Transport Committee Agenda (2/2) Feb 13

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Transport Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
Wednesday, 13 February 2013 2.00 pm Reception Lounge Auckland Town Hall 301-305 Queen Street Auckland
Transport Committee OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP Chairperson Deputy Chairperson Cr Mike Lee Cr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO Mr James Brown Cr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Sandra Coney, QSO Cr Des Morrison Cr Richard Northey, ONZM Cr Dick Quax Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM Cr Wayne Walker Cr Penny Webster Mr Glenn Wilcox Cr George Wood, CNZM His Worship the Mayor, Len Brown, JP Deputy Mayor, Penny Hulse Chairperson, Independent Maori Statutory Board, Mr David Taipari
Ex-Officio Independent Maori Statutory Board Alternate (Quorum 7 members)
Desiree Tukutama Democracy Advisor 8 February 2013 Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7576 Email: desiree.tukutama@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Note:
The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Transport Committee will have responsibility for: Input into the Auckland Plan in relation to transport issues and aspirations; Advocating on behalf of Auckland to develop and enhance transport and connectivity for the region; and Prepare and recommend Regional Land Transport Strategy to the Governing Body and provide input on behalf of the Governing Body to the Auckland Regional Transport Programme.
Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to: Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009; Resource Management Act 1991; Land Transport Act 1998; and Land Transport Management Act 2003.
Transport Committee 13 February 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM

1 2 3 4 5 Apologies Declaration of Interest Confirmation of Minutes Petitions Public Input 5.1 5.2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Heart of the City - Wider Liveability Benefits the Pathway Steering Group Project Delivers
PAGE
5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 9 87 175 185
Local Board Input Extraordinary Business Notices of Motion Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update Transport Update Resolutions from 4th October 2012 Orakei Local Board: Auckland Transport Update Orakei Local Board: October 2012 Correspondence Consideration of Extraordinary Items
Page 3
Transport Committee 13 February 2013 1 Apologies At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received. 2 Declaration of Interest Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have. 3 Confirmation of Minutes That the minutes of the Transport Committee held on Wednesday, 5 December 2012, be confirmed as a true and correct record. 4 Petitions At the close of the agenda no requests for petitions had been received. 5 Public Input Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker. 5.1 Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Purpose 1. The purpose of the report is to give an update to the Transport Committee on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project. Executive Summary 2. Mr Bevan Woodward, Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust, will give a presentation to the Transport Committee on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project. Recommendations That the Transport Committee: a) b) Receives the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway presentation. Thanks Mr Bevan Woodward, Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust for his presentation.
Page 5
Transport Committee 13 February 2013 5.2 Heart of the City - Wider Liveability Benefits the Pathway Steering Group Project Delivers Purpose 1. The purpose of the report is to present to the Transport Committee, the wider liveability benefits that the Pathway Steering Group project delivers. Executive Summary 2. Mr Alex Swney, Heart of the City, will speak to the Transport Committee on the wider liveability benefits that the Pathway Steering Group project delivers. Recommendations That the Transport Committee: a) b) Receives the Heart of the City Wider Liveability Benefits the Pathway Steering Group Project Delivers, deputation. Thanks Mr Alex Swney, Heart of the City, for his deputation.
Local Board Input Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda. At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
Extraordinary Business Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if (a) (b) The local authority by resolution so decides; and The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, (i) (ii) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.
Page 6
Transport Committee 13 February 2013 Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting, (a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if (i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(ii)
(b)
no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.
Notices of Motion At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Page 7
Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

File No.: CP2012/24488
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to update the Transport Committee on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project (SkyPath) and provide guidance for consideration by the Strategy and Finance Committee.
Executive Summary
2. The SkyPath has been previously reported to the Transport Committee. The following progress has been made on the project since the last update in August 2011: The AHB Pathway Trust (the Trust) has developed a lighter structure by using aluminium in the central span; Auckland Transport (AT) has undertaken a review of the SkyPaths business case and referred it back to the Council to consider funding sources; A range of capital costs for the project has been identified between $28 and $41 million. There is still uncertainty about the capital costs, however for the purpose of the financial analysis in this report a cost of $31 million has been assumed (as outlined in paragraph k) in Attachment A); Update of information in the Trusts business case and public private partnership (PPP) proposal; Comparison of the SkyPath to the rest of the transport and cycling and walking programme; Quantification of the Councils contribution to the SkyPath; and Initial identification of project risks (outlined below in paragraph 20). 3. This report is seeking the Transport Committees consideration of the following items: Support for provision of a walk and cycle way across the Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) in the short term or wait for provision once an Additional Waitemat Harbour Crossing (AWHC) is in place; Referral for consideration by the Strategy and Finance Committee of Councils contribution (in the form of part underwrite and assuming obligations at the end of the PPP period) to the proposed PPP arrangement; Recognition of the relative priority of a Council contribution to this project, compared to the rest of the transport programme; and Recognition of the relative priority of this project, in terms of timing and sequencing of other walking and cycling projects. 4. This report proposes that the Transport Committee refers the SkyPath to the Strategy and Finance Committee for consideration of the financial and procurement aspects of the project.
Recommendations
That the Transport Committee: a) b) Receives this report on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update. Supports in principle the provision of a shared walk and cycle way across the Harbour Bridge rather than wait for provision once an Additional Waitemat Harbour Crossing is in place subject to financial feasibility analysis.
Page 9
Item 9
Transport Committee 13 February 2013 c)
Item 9
Acknowledges the significant transport benefits (as well as recreational and tourism benefits) the SkyPath would bring to the Auckland region in terms of completing a missing link in the Auckland Cycle Network and walking network, which would be further enhanced by the completion of the Northern Linkage/Shoal Bay. Acknowledges the timing of the SkyPath, in the short term, would take advantage of Waterfront Aucklands planned waterfront cycleway and walkway from Westhaven Marina to Daldy Street, and planned improvements by Auckland Transport to the local streets in Northcote as part of its Safe Schools Programme. Requests the New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Transport to consider the Shoal Bay proposal as part of the investigation of the Northern Link between Northcote and Akoranga to provide improved walking and cycling connections to the northern end of the proposed SkyPath. Recommends that a report should be prepared with further information for the Strategy and Finance Committee to consider funding sources and the Councils contributions (in the form of part underwrite and assumption of obligations at the end of the public private partnership period) to the SkyPath. This further information would include: Procurement arrangements: fully contested or the proposed negotiated public private partnership; Detailed risk assessment; Comparison of a public private partnership arrangement with traditional procurement process to determine best value for money; and Assessment of the project against the Councils Significance and Public Private Partnership Policies.
d)
e)
f)
g)
Recognises that while the benefits of the SkyPath are significant, any Council contribution to the project should come from the Councils transport funding allocation to Auckland Transport, rather than disrupt Auckland Transports ability to deliver the walking and cycling programme which obtains New Zealand Transport Agency subsidies.
Discussion
Background 5. The Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) does not currently have any walking and cycling access over it. This missing connection is a critical gap in Aucklands Cycling Network (ACN). Past investigations have considered how to provide walking and cycling access over the AHB but no plans have been progressed. The AHB clip-on lanes were strengthened by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) in 2010. This work has considerably extended the life span of the clip-on lanes and consequently the NZTA expects the AHB and clip-on lanes to have an indefinite service life (e.g. the next 100 years) providing heavy freight movements are transferred to a new crossing at a certain load trigger point. However, not all of the strengthening necessary for a pathway to be attached to the AHB occurred at this time. For a number of years, the Trust (a team of private individuals with professional skills) has been championing for a pathway across the AHB. The Trust has developed the SkyPath to complete the missing link for walking and cycling access across the AHB which is proposed through a private funding scenario. The Trust has previously made deputations to the Transport Committee on this project on 3 May 2011 and 15 August 2011. At the 15 August 2011 meeting, the Transport Committee resolved:
6.
7.
8.
Page 10
Transport Committee 13 February 2013 b) d)
That the Transport Committee requests Auckland Transport to: i. identify appropriate resourcing and budget for a financial contribution for further investigation to an Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project, for consideration in the half-yearly review and the next Long Term Plan; ii. conduct more detailed investigations with New Zealand Transport Agency into design, procurement and financial arrangements, including an assessment of risks, in relation to the proposed Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway; iii. write to the Board of New Zealand Transport Agency to consider funding support to continue investigations into an Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway; iv. write to the Board of New Zealand Transport Agency to consider funding support for an Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project from the state highway fund, to reflect New Zealand Transport Agencys responsibilities to provide for walking and cycling alongside state highways; and v. ensure costings are subject to a competitive price process.
e)
That Auckland Transports further investigations into the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway be reported back to the appropriate Council Committee for consideration as part of the draft Long Term Plan process. That the Transport Committee support Councils ongoing role in coordinating the Auckland Harbour Bridge Technical Steering Group, as well as involvement in investigating financing aspects of the AHB Pathway.
f)
The Project 9. Such a connection over the AHB could provide significant benefits, including opportunities for active travel and recreation, as well as being a draw-card for tourists. However, this project has faced a number of challenges, including funding and structural engineering. Under conventional funding arrangements, using public money, it is unlikely that this project could be achieved within the next 20 years or until an Additional Waitemat Harbour Crossing (AWHC) frees up space on the existing AHB. The NZTA is custodian of the AHB. Uncertainties around timing and funding of an AWHC have led NZTA to put plans for an alternative walking and cycling facility as part of the next harbour crossing on hold in favour of SkyPath. Through the evaluation of the Trusts concept design, the NZTA has found that the SkyPath is considered to be a feasible engineering solution. However, NZTA has advised that it is not in a position to fund the SkyPath due to budget constraints and its cycling and walking forward programme already being in place. NZTAs internal processes require a fully contested public private partnership (PPP), joint Ministerial approval and compliance with the Better Business Case process. The NZTA have advised that the costs involved with this would likely be prohibitive for a project of this small scale. If the Council were funding all or part of this project in a conventional way, it would affect existing budgets (potentially the AT walking and cycling budget which attracts a NZTA subsidy) and existing programmes which have strong community expectation that they will proceed. Therefore, the use of an alternative funding option is being considered and this is consistent with the Auckland Plan requirement to investigate alternative funding options for transport projects. The PPP proposal depends on a toll being paid directly by cycling and walking users.
10.
11.
Page 11
Item 9
That the Transport Committee recognises that providing walking and cycling on the Auckland Harbour Bridge as a strategically important project.
Transport Committee 13 February 2013 Walk and Cycle Connections
Item 9
12.
The SkyPath would easily connect into the existing cycling and walking network and future proposals. At the southern end, the SkyPath would connect into Waterfront Aucklands waterfront cycleway and walkway from Westhaven to Daldy Street. The initial phase of this cycleway and walkway will be constructed in later 2013. The SkyPath may also connect with Platform 2 of the Westhaven Marina Village at a later date. Waterfront Auckland has indicated that it is willing to work together to achieve a seamless integration. At the northern end, the SkyPath would connect onto the local street network in Northcote which is considered safe for cyclists. The Auckland Cycle Network (ACN) identifies these routes as cycle connectors (blue) or cycle feeders (green) as shown the map below. In addition, AT plans to undertake improvements to some of these roads in the near future as part of its Safe Schools Programme. The two most direct routes to central Takapuna from the SkyPath entrance are 6 to 6.8km away.
Costs, Revenue and Funding 13. 14. Attachment A provides detailed information about costs and revenue. AT contracted Ernst & Young to undertake a review of the SkyPaths business case. This has clarified capital costs and likely revenue. This report (dated 2 November 2012) and the associated AT Board Paper are in Attachment B. The AT Board resolved to refer the project back to the Council to consider funding sources.
Page 12
Transport Committee 13 February 2013 15. The Ernst & Young report included a Northern Linkage within their estimate of the projects capital costs. This refers to the development of a cycleway and walkway alongside the Northern Motorway between Northcote and Akoranga. Council staff advise that the Northern Linkage is a separate project which should not be included in the costings for the SkyPath. The Northern Link is included in the NZTAs National Land Transport Programme 2012-2015 as probable and shown as a Cycle Highway in the ACN. However, based on current budgets, it is unlikely to be funded in that period. While it is not necessary for the Northern Link to proceed in order for the SkyPath to be constructed, it would increase patronage numbers and provide a more direct connection to Akoranga (and consequently Takapuna). The NZTA has indicated that if the SkyPath were to go ahead, then there is a stronger likelihood that the Northern Link project would proceed. The recent proposal from the Kaipatiki and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards and Reset Urban Design for Retrieving Shoal Bay Waterfront would also influence the location/design of any link in this area. Were the SkyPath to go ahead, the NZTA and AT would investigate a preferred alignment for an improved walking and cycling connection between the northern end of the SkyPath and Akoranga. There is a range of capital costs for the project (between $28 and $41 million) depending on the inclusion of various items (as detailed under paragraph k) in Attachment A), and how the project proceeds as a PPP. The analysis undertaken by Council staff, in discussion with AT and stakeholders, has determined that some of the additional costs identified in the Ernst & Young report may drop away based on the updated PPP proposal. Council staff advise that that the capital costs will be somewhere in between these figures and have assumed a cost of $31 million subject to further financial analysis. The Trust has obtained an initial proposal to fund the construction of the SkyPath from the PIP Fund as equity partner to the Trust. This proposal is detailed below and in Attachment C. In summary, under this proposal, the PIP Fund would cover the construction cost, the operating and maintenance costs, and underwrite the most risky 25% of the revenue. The less risky 75% of revenue would be underwritten by the Council (and others, e.g. community trusts), who in return would share in the revenue upside and the Council would own the SkyPath after the PPP period ends. The proposed revenue sharing diagram is included as Figure 5 in Attachment A. It is important to note, that the Council underwrite is only triggered when the expected revenue does not meet the breakeven point. It is considered that a traditional PPP (i.e. fully contested, such as used for Wiri Mens Prison or for Hobsonville Schools) is not appropriate for a project of this small scale. The fees set out in Figure 4 in Attachment A reflect a negotiated PPP, particularly given the expression of interest by the PIP Fund. A negotiated PPP is expected to significantly reduce the transaction costs for both parties by reducing the contestability element, which is where the large transaction costs lie. One risk with a negotiated PPP is that the process can become non-transparent. However, this could be managed by using an independent third party to assist in making the process transparent (KPMG have offered their assistance in this capacity), and running contestable tender processes to secure contractors to build the SkyPath and complete service elements (i.e. maintenance or cleaning). The difference between a fully contested PPP and a negotiated PPP is discussed in more detail under paragraph q) in Attachment A, however it important to note that the Transport Committee is being asked for a recommendation to refer this project onto the Strategy and Finance Committee and is not being asked to make a decision on the preferred method of procurement. As part of the further work for the Strategy and Finance Committee, Council staff will investigate the different procurement models, as well as alternative funding options. There are a number of potential risks associated with the project. A number of these are discussed above and/or in Attachment A, such as the use of a transparent negotiated PPP arrangement and the Council underwriting some of the risk. Due diligence and professional advice would be required to evaluate and negotiate a PPP arrangement. The PIP Fund believes the project is worthy of its investment and is of moderate risk.
16.
17.
18.
Risks 19.
Page 13
Item 9
Transport Committee 13 February 2013 20.
Item 9
The Councils Risk Assurance team have undertaken an initial review of the project and a risk register is being developed. A risk assessment workshop with key stakeholders is scheduled to refine the draft risk register and develop contingency planning in order to manage potential effects. Key risks include: Funding for operation costs; Funding for construction costs; Additional costs (note: contingency has been included in the business case to cover unexpected costs); Structural; Not obtaining, or delays in obtaining, resource consent for the SkyPath; Not all parties agreeing to the MoU or terms of agreement (including withdrawal of equity partner); Withdrawal of the equity partner during the PPP period; Operational costs when ownership of SkyPath reverts to the Council; Procurement arrangements delivery value for money; Political risk; Legal authority for Council entering into a PPP arrangement; and Public acceptability of the toll.
21.
When determining the relatively of this project in terms of the transport programme, the Transport Committee should also recognise that the SkyPath would have important recreation and tourism benefits. The benefits of completing the missing cycling and walking link across the Waitemat Harbour are significant and would offer wide ranging benefits to Aucklanders and tourists alike, which is a key differential of this project when compared with other projects included within the cycling and walking programme. Recreation and tourist users could amount to just over half of the expected total patronage. In considering sources of Council funding, consideration could be given to the extent funds are allocated from the transport budget or other budgets. In conclusion, this agenda report seeks support from the Transport Committee to proceed with a report to the Strategy and Finance Committee to consider funding sources and the Councils contributions to this project for the following reasons: The SkyPath would complete a critical gap in the ACN and the walking network; The SkyPath is the only realistic solution available to provide walking and cycling over the AHB and if this opportunity is not taken now, a walk and cycle connection across the Waitemat Harbour may not happen for a number of decades. Given the current funding difficulties, it is uncertain whether the AWHC will be built within the next 20 years. If the proposed PPP is in place by 2015, the business case indicates there would be sufficient time to enable the tolls to pay off the capital investment over 20 years; The SkyPath would be well supported by the Waterfront Auckland waterfront cycleway and walkway to the south, and by safe routes using the local street network to the north; The SkyPath would provide for commuter travel, as well as recreational and tourism use; and There is an expression of interest from the PIP Fund to provide a capital investment upfront, which would mean no Council contribution to the capital costs of the project. This is significant because a public facility of this nature would normally require a 47% capital contribution from the Council. The contributions sought from Council relates to underwriting part of the revenue risk, assumption of operational costs at the end of the PPP, and staff time and professional advice to undertake further evaluation and negotiation of a PPP arrangement.
22.
Page 14
Consideration
Local Board Views
23. 24. The Trust has presented to or met with the relevant Local Boards including Waitemat, Kaipatiki, and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards, which are supportive of this project. Representatives from the Trust presented to the Waitemat Local Board meeting in April 2011. The Local Board passed the following resolutions (number WTM/2011/49): a) That Kirsten Shouler, Alex Swney and Barry Copeland, Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway members be thanked for their presentation to the Board regarding the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project. That the Waitemata Local Board strongly supports the Governing Bodys directive to Auckland Transport for investigation on how best to progress work on a walking and cycling link across the Auckland Harbour Bridge. That the Waitemata Local Board seek from the Governing Body to commit budget to formally play a role in a partnership with the pathways steering group to promote the project to the NZTA. That the Transport West Portfolio holders report back to the earliest practical Board meeting how the Board can best progress the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathways project proposals.
b)
c)
d)
Additionally, this Local Board included the AHB Pathway in its Local Board Plan 2012. 25. Representatives from the Trust briefed the Kaipatiki Local Board members at a workshop in August 2011, as well as the Local Board passing the following resolutions (number KT/2011/117) in May 2011: a) That the report and resolutions from the Transport Committee, regarding Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group Report, be received. That the Kaipatiki Local Board strongly endorses and supports the concept of enabling walking and cycling access between the city and the North Shore via the Harbour Bridge. That the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group consults with the Kaipatiki Local Board for input during the preparation of the proposal.
b)
c)
26.
Representatives from the Trust presented to the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board in August 2011 and passed resolution DT/2011/262 in support. This Local Board included the AHB Pathway in its Local Board Plan 2012 by stating we believe developing a pathway across the harbour bridge is an essential piece of infrastructure and will advocate on the communitys behalf to create a harbour bridge walkway and cycleway". These three Local Boards were updated on the project by staff via email on 17 January 2013 and the Trust has updated interested Local Board members on 22 January 2013.
27.
Maori Impact Statement

28. The impact of the SkyPath on significant sites to iwi is still to be understood. The Trust contacted (via letter) each known iwi organisation with ties to the area outlining the proposal in 2011 and asked them to contact the Trust if they had any concerns. No response was received. The Trust plans to undertake consultation with iwi as part of the resource consent phase of the project. In particular, it is understood there are sites of significance to Ngati Whatua o Orkei within Stokes Point Reserve near the Northcote exit. Further investigation and liaison with Ngati Whatua o Orkei will occur regarding this as part of the resource consent phase.
Page 15
Item 9
Transport Committee 13 February 2013 29.
Item 9
The SkyPath would be of benefit to Maori and provide for greater active transport use within the Auckland region, however it is noted that there is a low proportion of Maori living in the North Shore. The toll for commuters and local users would be small and equates to a similar fee if using public transport to cross the AHB.
General
30. The project has been discussed with the relevant Council (including the Mayors Office), AT, Waterfront Auckland, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development and NZTA staff members, along with representatives from key stakeholder groups such as Heart of the City, Cycle Action Auckland and Walk Auckland. This most recently occurred at a multiagency meeting on 18 December 2012. This report, and its recommendations, has been prepared in response to the agreement reached at this meeting. These parties have provided input or been given the opportunity to review this report prior to it being finalised. AT staff have commented that the $31 million cost assumption may be understated and there are some elements still to be resolved, and that care should be taken when making decisions based on costs that may change during the process. The SkyPath would be of benefit to all Aucklanders, however under conventional funding arrangements it is unlikely this project could be funded in the next 20 years or before an AWHC was in place. Therefore, the use of an alternative funding option needs to be considered, in line with the Auckland Plan requirement to investigate alternative funding options for transport projects. The SkyPath is considered to be consistent with Section 10(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, in relation to this stage of the investigation of the project.
31.
32.
Implementation Issues
33. Establishment of a PPP requires a commitment of resources to undertake negotiation and finalisation of a Memorandum of Understanding and legal agreements to form a joint venture arrangement (or similar) with the relevant parties, and on-going monitoring of the agreement. The timeframe for getting these agreements in place could run in parallel with work by the Trust to obtain the required approvals. The transfer of the SkyPath to the Council at the end of the PPP period would be subject to conditions about payment or condition of the asset, and this would form part of the legal agreement. The financial and resourcing implications of the SkyPath are: Due diligence and evaluation of the project; Staff time to coordinate the Memorandum of Understanding and legal arrangements, and legal authority to enter into a PPP; Underwrite of part of the toll revenue (refer to paragraph n) in Appendix A for the financial implications to Council); and Assuming responsibility for the SkyPath at the end of the PPP period (refer to paragraph p) in Appendix A for the financial implications to Council). 35. The project needs to comply with the Councils Significance and PPP Policies. The purpose of these policies is to set out the Councils approach to determining the significance of matters on which they are making decisions (i.e. where a decision meets certain criteria, it will automatically trigger a requirement to undertaken public consultation) and to set out the general criteria the Council would use when determining if a PPP is an appropriate procurement tool. The application of these policies to the SkyPath would be provided in a report to the Strategy and Finance Committee. Were the SkyPath to proceed, facilitation of progress of the project (until the project is formally established or given go ahead) could be undertaken by the Harbour Edge Development Steering Group. However, any governance or management decisions are yet to be made.
34.
36.
Page 16
Attachments
No. A B C Title Detail About The Project Auckland Transport Board Paper and Ernst & Young Report PIP Fund Proposal Letter Page 19 25 85
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Marguerite Pearson - Transport Planner Kevin Wright - Manager: Transport Strategy Ree Anderson - Manager: Regional Strategy, Community & Cultural Policy Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer
Page 17
Item 9
Page 19
Attachment A
Item 9
Attachment A
Item 9
Page 20
Page 21
Attachment A
Item 9
Attachment A
Item 9
Page 22
Page 23
Attachment A
Item 9
Attachment A
Item 9
Page 24
Page 25
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 26
Page 27
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 28
Page 29
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 30
Page 31
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 32
Page 33
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 34
Page 35
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 36
Page 37
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 38
Page 39
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 40
Page 41
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 42
Page 43
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 44
Page 45
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 46
Page 47
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 48
Page 49
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 50
Page 51
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 52
Page 53
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 54
Page 55
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 56
Page 57
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 58
Page 59
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 60
Page 61
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 62
Page 63
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 64
Page 65
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 66
Page 67
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 68
Page 69
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 70
Page 71
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 72
Page 73
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 74
Page 75
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 76
Page 77
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 78
Page 79
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 80
Page 81
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 82
Page 83
Attachment B
Item 9
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 84
Page 85
Attachment C
Item 9
Attachment C
Item 9
Page 86
Transport Update
File No.: CP2012/24703
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to update the Committee with key matters considered at the 18 December 2012 Auckland Transport Board meeting.
Executive Summary
2. At its meeting on 18 December 2012, the Auckland Transport Board considered in its open agenda on a range of reports including: Business report on the activities for December; A report on public transport and cycling statistics for November 2012; A report by KiwiRail on the National Train Control Centre; A request for funding of double-tracking the north-facing connection to the Manukau rail spur; Proposed bylaws about election signs and public safety and nuisance; and The Independent Technical Ports Study (this was presented to the 6 December 2012 meeting of the Councils Regional Development and Operations Committee) 3. In addition, the Auckland Transport Board considered the following items in its closed agenda: Property reports on compulsory land acquisitions and accommodation seismic assessment; Capital development reports on City Rail Link, Parnell Station and AMETI land use integration; and Operations reports about Auckland Integrated Fare System (AIFS), Rail Fare Evasion and Aotea Road seal extension (review of funding process). 4. All open board papers are available on the Auckland Transport website http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/about-us/board-members/Board-MeetingsMinutes/Pages/default.aspx at:
Recommendation
That the Transport Committee: a) Requests that Auckland Transport respond to any feedback provided by the Committee in relation to the December 2012 Board reports.
Discussion
Business Report on activities 5. Key highlights from the report on Operations include: The AT HOP card was launched on ferries on November 30. There are now approximately 43,000 AT HOP cards that have been sold, with 60% of those cards being used at least once (as at November 30, 2012); Managing the transport impact of the installation of ducting for Transpowers North Auckland and Northland project, including the requirement to close westbound lanes of the Pakuranga Highway bridge between Waipuna Road and Ti Rakau Drive over the holiday period; A series of initiatives are being investigated to boost public transport patronage growth and redress the patronage tracking beneath Statement of Intent targets;
Transport Update Page 87
Item 10
Item 10
A reconfiguration of the downtown ferry terminal has commenced to create an improved customer environment and to open up a larger area to non-ferry users; and The new City Centre Parking Zone scheme has not been implemented and accompanied by a marketing campaign. All signs and new restrictions were implemented prior to Christmas. 6. Key highlights from the report on Infrastructure include: Monthly expenditure for November 2012 was $18.3 million, slightly below forecast. The current forecast year end spend it $253 million, around $10 million above the fiscal envelope. However Auckland Transport expects the capital portfolio will be managed to the fiscal envelope; Construction of works associated with Panmure Station, Ellerslie Panmure Highway bridges and excavation to enable construction of the AMETI Link road have continued as parts of the AMETI project. Consent applications for the next stages of AMETI have been processed and issues are being addressed to minimise the risk of appeals; The preferred scheme for Dominion Road was discussed at well attended public open days in November. Funding applications for detailed design will be submitted to NZTA in early 2013; Papakura Station reconfiguration works are advancing and completion of the station is programmed for April 2013. The contract for the upgrade of Mt Albert station has been awarded and works were carried out over the holiday rail shutdown period; Public consultation on the Federal Street shared space proposal noted that there is a significant majority of respondents who support the proposals; Open days on the Mill Road upgrade project have been completed and feedback is now being analysed; Construction of an upgrade to the Glenbrook-Kingseat intersection was planned to begin in January 2013; and Stage three of the Fort Street upgrade is underway, with sub-surface works complete and paving having commenced. 7. Key highlights from the report on Strategy and Planning include: Submissions on the draft Regional Public Transport Plan have now closed with 696 submissions received and 146 submitters noting a desire to present to the Hearing Panel. The Plan is scheduled to be adopted at the March 2013 Board meeting and will permit implementing of the proposed public transport network; and Funding approval from NZTA for the first year financing payments for the EMU trains and depot (approximately $19 million). 8. Key highlights from the report on Special Projects include: Final design of the Electric Multiple Unit trains (EMUs) is progressing well with approximately 90% of the design documents now submitted; Production of the first EMU vehicles is proceeding steadily with underframes and vehicle body sides under construction and on programme. Assembly of the first unit was programmed to begin in January 2013; The City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS) was released on December 14. The findings of the CCFAS were presented to the Governing Body by Auckland Transport in December 2012; and City Rail Link project optimisation, value engineering and work responding to Council requests for further information (as part of the route protection process) all continued throughout November and the notice of requirement was notified on January 25, 2013.
Transport Update
Page 88
Transport Committee 13 February 2013 9. 10. Extracts from the December business report are included as Attachment A to this report. The Statistics Report focuses on public transport patronage, service performance and initiatives throughout November 2012 as well as cycling monitoring. Key highlights include: Annual public transport boardings for the 12 months to November 2012 were 69,873,178. This is 1.1% higher than the 12 months to November 2011 but tracking below the 2012/13 Statement of Intent target of 74,580,000 for the 12 months to June 2013. As noted in the business report, a series of initiatives are being investigated to boost public transport patronage growth; Patronage during November 2012 was 5.2% lower than November 2011, with much of the decrease due to a 17.2% reduction in rail patronage. Northern Express bus patronage grew by 1.2% but other bus patronage fell by 3.4% and ferry patronage fell by 1.3%. Auckland Transport considers that the introduction of the HOP Card on the rail system has contributed to the decline in rail patronage as trips are now recorded at the time they are made rather than at the time tickets are sold. This effect will disappear from January 2013 onwards; Train performance was measured at 84.1% punctuality and 97.9% service delivery. Trains are measured as punctual if they arrive at their destination within 5 minutes of their scheduled time. The Onehunga Line was the best performing line, with 95.1% of services being punctual, while the Southern Line performed the poorest, with 78.9% of services being punctual; Bus and ferry service performance are measured differently, with punctuality measured at the beginning rather than the end of the trip. Performance statistics are also self-reported. All bus operators and most ferry operators reported extremely high punctuality (for example Birkenhead Transport reported 99.95%) and reliability (whether the service operated or not) results; and Cycling monitoring showed a 5.1% growth in cyclist movements in November 2012 when compared to November 2011. Morning peak movements increased by 33.1% when compared to November 2011. 11. The Auckland Transport Statistics Report for October 2012 is included as Attachment B to this report. KiwiRail report on National Train Control Centre 12. This report is a response to an Auckland Transport request to identify and practical and affordable path to give confidence that if the National Train Control Centre (NTCC) experiences a disruption, there is sufficient infrastructure in place to enable continued operation of the rail network. This issue was highlighted by a power outage in April 2012 at the Wellington-based NTCC which caused significant disruption to the Auckland rail network. The report highlights the advantages of a centralised control model (particularly the depth of staff expertise) but notes that additional back-up facilities should be provided at another location in Wellington to ensure ongoing operations in the event of a site-specific event as well as an unstaffed facility in the Auckland area that can be used for national control services in the event of a catastrophic event in Wellington. Optimal sites and funding arrangements will be explored by KiwiRail, Auckland Transport and other interested parties throughout 2013. The KiwiRail report on National Train Control Centre is included as Attachment C to this report. Manukau Rail Spur Connection Funding 16. This report is a request to the Auckland Transport Board for $3.6 million in funding to enable the double-tracking of the connection between the Manukau Rail Line (which itself is doubletracked) and the North Island Main Trunk line. $2.6 million is available from the EMU depot contingency budget while the remaining $1.0 million will need to be included in the 2013/14 capital works budget.
Statistics Report for November 2012
13.
14. 15.
Transport Update
Page 89
Item 10
Transport Committee 13 February 2013 17. Network modelling has shown that that the double track connection from the Manukau Rail Line to the mainline at Wiri is essential for the delivery of reliable 10 minute peak services. KiwiRail is currently undertaking track works in the Manukau Rail Line and Wiri Junction area to provide access from the main line to the new EMU depot. While double tracking the connection is not needed until August 2014, significant cost savings can be achieved through alignment to KiwiRails existing construction programme with construction commencing in March 2013. Auckland Transport will seek a subsidy from NZTA for the connection, as a project necessary for delivery of a rail network capable of delivering robust and reliable 10 minute peak services. The report states that Council approval will be required required to reallocate funding within the 2012/13 capital programme and for inclusion in the 2013/14 programme. The report relates to the north-facing connections of the Manukau Rail Line. The report on Manukau Rail Spur Connection Funding is included as Attachment D to this report. Election Signs Bylaw 21. This report seeks the Auckland Transport Boards approval to undertake public consultation on a proposed bylaw to regulate the display of election signs across Auckland. The bylaw proposes to provide a consistent set of controls for elections signs and an integrated system of determining appropriate locations for election signs for parliamentary and local authority elections. The controls in the proposed bylaw are largely similar to what is in the variety of legacy bylaws. Initial consultation was undertaken with Local Board cluster workshops and a working party of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee of Council during October 2012. Members of the Councils Policies and Bylaws team have also assisted with the development of the proposed bylaw. The report on the Proposed Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 Consultation is available on the Auckland Transport website. Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 24. This report seeks the Auckland Transport Boards approval to undertake public consultation on a proposed bylaw for public safety and nuisance. The proposed bylaw will regulate activities which can be carried out on roads and in other public places in an endeavour to reduce risks to public safety and to avoid nuisance. The proposed bylaw is complementary to a similar bylaw being prepared by Auckland Council for areas outside the transport system. Drafting of the proposed bylaw has been led by Council staff with input from Auckland Transport in areas with particular transport impact. Council and Auckland Transport have undertaken initial consultation with political, internal and major stakeholders including the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee Working Party, all Local Boards, the Disability Strategic Advisory Group, Council departments and a wide range of industry stakeholders. The report on the Proposed Auckland Transport Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 is available on the Auckland Transport website.
Item 10
18. 19. 20. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27. 28.
Consideration
Local Board Views
Local Boards are involved in Auckland Transports consultation on major transport projects and planning processes. Local Boards were consulted in the preparation of the two proposed bylaws.
Transport Update
Page 90
Maori Impact Statement

29. Active iwi engagement is taking place in relation to infrastructure projects such as the Southwest Multi-Modal Airport Rapid Transit (SMART) study and AMETI. The updated capital works programme on Auckland Transports website provides indicative timings when consultation is occurring which enables the public and Maori to plan for upcoming consultations. The Key Relationships Unit section of the Business Report outlines in more detail Auckland Transports Maori Engagement programme.
30.
General
31. 32. As this is an information item, no consultation has been done in the preparation of this report. This update refers to communications with stakeholders on major projects. Auckland Transport is responsible for taking legal advice in relation to its operations.
Implementation Issues
33. Auckland Transport is responsible for implementation of transport and the information in this report provides highlights of how Auckland Transport is dealing with current issues.
Attachments
No. A B C D Title Extracts from December 2012 Business Report November 2012 Statistics Report KiwiRail report on National Train Control Centre Manukau Rail Line Connection Report Page 93 133 157 171
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Joshua Arbury - Principal Transport Planner Ree Anderson - Manager Regional Strategy, Community & Cultural Policy Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer
Transport Update
Page 91
Item 10
Transport Update
Page 93
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 94
Transport Update
Page 95
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 96
Transport Update
Page 97
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 98
Transport Update
Page 99
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 100
Transport Update
Page 101
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 102
Transport Update
Page 103
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 104
Transport Update
Page 105
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 106
Transport Update
Page 107
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 108
Transport Update
Page 109
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 110
Transport Update
Page 111
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 112
Transport Update
Page 113
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 114
Transport Update
Page 115
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 116
Transport Update
Page 117
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 118
Transport Update
Page 119
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 120
Transport Update
Page 121
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 122
Transport Update
Page 123
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 124
Transport Update
Page 125
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 126
Transport Update
Page 127
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 128
Transport Update
Page 129
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 130
Transport Update
Page 131
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 132
Transport Update
Page 133
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 134
Transport Update
Page 135
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 136
Transport Update
Page 137
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 138
Transport Update
Page 139
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 140
Transport Update
Page 141
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 142
Transport Update
Page 143
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 144
Transport Update
Page 145
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 146
Transport Update
Page 147
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 148
Transport Update
Page 149
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 150
Transport Update
Page 151
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 152
Transport Update
Page 153
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 154
Transport Update
Page 155
Attachment B
Item 10
Transport Update
Page 157
Attachment C
Item 10
Attachment C
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 158
Transport Update
Page 159
Attachment C
Item 10
Attachment C
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 160
Transport Update
Page 161
Attachment C
Item 10
Attachment C
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 162
Transport Update
Page 163
Attachment C
Item 10
Attachment C
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 164
Transport Update
Page 165
Attachment C
Item 10
Attachment C
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 166
Transport Update
Page 167
Attachment C
Item 10
Attachment C
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 168
Transport Update
Page 169
Attachment C
Item 10
Transport Update
Page 171
Attachment D
Item 10
Attachment D
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 172
Transport Update
Page 173
Attachment D
Item 10

Transport Committee Agenda (2/2) Feb 13

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Transport Committee Agenda (2/2) Feb 13

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Transport Committee will be held on:

Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:

Transport Committee OPEN AGENDA

Ex-Officio Independent Maori Statutory Board Alternate (Quorum 7 members)

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013 c)

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013 b) d)

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013 Walk and Cycle Connections

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013 20.

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Maori Impact Statement

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013 29.

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Transport Committee 13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

Transport Committee 13 February 2013