Nelson City Council identified the city centre as one of its top four priorities in our Long Term Plan. A safe walkable Nelson was identified as one of its six key moves to create a successful, people-focused regional heart in the City Centre Programme.

Investment in better streets and places delivers quantifiable commercial returns. Businesses, residents, developers and visitors all benefit from investment in the public realm and walkability.

With these objectives in mind, Council is looking at how we can further develop a thriving, vibrant, forward-thinking city centre that welcomes and encourages more pedestrian activity now and in the years to come.

More detail on the "Why" can be seen in the webinar

Council has developed three possible options for how to increase the amenity, safety and walkability of our city centre by making more space for pedestrians. All of these options are semi-permanent and can be constructed using a range of removable and adaptable kit including raised wooden platforms, planter boxes, seating furniture, and street markings. They can be used as a trial of how we might want to use public space into the future, similar to how we approached the pedestrian mall trials for Upper Trafalgar Street.

Council has temporarily reduced the speed limit within the city centre from 50km/hr to 30km/hr – it is proposed that this measure will remain in place for all of the options discussed below.

As our highest pedestrian areas, the options being considered for footpath widening focus on Trafalgar Street and the southern (sunny) sides of Bridge and Hardy Streets.

Trafalgar Street, between Halifax and Hardy Streets, provides 134 angle car parks. Hardy Street provides 25 parallel parks on the southern side and Bridge Street provides 36 parallel parks on the southern side. The options will reduce the number of carparks outside businesses. The exact number will be determined by any final design, considering your feedback, and the need to address any concerns about access, deliveries and other needs.

Options 1 to 3 involve partial or full reallocation of selected parking spaces and/or lanes closest to the kerb edge to create a larger area for people to walk, and in the case of option 3 to walk and cycle.

Options 1 to 2 can be easily removed and adapted if needed. The footpath can be made wider using decking and planters. In contrast, the measures in option 3 could also be tactical and reversible or they could be more permanent. If a more permanent solution is desired this may require further public consultation before it can be implemented.

Option 4 is to leave the existing footpaths and car parking the way they currently are.

These four options are described in more detail below.

All the proposed options require further exploration through more detailed design once Council has received public feedback. Your feedback will help shape the final design. Council is conscious of the need to provide for all levels of accessibility as well as service delivery, queuing, outdoor dining and pick up zones.

Materials might include non-slip timber decking on a metal frame (similar to the successful redesign of Auckland’s High Street), planter boxes, ground graphics, signage and managed servicing. Quality, robust materials that support safe movement and places for people is seen as key to achieving a successful outcome

For options 1 to 3, some help from Government may come in the form of funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency’s Innovating Streets for People fund, which supports projects using “tactical urbanism” techniques such as pilots and pop-ups, or interim treatments that make it safer and easier for people walking and cycling in the city. Up to $900,000 of funding is being sought by Council from the Innovative Streets for People fund which can be used if Council decides to go ahead with any of options 1 to 3 (outcome will be known by mid-June).

In addition, Council receives up to 51% funding assistance rates (FARs) for local transport projects from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). It is difficult to say how much government funding versus rates funding will make up each of the options until they are designed and funding applications are decided upon.

Options 1 to 3 will involve different levels of budget considerations in addition to any Government funding.

To give you an idea of likely costs, a range of potential effects on rates has been provided below. The range accounts for different levels of government funding that might be obtained.

The capital works required for options 1 to 3 could increase rates by the following. Note the difference between 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 costs is based on the assumption that any option would only start construction in the second half of the financial year 2020/2021.

To provide some context, Councils existing Transport budget for 2020/2021 is $15 million, and of that $1.2 million is allocated for footpath works. A top up of $5 million has been provisionally set aside for implementation of any of options 1 to 3 should Council decide to do any works after considering public feedback gained from this survey.

Option 1:

Estimated Cost - Up to $3.1 million

Estimated Cost per rating unit 2020 / 2021 - $3 to $4

Estimated Cost per rating unit 2021 / 2022 - $8 to $10

Option 2:

Estimated Cost - Up to $4.7 million

Estimated Cost per rating unit 2020 / 2021 - $6 to $7

Estimated Cost per rating unit 2021 / 2022 - $13 to $17

Option 3*:

Estimated Cost - $800,000 to $12 million

Estimated Cost per rating unit 2020 / 2021 - $1 to $17

Estimated Cost per rating unit 2021 / 2022 - $2 to $45

Option 4:

Estimated Cost - $0

Estimated Cost per rating unit 2020 / 2021 - $0

Estimated Cost per rating unit 2021 / 2022 - $0

* The small end of the scale for option 3 provides for tactical treatment similar to Upper Trafalgar Street while the larger end of the scale would provide for premium paving from shop door to shop door and levelling of the whole area. If Option 3 were preferred, this could be undertaken as a trial similar to how we did Upper Trafalgar Street and then if successful there would need to be a further public consultation process under Pedestrian Mall provisions which would include conceptual design and costing options should there be a desire to make it permanent.