Director City Infrastructure City Infrastructure Yes Mark Ash - Manager City Assets City Infrastructure Yes Ken Deutscher – Manager Transport and Traffic


Darrin McNeilage – Executive Coordinator Transport Assets


Alex Rummery – Executive Coordinator Directorate Finances

Office of the Chief Executive Officer

Yes

Bart Bartley – Coordinator Transport Assets


14 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS External / community stakeholder impacts

No adverse impacts are expected to be experienced by external / community stakeholders during the undertaking of this work. 15 TIMING Not Applicable. 16 CONCLUSION A recent review of the City’s Active Quarry Sites Register determined that the following two properties have ceased quarry operations and are no longer subject to Extractive Industry Differential Levy. · Lot 41 SP198109 - Wharf Street, Pimpama · Lot 11 SP258752 - 34 Maudsland Road, Oxenford The above two properties are removed from the Active Quarry Sites Register and the City’s records are updated accordingly. Attachment 4.1 contains mapped active quarry sites and routes. In addition, Attachment 4.2 contains a comprehensive list of extractive industry routes and current active quarry sites.


ITEM 4 (Continued) HAULAGE ROUTE (EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES) REVIEW ER409/154/-(P3) 17 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council notes the content of this report. Author: Authorised by: Darrin McNeilage Executive Coordinator Transport Assets 26 April 2016

Alton Twine Director City Infrastructure

iSPOT# 54807888-V2 + Attach(s) #54827846, 54829283 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CI16.0512.004 moved Cr Owen-Jones seconded Cr PC Young It is recommended that Council notes the content of this report.

CARRIED


Attachment 4.1


Attachment 4.2


ITEM 5 TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC BRANCH REVIEW OF CAR SHARING TRIAL AND CONCLUSION OF SERVICES TT1017/113/21/04(P1) 1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY Not Applicable. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Not Applicable. 3 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to:

1. Present the results of the two year car sharing trial operated by Hertz 24/7 which ended September 2015.

2. Note the conclusion of car sharing services on the Gold Coast for the present time.

3. Outline potential options for the City to support future car sharing operations.

4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CP12.1212.013 moved Cr Gates seconded Cr Caldwell 1 That Council approve the trialling of car sharing services on the Gold Coast through a

public process, which may entail a tender process or if deemed to be in the public interest an expression of interest for a car share provider to operate a trial on the Gold Coast for up to two years.

2 That Council provide “in-kind” support to the car sharing provider for the duration of the trial by provision of:

a Linemarking and signs to delineate car share spaces.

b 12 council operated on-street and off-street spaces and waiver of parking fees and time limits.

c Enforcement of car share spaces in line with existing enforcement activities. CARRIED ADOPTED AT COUNCIL 13 DECEMBER 2012 RESOLUTION G12.1213.027 moved Cr Gates seconded Cr Caldwell

That Committee Recommendation CP12.1212.013 be adopted as printed.

CARRIED 5 DISCUSSION Description of car sharing Car sharing allows users to pay for and use cars on an ‘as-needs’ basis, through membership with a car sharing organisation. This concept differs from typical car rental operations by allowing users to book vehicles for a short period of time, such as hours rather than days, and only pay for the time/kilometres driven.


ITEM 5 (Continued) REVIEW OF CAR SHARING TRIAL AND CONCLUSION OF SERVICES TT1017/113/21/04(P1) The vehicles are deployed around the subject area and can be booked online and/or through an app. They can be parked on public roads in allocated kerbside spaces or on private land. In some cities, car share spaces are integrated with private developments that are transit oriented; i.e. they have good access to public transport, and lower provision of on-site car parking.

Car sharing services in suitable densely settled urban areas can provide an opportunity for residents to either reduce or eliminate the need for private vehicle ownership which in turn reduces demand on traffic capacity and car parking spaces.

These areas typically are well served by public transport and are located close to major employment centres. They typically exhibit a higher mode share for walking, cycling and public transport, and therefore less need to own two cars or even own one car per household. From a private citizen’s point of view, car sharing can be a much cheaper alternative to car ownership for people driving less than 5,000 km per year. Car sharing has been introduced in Australia within the last decade, with well-established schemes in Sydney and Melbourne, beginning in 2005 and 2007 respectively. Smaller services also operate in Perth, Adelaide, Canberra and Brisbane (noting the latter has services only operating from privately owned off-street car parks). A January 2016 report, ‘The Impacts of Car Sharing in Australia, produced on behalf of the International Carsharing Association estimated that car sharing services support 66,000 users with 2,200 car sharing vehicles in Australia. Car sharing services are delivered predominately by three providers in the Australia, being GoGet, Hertz (branded FlexiCar in Melbourne) and GreenShareCar, with several other smaller companies beginning to emerge.

Results of the Gold Coast Car Sharing Trial Following a tender process, Hertz 24/7 (Hertz) was selected to operate car sharing services on the Gold Coast during the trial period. In September 2013, services were launched with a total of twelve (12) vehicles located in Southport, Surfers Paradise, Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads. All vehicles were located in pre-allocated kerbside spaces on City-controlled roads.

The objective of the trial was to support the Gold Coast City Transport Strategy 2031 (The Transport Strategy) vision for more sustainable travel choices by testing the potential benefits and viability of car sharing services on the Gold Coast.

During the first 12 month period (September 2013 to September 2014):

· Membership reached 341 members in August 2014 up from the 61 members in September 2013 when the scheme commenced;

· The fleet recorded an average 6.7% annual utilisation rate (being the percentage of time a car is used within the given period). This is well below the sustainable fleet utilisation level of 25%; and

· Just 40% of the members using vehicles resided in the Gold Coast. This lower usage by locals was expected considering the tourism market and the popularity of Gold Coast amongst national and international holidaymakers.

· Despite a promising start, the usage trends remained flat in these first 12 months of operations. The City’s geography, demographics and public transport infrastructure (including construction activities associated with light rail) were identified by Hertz as the main reasons behind the slow start. As a result, Hertz 24/7 experienced significant financial losses during the initial 12 months.


ITEM 5 (Continued) REVIEW OF CAR SHARING TRIAL AND CONCLUSION OF SERVICES TT1017/113/21/04(P1) Following the 12 month review, a decision was made by Hertz to reduce the fleet size down to six (6) vehicles to reflect demand and supported a move to a more financially sustainable position. The vehicle deployment in Burleigh Heads ceased in February 2015 on the basis that this area experienced the lowest utilisation rate for the service. During the second 12 month period (October 2014 to September 2015):

· Membership reached 611 members at the end of the trial with an average of 16 new members joining each month;

· The fleet recorded an average utilisation rate was 9.42% during the second 12 month period. Only one location in Ferny Avenue, Surfers Paradise was consistently performing close to or above the 25% sustainable utilisation level at an average of 27% utilisation with the next best performing locations averaging only 13% utilisation;

· Less than 6% of members using the vehicles being Gold Coast residents; · Key performance indicators used by Hertz improved with the fleet size reduction,

especially in the suburbs of Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach. Despite the financial and operational improvements in the last 12 months of the trial losses continued to occur.

The underperformance of the scheme over the trial period was assumed by Hertz to be due to the Gold Coast’s current high levels of car ownership and transient population trends. The dispersed employment and residential areas of the Gold Coast were also thought by Hertz to be contributing factors of the scheme’s underperformance. Although the vehicles were located in densely settled areas, there did not seem to be a market to utilise these vehicles for journeys to work or for other one off trip purposes. Following a review by Hertz, it was determined that the continuation of services on the Gold Coast could no longer be justified. This decision by Hertz was based on the following factors:

· Operational constraints with the size of their car sharing operations meant that it was difficult for Hertz to justify providing dedicated resources in the Gold Coast;

· Financial loses over the trial period, especially during the first 12 months, meant that it is unsustainable for Hertz to continue operating on the Gold Coast without the City providing additional financial support or entering into a joint venture to deliver the service.

The City’s contribution (and contract) to the scheme was limited to providing “in-kind” support to the car sharing provider. Dedicated kerbside parking spaces were provided at selected locations within the trial centres for use by the service provider. It was never intended or appropriate for the City to become involved in the operations of the service or provide further financial support for its continued delivery. Based on the results of the trial, Hertz concluded there is not an existing commercially viable market for car sharing (in its current/traditional operational model) on the Gold Coast. Accordingly, Hertz ceased car sharing services on the Gold Coast at the end March 2016. Other Factors Since the trial began 2013 there have been a number of advances in technology and changes in the transport behaviour. These include:

· the introduction of new and different car sharing operating models (e.g. one way services, peer to peer car sharing);


ITEM 5 (Continued) REVIEW OF CAR SHARING TRIAL AND CONCLUSION OF SERVICES TT1017/113/21/04(P1)

· the emergence and popularity of ride sharing (e.g. Uber, GoCar); and

· the introduction of light rail to the main areas served by the car sharing trial (although of course this factor was well known before the trial began).

These advances may have contributed to the poor results of the car sharing trial and may also influence its future potential in providing a viable travel choice for City residents and visitors. Also, it is considered by the City that Hertz lacked a consistent marketing campaign and strategy over the trial period which may have impacted on residents’ level of awareness and uptake of the scheme. Observation by Council staff who signed up to the program indicated an initial high level of communication that did not persist after the first few months of the trial. Future of Car Sharing on the Gold Coast Key Action 6.4 of the Transport Strategy endorses continued support for car sharing schemes and it is too early to conclude that such schemes will never be viable on the Gold Coast. The City should therefore leave the option open to consider supporting alternative car sharing models in the future when a viable business case is presented. Demand for this service may increase in the future as a result of factors such as development trends of lower parking to dwelling ratios influencing car ownership levels, should these be approved under the City Plan. There are currently provisions to enable integration of car share services within developments, under the 2015 City Plan. Specifically the City Plan’s Transport Code (Acceptable Outcomes AO4.1 & AO4.2) makes provision for car sharing through “Travel Demand Measures”. With recent experience in other cities these can be reviewed in future regular amendment processes for the City Plan to take into account demand and development trends over time. 6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND

OPERATIONAL PLAN The Transport Strategy key action 6.4 supports car sharing schemes to support a sustainable transport system. This has been identified as a key action to achieve the objective:

§ ‘To manage car parking in a way that supports the economic vitality of the city and boosts sustainable transport use’.

7 COMMONWEALTH GAMES IMPACT Not applicable. 8 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS Budget/Funding Considerations The City’s investment in the trial was limited to installation of dedicated car share bays in 2013. Reinstatement of parking bays has been a matter of removing signage and remarking the bays.


ITEM 5 (Continued) REVIEW OF CAR SHARING TRIAL AND CONCLUSION OF SERVICES TT1017/113/21/04(P1) The majority of the spaces did not impact on paid parking therefore there has been no significant impact on parking revenue. Only one metered parking space in Surfers Paradise was involved for the duration of the trial and one metered space in Burleigh for the first 8 months. 9 RISK MANAGEMENT As the service was not run by the City there are limited risks involved with ending car sharing services on the Gold Coast. Hertz provided communication to its members and some communication material has been produced for the Council’s website. 10 STATUTORY MATTERS Not applicable to the recent trial, although these can come into play in future situations under the City Plan, should an integrated scheme of development with some provision for car sharing spaces emerge, as discussed under section 5 above. 11 COUNCIL POLICIES No policies are currently applicable. Kerbside use allocation in the city is currently under review and it is intended a new Kerbside Use Policy will be presented for consideration by Council in late 2016. It is proposed specific provision for allocation of kerbside parking to approved car sharing schemes or trials will be incorporated in this new policy.

12 DELEGATIONS Not applicable. 13 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION Name and/or Title of the Stakeholder Consulted



Ken Deutscher, Manager Transport and Traffic


Andy Stewart, Executive Coordinator Transport Planning and Policy


Shirlene Yee Yet, Coordinator Traffic Engineering


14 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS Hertz provided communication to their active members prior to the removal of vehicles in March 2016. The communication from Hertz outlined the reason for the decision and provided acknowledgement of the City’s support provided during the trial. Few concerns have been raised with the City about the end of car share services, with only one Councillor Request received to date. The webpage on the trial and reference to car sharing services have also been removed from Council website.


ITEM 5 (Continued) REVIEW OF CAR SHARING TRIAL AND CONCLUSION OF SERVICES TT1017/113/21/04(P1) 15 TIMING Vehicles were removed from the spaces in late March 2016. City officers have since removed the dedicated spaces and changed kerbside space to uses deemed appropriate for the specific locations and surrounding demands. 16 CONCLUSION Based on the results of the trial it seems clear there is currently not an existing commercially viable market for this form of car sharing in the city. However this could change in the future due to a variety of possibilities, including developing support for such schemes and different business models for implementation. The City’s original support (and contract) was limited to providing “in-kind” support to the car sharing provider, and should remain so for any future proposal. The City will continue to consider alternative car sharing proposals as they are presented. It will, however, always remain the responsibility of the service provider to demonstrate there is sufficient demand for the service. The City will review and refine its policy approaches to car sharing over time, including provisions relating to car sharing in developments as part of the City Plan and a revised kerbside use policy.


ITEM 5 (Continued) REVIEW OF CAR SHARING TRIAL AND CONCLUSION OF SERVICES TT1017/113/21/04(P1) 17 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council resolves as follows: 1 That Council notes the results of the car sharing trial that commenced in September

2013 and that the Hertz 24/7 car sharing service ceased operation on 31 March 2016.

2 That Council, at its discretion, will consider alternative car sharing proposals in the future, should a viable business case be presented and the proposal is deemed to be in the public interest.

3 That Council will keep car sharing provisions under review, as part of Travel Demand Measures in the City Plan’s Transport Code, as well any future Kerbside Use Policy, to ensure arrangements are achievable and make possible the delivery of car sharing schemes integrated with new developments.

Author: Authorised by: Jason Brook Alton Twine Specialist Transport Planner Director City Infrastructure 27 April 2016 TRACKS REF: 53544309v2 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CI16.0512.005 moved Cr Owen-Jones seconded Cr Vorster 4 That Council notes the results of the car sharing trial that commenced in

September 2013 and that the Hertz 24/7 car sharing service ceased operation on 31 March 2016.

5 That Council, at its discretion, will consider alternative car sharing proposals in the future, should a viable business case be presented and the proposal is deemed to be in the public interest.

6 That Council will keep car sharing provisions under review, as part of Travel Demand Measures in the City Plan’s Transport Code, as well any future Kerbside Use Policy, to ensure arrangements are achievable and make possible the delivery of car sharing schemes integrated with new developments.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY


ITEM 6 GENERAL BUSINESS FAMILIARISATION OF WORKS UNDERTAKEN BY CITY INFRASTRUCTURE CM787/788/05(P4) The Director City Infrastructure advised that immediately following the City Infrastructure Committee Meeting held 28 April 2016, members of the Committee and management participated in a familiarisation tour of works recently completed and/or currently being undertaken by City Infrastructure. The tour departed from Council Chambers at approximately 9.20am with the following sites visited – Location Details Gemvale Road (via Somerset) Link road construction works Scottsdale Drive Works in-progress for the installation of traffic lights

and removal of roundabout. (Black spot funding and Council)

University Drive Completed intersection upgrade works - installation of traffic lights and removal of roundabout. (Black spot funding and Council)

Narrowneck Works in-progress installing seawall protection. Southport Depot To familiarise Councillors with the new depot for

City Infrastructure. The bus returned to Council Chambers at approximately 12.00pm. In attendance were -

· Cr Dawn Crichlow OAM · Cr Gary Baildon AM · Cr William Owen-Jones · Cr Peter Young · Cr Hermann Vorster · Cr Pauline Young · Cr Daphne McDonald (in attendance at Gemvale Road only due to illness) · Cr Kristyn Boulton · Alton Twine, Director City Infrastructure · Matthew Hulse, Manager Infrastructure Delivery · Mark Ash, Manager City Assets (in attendance at Narrowneck only) · Ken Deutscher, Manager Transport & Traffic · Jack Francis, Acting Executive Coordinator Construction & Bus driver

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CI16.0512.006 moved Cr Crichlow seconded Cr PJ Young 1 That the report be noted. 2 That the Director City Infrastructure arrange for further familiarisation tours

quarterly for City Infrastructure Committee members and any other interested Councillors.

CARRIED


There being no further business the meeting closed at 9.42am.


These Pages

Numbered 1 to 51

Constitute The Adopted Report Of The Meeting

Of The City Infrastructure Committee

Held Thursday 12 May 2016

city infrastructure committe - city of gold coast · 2019-06-23 · january 2016, covered by...

Documents