DOCSLIB.ORG

Te Wero Bridge Transport Assessment May 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Te Wero Bridge Transport Assessment May 2008 Te Wero Bridge Transport Assessment May 2008 Project: Te Wero Bridge Title: Transport Assessment Document Reference: S:\accx\059\CR140508-1 te wero.doc Prepared by: Karl Hancock Reviewed by: Ian Clark Revisions: Date Status Reference Approved by Initials 30 March 2008 Draft AR300308-1 I Clark 8 April 2008 Draft for circulation to BR080408-1 I Clark ARTA, ARC and PB 14 May 2008 Final CR140508-1 I Clark Te Wero Bridge Transport Assessment i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides a transport assessment of the proposed Te Wero Bridge. This Bridge would provide a link between Jellicoe Street, within the Wynyard Quarter, to the west, and Quay Street, on the approach to the Britomart Transport Centre, to the east. It is proposed that the Bridge would accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and scheduled buses, but not general traffic. The proposed Bridge is considered to be an essential element of the Wynyard Quarter Plan Change, which seeks to achieve the framework for quality, mixed use development on a substantial waterfront site, within the northwestern sector of the Auckland CBD. The Wynyard Quarter area is surrounded on three sides by water. Fanshawe Street is located along the southern side (i.e. the fourth side) and this is a busy route for traffic between the Northern Motorway and the CBD. It is also an important leg of the Northern Busway. The Wynyard Quarter Plan Change recognises the transport challenges affecting the accessibility of the site, and it puts forward a solution which emphasises travel by modes of travel other than the single occupancy private vehicle. This solution includes a proposal for bus services to penetrate right through the Quarter. This is facilitated by the Te Wero Bridge, which offers a through route for buses and provides a direct route between the Quarter and the Britomart Transport Centre and the reset of the Auckland CBD. The assessment is based on a scheduled bus flow of 18 vehicles per direction per hour during the weekday peak periods. It may be reasonably assumed that a flow of 12 buses per direction per hour may be experienced during the interpeak. It is also recognised that the Bridge may need to be used by emergency vehicles on occasions. The effects of the Bridge are assessed as follows: The Bridge will bring a greater proportion of the Wynyard Quarter within reach of the rest of the Auckland CBD by walking and cycling; It will facilitate excellent penetration of bus services through the Quarter; It will allow some bus services to be extended from Britomart right into the Quarter and will bring the Britomart Transport Centre within a reasonable walking distance of a greater proportion of the Quarter; It will offer an alternative transport route to/from the Quarter which will reduce the dependence of the area on a single route, namely Fanshawe Street. As a result, the provision of an alternative route which reduces the dependence of the area on access via Fanshawe Street is considered to be a major benefit in terms of the resilience of the network; The Bridge will have some minor positive and negative effects for general traffic, but the modelling assessment has demonstrated that the net effects are positive. As a result, the Te Wero Bridge as a facility for pedestrians, cyclists and buses is considered to be a vital component of the transport solution for the area. It is noted that there will be two further advantages for bus operations in routing some buses through the Wynyard Quarter: The extension of some services will reduce the pressure on layover space in the vicinity of Britomart; Te Wero Bridge Transport Assessment ii The diversion of some North Shore services will reduce pressure on bus stops along Fanshawe Street (particularly the bus stop adjacent to Victoria Park for westbound services). The economic assessment indicates that the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the facility will be 1.0. However it is noted that this BCR under-represents the value of the facility, which will facilitate the development proposed by the Plan Change. This report has noted the intangible benefits of the project which are considered to be sufficient to justify a BCR of greater than 1. A BCR should also be prepared which reflects private contributions toward the Bridge. The concept of pursuing the Bridge as a pedestrian and cycle link only may appear to be attractive in some respects. It would appear to offer a cheaper solution and it would avoid the potentially adverse effects of buses passing through the Viaduct Harbour entertainment area. However, there are considered to be significant benefits in terms of the accessibility of the Wynyard Quarter in getting buses “right to the front door” of developments within the Quarter. Such bus access is considered to be consistent with “Transit Oriented Development” and with the aim of the Plan Change to maximise the accessibility for modes of transport other than the private car. The traffic modelling indicates that this is achievable without causing significant increases in bus travel times (for those bus passengers that will be passing right through the Quarter). This report has demonstrated that Quarter Areas 4 to 7 and part of Quarter Area 3 are only moderately well served by the existing bus stops along Fanshawe Street. This is particularly the case for persons accessing the westbound services along Fanshawe Street. These services are only served by bus stops to the south side of this busy route, and this represents a significant barrier to easy pedestrian access. At grade and grade separated pedestrian crossings of Fanshawe Street are proposed, but neither will provide the same level of access to buses as regular services running right through the Quarter. This is particularly the case on wet days, or for people that are less able to walk or do not like to walk for a variety of reasons. As a result, the provision of the Te Wero Bridge for buses as well as pedestrians and cyclists is considered to be an important part of the transport package for the Wynyard Quarter and it is consistent with the objective of maximising the accessibility of the area by modes of transport other than the private car. Te Wero Bridge Transport Assessment iii CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Policy Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.3.1 Regional Policy.................................................................................................................. 1 1.3.2 Local Area Policy............................................................................................................... 2 1.3.3 Committed Developments................................................................................................. 2 1.4 The Wynyard Quarter Development ........................................................................................... 3 1.4.1 Land Use............................................................................................................................ 3 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS....................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Site Location and Existing Development .................................................................................... 5 2.2 Existing Transport Provision........................................................................................................ 5 2.2.1 Local Passenger Transport Network ................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Local Walking and Cycling Network ................................................................................. 5 2.2.3 Local Parking Conditions .................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Existing Traffic Conditions........................................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Local Road Network.......................................................................................................... 7 2.3.2 Road network surrounding the proposed Te Wero Bridge .............................................. 8 2.4 Accident Analysis......................................................................................................................... 9 2.4.1 Halsey Street and Jellicoe Street...................................................................................... 9 2.4.2 Quay Street and Lower Hobson Street............................................................................. 9 3 PROPOSED BRIDGE .......................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Bridge Specifications ................................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Location...................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Proposed Cross Section...........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kaipatiki Local Board.20110510.Minutesattachments
    Item 18 Attachment D Prioritisation table of initiatives. The Kaipatiki Local Board is seeking funding for the initiatives in the following table for its 2011/12 Local Board Agreement (note: this is not a ranked list). Initiative Rationale Costs Enhancement of all local A number of existing local Unknown assets that serve a regional or parks and facilities within sub-regional function such as Kaipatiki provide for sub- netball, football etc and regional and regional provide support for the club activities. To ensure on-going that use the facilities levels of service are maintained and enhanced regional support for the costs of these facilities should be provided at a regional level. Improvements to the North The North Shore Events Unknown Shore Events Centre Centre requires climate including climate control and control for minimum sound proofing standards for the National Basketball League (for the NZ Breakers) and sound proofing to minimise adverse effects on neighbours. Improvements to the venue will provide opportunities to secure other events Urgently undertake the de- Ponds require urgent Onepoto c$70k silting of Onepoto, Link Drive, maintenance for the de- Chelsea Chelsea and Totaravale silting: Others Unknown stormwater ponds - offensive odours; - wildlife is dying and - the silt is causing problems for recreational users. Development of parking on The site purchase for Unknown vacant site of 450 Glenfield additional parking in Road Glenfield. Budget needs to be provided to remove the house and establish the parking. Site is in an unacceptable condition. Northcote Mainstreet Gateway Identified through the Town Unknown project Centre plan as a priority. Land has become available for the gateway and is needed for this centre identified for growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Fairfax/NZME – Response to Questions Arising from the Conference
    1 PUBLIC VERSION NZME AND FAIRFAX RESPONSE TO COMMERCE COMMISSION QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE CONFERENCE ON 6 AND 7 DECEMBER 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. During its recent Conference held on 6 and 7 December 2016, the Commissioners asked the parties to follow up on a number of points. This paper sets out the parties' responses on those questions, and also provides answers to some further follow-up questions that the parties have received since the Conference. 2. The main points that this response covers are as follows: (a) Inefficient duplication of commodity news (external plurality): The Commissioners asked the parties to produce examples of "commodity" news coverage as between the five main media organisations being similar ("digger hits bridge" was provided as an example of where all the major media organisations covered effectively the same point). Reducing that duplication will be efficiency enhancing and will not materially detract from the volume or quality of news coverage. (b) A wide variety of perspectives are covered within each publication (internal plurality): The editors provided the Commission with examples of how each publication covers a wide variety of perspectives, as that is what attracts the greatest audience. This is true both within and across each of the parties' publications. The Commission asked for examples, which are provided in this response, together with additional material about why those incentives do not change post-Merger. (c) Constitutional safeguards on editorial independence: The Commissioners asked about what existing structures protected editorial independence and balance and fairness in reporting. This was asked both in the context of a possible future sale of Fairfax's stake, and in the context of the protections available to those subject to negative reporting seeking fairness and balance.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Walk Final with out Cover Re-Print.Indd
    Heritage Walks _ The Engineering Heritage of Auckland 5 The Auckland City Refuse Destructor 1905 Early Electricity Generation 1908 9 Wynyard Wharf 1922 3 13 Auckland Electric 1 Hobson Wharf The New Zealand National Maritime Museum Tramways Co. Ltd Princes Wharf 1937 1989 1899–1902 1921–24 12 7 2 The Viaduct 10 4 11 The Auckland Gasworks, Tepid Baths Lift Bridge The Auckland Harbour Bridge The Sky Tower Viaduct Harbour first supply to Auckland 1865 1914 1932 1955-59 1997 1998-99 Route A 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Route B 14 Old 15 Auckland High Court 13 The Old Synagogue 1 10 Albert Park 1942 Government 1865-7 1884-85 The Ferry Building House 1912 1856 16 Parnell Railway Bridge and Viaduct 5 The Dingwall Building 1935 1865-66 3 Chief Post Office 1911 The Britomart Transport Centre 7 The Ligar Canal, named 1852, improved 1860s, covered 1870s 6 8 Civic Theatre 1929 2001-2004 New Zealand 9 Guardian Trust The Auckland Town Hall Building 1911 1914 17 The Auckland Railway Station 1927-37 11 Albert Barracks Wall 2 Queens Wharf 1913 1846-7 4 The Dilworth Building 1926 12 University of Auckland Old Arts Building 1923-26 10 Route A, approx 2.5 hours r St 9 Route B, approx 2.5 hours Hame Brigham St Other features Jellicoe St 1 f r ha W Madden s 2 e St St rf Princ a 12 h 13 W s Beaumont START HERE een 11 Qu Pakenha m St St 1 son ob H St bert y St n St Gaunt St Al 2 e e Pakenh S ue ket Place H1 am Q Hals St 3 ar Customs M St Quay St 3 4 18 NORTH Sw 8 St anson S Fanshawe t 5 7 6 Wyn Shortla dham nd
    [Show full text]
  • THE WATERFRONT PLAN AKL 2012 Tamaki – Kainga Nga Ika Me Nga Wheua Katoa! Auckland – Where the Fish Are So Succulent You Can Eat Them Bones and All!
    THE WATERFRONT PLAN AKL 2012 Tamaki – kainga nga ika me nga wheua katoa! Auckland – where the fish are so succulent you can eat them bones and all! This proverb alludes to the once abundant and sought after marine resources of Auckland’s waterfront. It signals Waterfront Auckland’s desire to create a sustainable waterfront providing for the current and future generations of Aucklanders. A place all Aucklanders can access the Waitemata Harbour for recreation, business or cultural practices. FOREWORD The waterfront has reignited Aucklander’s pride in their city. The pride and enthusiasm with which Aucklanders have embraced their new waterfront continues to amaze me. Although in its infancy, stage one of the redeveloped Wynyard Quarter and the expanse of Queens Wharf, attract people day after day, rain and shine. When Waterfront Auckland put forward its draft plans for the redevelopment of the whole waterfront last year we received hundreds of letters, emails and submissions. Most were hugely positive. “Just get on with it!” was the cry. Our job at Waterfront Auckland is to lead the momentum of the revitalisation, and of pride. Having listened to Aucklanders, we have refined our plans and here, we present a vision for how the waterfront could be redeveloped, how it can continue to create transformational change. We are living in an extraordinary time, perhaps unprecedented in recent history where opportunity is constrained and likely to remain so for some time to come. Our approach in these plans is to strike a balance that seizes opportunity while it is offering and continues to strive for a visionary outcome that our city and its people deserve.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Auckland
    H l t a rd S e R n N P fo v n N s A e e l r u l u o a ve o o rtsea t e e ve ra g Av or e v e n o e n P P B A na r l S d ter w e an r C a at a o d t a C l w K m C d ysw n ra h m G d S fford Bay A R o d S a R B r t r o t R t d t n e u en e e A l l inc S z l i S s B o l e V s e l u ce Bayswater v u n u c C e t e n M ra Ne v e n r e r W ls A r W d i P r la son A a e a a H e r Ave na b ll u H T e a l P l n o a P a a l n i e ce am a R g n m r s e m s i ti R A i A r a e it S r e r d e o d n a o u m r M a M a i d C R o a R W a MAP KEY d a g ur R arin akak at d S a St S Ng u u l l p p ve PostPost Office OfficeMAPPost KEY Office h h t A u o N u o Pl N c e i s e r ston a r A en g av B Post Office a a R Ti a ToiletsToiletsPost OfficeToilets z h z h a r a a e t a t rd t S Post Office d rt P a r P t a ath l o a R l R o B S c h N h N d d N a N i-SITEi-SitesToiletsi-Sites Visitori-Sites Information Centre 1 A d B Cnemoa D E F G H I e J Toilets in R Toilets a R Hi R v ng P A n d tau d C a K L e r n a w O i a Visitori-SitesMain InformationbusMain depots bus depots n ce r R Maini-Sites bus depots erra m r R i-SITES c Te A i-Sites o T D a rih b e A t e r a s i W E a W E a r R InterMainFerry City bus BusFerry depots Depots b Main bus depots b S Ferry S Main bus depots R d e ve y d Main Bus depots t t e A d c y A d d Cheltenham Beach ra b S rr Lake n e Lake lle R Explore T T A t FerryFerry Train line A l O TrainFerry line S d l Ferry S a u a uc RdJim Tit or x Ferry k ss i c fo d a f l ces h s i o a Acc e t e R n n Bay A o v R h r d ringa B n o t d atari e
    [Show full text]
  • New Zealand Transport Agency Additional Waitemata
    Attachment A New Zealand Transport Agency Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing Preliminary Business Case Restrictions of this report This report has been prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) for the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) solely for the purposes stated herein and should not be relied upon for any other purpose. We accept no liability to any party should it be used for any purpose other than that for which it was prepared. This Report is strictly confidential and (save to the extent required by applicable law and/or regulation) must not be released to any third party without our express written consent which is at our sole discretion. To the fullest extent permitted by law, PwC accepts no duty of care to any third party in connection with the provision of this Report and/or any related information or explanation (together, the “Information”). Accordingly, regardless of the form of action, whether in contract, tort (including without limitation, negligence) or otherwise, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, PwC accepts no liability of any kind to any third party and disclaims all responsibility for the consequences of any third party acting or refraining to act in reliance on the Information. We have not independently verified the accuracy of information provided to us, and have not conducted any form of audit in respect of NZTA. Accordingly, we express no opinion on the reliability, accuracy, or completeness of the information provided to us and upon which we have relied. The statements and opinions expressed herein have been made in good faith, and on the basis that all information relied upon is true and accurate in all material respects, and not misleading by reason of omission or otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Auckland Transport Alignment Project April 2018
    Auckland Transport Alignment Project April 2018 Foreword I welcome the advice provided by the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP). The ATAP package is a transformative transport programme. Investment in transport shapes our city’s development and is a key contributor to economic, social and environmental goals. The direction signalled in this update is shared by Government and Auckland Council and demonstrates our commitment to working together for a better Auckland. Auckland is facing unprecedented population growth, and over the next 30 years a million more people will call Auckland home. Growth brings opportunities but when combined with historic under- investment in infrastructure the strain on the Auckland transport system is unrelenting. Existing congestion on our roads costs New Zealand’s economy $1.3b annually. We need to do things differently to what has been done in the past. Auckland needs a transport system that provides genuine choice for people, enables access to opportunities, achieves safety, health and environmental outcomes and underpins economic development. Our aspiration must be to make sure Auckland is a world class city. Auckland’s success is important not just for Aucklanders, but for our country’s long-term growth and productivity. The Government and Auckland Council have agreed to a transformative and visionary plan. ATAP is a game-changer for Auckland commuters and the first-step in easing congestion and allowing Auckland to move freely. I believe this ATAP package marks a significant step in building a modern transport system in Auckland. ATAP accelerates delivery of Auckland’s rapid transit network, with the aim of unlocking urban development opportunities, encourages walking and cycling, and invests in public transport, commuter and freight rail and funds road improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael John Foster
    Experience Cont. Michael John Foster Citizenship: New Zealand Education: Bachelor of Arts (Massey) Diploma of Town Planning (Auckland) Membership: Fellow, New Zealand Planning Institute Member, Planning Institute of Australia Member, Resource Management Law Association Member, RMA Streamlining & Simplifying Technical Advisory Group 2009 Chairman, Infrastructure Technical Advisory Group 2010 Competence: Strategic peer review, Project Management, environmental assessment, resource management planning, regional planning, airport planning, transportation planning, conceptual land development planning, development proposal formulation and urban growth strategies. Relevant Experience: In a career extending over 35 years Mike has more relevant experience in major infrastructure planning and projects than many people in New Zealand. From January 1985 until October 2001 Mike was Director of Planning for Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Limited. He then set up a new Company operating as an independent planning consultant. His most relevant airport planning, major land use and strategic transportation experience is briefly defined below. AIRPORT PLANNING Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand (BARNZ) (2010 - ongoing) Since 2010 Mike has been retained as specialist aviation adviser to BARNZ on a range of aviation planning related uses. (Client: BARNZ) Ashburton Airport Future Proofing (2004 – ongoing) Mike is retained as specialist aviation planning adviser to land and airspace designations to plan and protect for the future growth of Ashburton Airport. (Client: Ashburton District Council) Hawkes Bay Airport Expansion (2009 – 2010) Mike was retained as specialist aviation planning adviser to the airport company with respect to a proposed major runway extension. (Client: Hawkes Bay Regional Airport Ltd) Queenstown Airport Expansion (2006) Mike was retained as specialist aviation planning adviser to Queenstown Airport Corporation in the scoping phase of the planned long term review of RESA requirements and revision of the existing air noise boundary controls.
    [Show full text]
  • Tonkin & Taylor Hydraulic Modelling Report
    America's Cup 36 Coastal Processes and Dredging Technical Report Appendix C Tonkin & Taylor Hydraulic Modelling Report Beca // 12 January 2018 3233847 // NZ1-14861405-218 0.218 // 1 REPORT AC36 Waterfront Development Hydraulic Modelling Report D Prepared for Panuku Development Auckland Prepared by R Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Date A January 2018 Job Number F 1005128.v5 T Tonkin & Taylor Ltd January 2018 AC36 Waterfront Development - Hydraulic Modelling Report Job No: 1005128.v5 Panuku Development Auckland Document Control Title: AC36 Waterfront Development Date Version Description Prepared by: Reviewed by: Authorised by: 6/12/17 v1 Preliminary Draft for information TDS RRH RRH 13/12/17 v2 Draft for Client review TDS RRH RRH 21/12/17 v3 Draft for Client review TDS RRH RRH 22/12/17 v4 Final Draft Tom Shand Richard Richard Reinen-Hamill Reinen-Hamill 05/01/18 v5 Final for Consent Application Tom Shand Richard Richard Reinen-Hamill Reinen-Hamill Distribution: Panuku Development Auckland Pdf BECA Pdf Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 copy Table of contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Scope of works 2 1.2 Report structure Error! Bookmark not defined. 2 Existing environment 3 2.1 General description 3 2.2 Existing structures 3 2.3 Bathymetry 5 2.4 Sediments 6 2.5 Water levels 8 2.5.1 Tidal levels 8 2.5.2 Extreme water levels 8 2.5.3 Sea level rise 8 2.6 Winds 9 2.7 Waves 9 2.7.1 Vessel wakes 9 2.8 Currents 10 3 Proposed modifications 15 3.1 Structure layout 15 3.2 Bathymetry 15 3.3 Basin and entrance characteristics 16 3.3.1 Wynyard Wharf South Waterspace 16 3.3.2
    [Show full text]
  • Explore. Efforts, Just by Coming on Board
    6 map ref C2 Whale and dolphin watching direct from Never miss a beat Auckland city. I Discover Today Protect for Tomorrow URAK 9 map ref C2 RADIO HA HITS FROM THE 90’S TILL NOW ROCKALTERNATIVE TEXT ‘FREQ’ TO 4487 TEXT ‘FREQ’ TO 3483 With white sand beaches, clear waters, a lively FOR FREQUENCIES FOR FREQUENCIES AUCKLAND EXPRESS dining scene, high end shopping, beautiful parks and HIGHLIGHTS TOUR reserves, Auckland’s North Shore is renowned for its 20% OFF wonderful lifestyle. Auckland’s magnificent connected Admission Meet a local who will show you the best of coast is just a short ferry ride across the Waitemat White sand and calm Harbour into Devonport, or by bus or private vehicle waters of Cheltenham Auckland in 3 hours Present this ad on-site to receive the discount off the walkup admission price. over the Auckland Harbour Bridge. Here the noise Beach, Devonport. One voucher is valid for one transaction. Cannot be used in conjunction with TOP 40 • We visit the volcanoes, learn about the Polynesian any other special offer. Not redeemable for cash. Offer expires on 31/12/2019. BEATS THAT MOVE YOU Promo code: 0239 TEXT ‘FREQ’ TO 9696 TEXT ‘FREQ’ TO 8200 & Maori history, plus see amazing scenery. and pace of the CBD gives way to the relaxed beach- Milford Beach, Reserve, FOR FREQUENCIES FOR FREQUENCIES • Adult $89/Child $49 – Book online now! side vibe that the North Shore is known for. Pirate Playground and Marina. Takapuna’s white sands, www.torutours.com 027 457 0011 BEACHES water sports and magnificent 8 map ref H2 OK DI The North Shore is blessed with a beautiful all-abilities playground.
    [Show full text]
  • Pūhoi to Warkworth Section Proposal
    TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF INQUIRY Ara Tūhono - Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance: Pūhoi to Warkworth Section Proposal HEARING at NORTHRIDGE COUNTRY LODGE, SILVERDALE, AUCKLAND on 09 April 2014 BOARD OF INQUIRY: The Honourable John Priestley CNZM QC (Chairperson) David Chandler (Board Member) Michael Parsonson (Board Member) Bronwyn Hunt (Board Member) Alan Withy (Board Member) Page 250 APPEARANCES <ANDREW BELL, resworn [10.12 am] ...................................................... 253 <CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLIAMS [10.13 am] ........... 254 5 <CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LANNING [11.14 am] ............. 278 <CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VELLA [11.50 am] .................. 288 <CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR THALLER [12.48 pm]............. 312 <RE-EXAMINATION BY MS BROSNAHAN [12.53 pm] .............. 315 <THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.57 pm] ....................................... 317 10 <ROGER WILLIAMS, affirmed [2.20 pm] ................................................ 338 <CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BROSNAHAN [3.52 pm] ........ 366 <CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DILLON [4.05 pm] .................. 372 <CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VELLA [4.08 pm] .................... 373 15 <THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.28 pm] ......................................... 383 <CAMERON PITCHES, affirmed [4.30 pm] ............................................. 383 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 251 [10.05 am] CHAIRPERSON: Counsel, before we re-swear the witness and continue where we left off yesterday, there are two matters which we want to 5 inform
    [Show full text]
  • AT ARTA Policy Aucklandtran
    AUCKLAND TRANSPORT PLAN 2009 The Auckland Transport Plan is the flagship ten year planning document for implementing an integrated and sustainable Auckland transport system. AUCKLAND TRANSPORT PLAN 2009 The Auckland Transport Plan is the flagship ten year planning document for implementing an integrated and sustainable Auckland transport system. About the Auckland Transport Plan The Auckland Transport Plan has been developed by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority in collaboration with the Auckland Regional Council, KiwiRail and Auckland, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore Cities, Papakura, Rodney and Franklin District Councils, and the New Zealand Transport Agency. Contents FOREWORD 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 1 INTRODUCTION 8 1.1 Auckland Transport Plan 8 1.2 The need for an effective transport system and plan 8 1.3 Transport impacts 13 1.4 Policy framework 20 1.5 ATP priority areas 22 1.6 Funding 23 2 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2009-2019 24 2.1 Long-term transport plan 24 2.2 Areas for action 26 2.3 Ten-year plan 31 3 BALANCING FUNDING AND EXPENDITURE 36 3.1 Funding requirements 36 3.2 Funding pressures 38 3.3 Funding allocation 39 3.4 Funding priorities 40 3.5 Funding and financing options 41 3.6 Summary 41 4 ATP PROGRESS 42 4.1 What Auckland needs 42 4.2 Review of the 2007 ATP 42 4.3 Achieving strategic focus and planning responses 43 4.4 Performance of the transport system to achieving outcomes 48 4.5 RLTS funding allocation 48 APPENDIX 51 APPENDIX 1: REGIONAL STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS 51 APPENDIX 2: THE ATP PRIORITISATION PROCESS 54 APPENDIX 3: RLTS OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS 57 GLOSSARY 66 Disclaimer The values in the Auckland Transport Plan 2009 are highly dependent on the values provided by all agencies for their projects, packages and funding availability.
    [Show full text]