DOCSLIB.ORG

Before a Board of Inquiry East West Link Proposal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROPOSAL Under the Resource Management Act 1991 In the matter of a Board of Inquiry appointed under s149J of the Resource Management Act 1991 to consider notices of requirement and applications for resource consent made by the New Zealand Transport Agency in relation to the East West Link roading proposal in Auckland Statement of Evidence in Chief of Kathryn King on behalf of Auckland Transport dated 10 May 2017 BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS A J L BEATSON SOLICITOR FOR THE SUBMITTER AUCKLAND LEVEL 22, VERO CENTRE, 48 SHORTLAND STREET PO BOX 4199, AUCKLAND 1140, DX CP20509, NEW ZEALAND TEL 64 9 916 8800 FAX 64 9 916 8801 EMAIL [email protected] Introduction 1. My full name is Kathryn King. I hold the role of Walking, Cycling and Safety Manager at Auckland Transport (AT). 2. I hold a Master of Arts (Honours) in Environmental Policy from Kings College, University of London, and a Bachelor of Planning (Honours) from the University of Auckland. I am a Prince 2 Practitioner. 3. I have 13 years’ experience in transport planning, specialising in walking and cycling. In my current role, which I have held since January 2015, I manage the teams which plan, design and implement walking, cycling and safety projects and initiatives across Auckland. 4. Key projects I have been responsible for include the following: (a) Completing AT’s Greenways design guidance in December 2016 which sets out design principles and standards for the design of local walking and cycling networks for Auckland; (b) Franklin Road Local Road Improvement (2015-17). This involved a total redesign of the street due to required rehabilitation of the street. I was part of the team that approved the design, which included improvements for people walking including new crossing point. The project will also deliver new cycleways and a new roundabout to reduce traffic speeds. The project is currently under construction; (c) Nelson Street Cycleway (January-December 2015). This involved new protected cycleways in the carriageway and the redesign of traffic signals on Nelson Street to accommodate space for a protected cycleway. This project has resulted in a significant increase in people cycling in the City Centre and was completed in December 2015; (d) Quay Street Cycleway (January 2015-July 2016). This project delivered a new protected cycleway along Quay Street from Princes Wharf to Tangihua Street. It utilised turn lanes and parking spaces along Quay Street to deliver the protected cycleway; 20958869_4 1 (e) Karangahape Road Cycleway (June 2015-present). This is a project what AT is jointly delivering with Auckland Council and is currently in detailed design. The project has involved a significant engagement plan in order to deliver a complete street which accommodates people walking, cycling, bus users and general traffic; and (f) Portobello Road Safety Upgrade (2012-14) in London, which is one of London’s busiest shopping streets. The project involved a comprehensive consultation process to agree improvements for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as general safety improvements. Code of Conduct 5. While I am an employee of AT, I confirm that I have read the ‘Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses’ contained in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2014. I agree to comply with this Code of Conduct. In particular, unless I state otherwise, this evidence is within my sphere of expertise and I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express. Scope of Evidence 6. My evidence explains the relationship of AT’s walking and cycling activities to the East West Link (EWL) project. 7. In particular, my evidence addresses: (a) Walking and cycling in the context of AT’s transport planning and investment; (b) AT’s forward programme for walking and cycling; (c) The EWL in the context of AT’s walking and cycling plans; (d) My views on the specific walking and cycling infrastructure proposed to be delivered through the EWL project and conditions required to ensure good outcomes; and (e) Construction effects of the EWL project on walking and cycling. 20958869_4 2 8. My evidence should be read in conjunction with the evidence of the other AT witnesses listed below, and defers to their expertise where necessary and applicable: (a) Mr Theunis van Schalkwyk (corporate); (b) Mr Anthony Cross (public transport); (c) Mr Michael Davies (operational and construction traffic); and (d) Mr Liam Winter (planning – conditions). Walking and cycling in the context of AT’s transport planning and investment 9. AT is a Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) of the Auckland Council charged with contributing to an “effective, efficient and safe Auckland land transport system in the public interest”.1 The development, maintenance and promotion of the walking and cycling network all fall within this role. 10. Transport policy both in the Auckland context and nationally has reached a broad consensus in favour of a multi-modal approach to transport planning and investment including substantial investment in walking and cycling infrastructure. It is now widely recognised that walking and cycling can: (a) Provide a viable alternative to the private car for a variety of trips, particularly access to jobs and schools; (b) Provide safety benefits to all road users; (c) Make more efficient use of existing transport assets; and (d) Offer significant health and environmental benefits. 1 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, section 39. 20958869_4 3 11. In particular, the following strategic planning and policy documents demonstrate this broad consensus in favour of walking and cycling investment: (a) The Auckland Plan, which sets the target of completing the Auckland Cycle Network (ACN) (which is discussed further below) by 2030 and achieving a 45% mode share for non-car based trips at the morning peak; (b) The AT Statement of Intent (SOI), which sets out specific targets for cycling trips to the Central City, and cycling trips regionally, along with a target for the delivery of new cycleway infrastructure; (c) AT’s Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) which includes an accelerated programme for the delivery of the ACN in the 2015- 18 period; (d) The Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport Funding which includes investment objectives on transport choices and safe cycle networks; and (e) The National Land Transport Programme (NLTP), which earmarks over $250 million nationally for the walking and cycling activity class. 12. The ACN was developed by AT as the long term aspirational plan for cycling in Auckland, and identifies a comprehensive region-wide hierarchy of cycle routes to be delivered. The Auckland Plan sets a target of delivering 70% of this network by 2022, and the entire network by 2030. 13. AT’s current 2015-18 Walking and Cycling Programme provides for over $200 million for walking and cycling infrastructure, which is sourced from Auckland Council, the NZTA and Crown funds via the Urban Cycleway Fund (UCF). This funding provides for the delivery of 52.4km of the ACN during the 2015-18 period. This includes $4 million for local board walking and cycling initiatives and $4.5 million to deliver new footpaths across the region for the same period. 20958869_4 4 14. AT is working with Auckland Council and Local Boards across the region to deliver a programme of Greenways. These are local routes that support walking and cycling to local destinations, and utilise quiet streets, parks and natural assets. They provide recreational opportunities, along with improved travel choice. The majority of walking and cycling trips currently made in Auckland are recreational and this programme is aimed to make it easier and more attractive to be active. Auckland Transport’s forward programme for walking and cycling 15. AT, in conjunction with the NZTA and Auckland Council, are in the process of developing a joint Programme Business Case (PBC) for investment in walking and cycling at a regional level to set out the next priorities for investment beyond the current 2015-18 programme. This follows the earlier development of a Strategic Case for investment in walking and cycling which was completed in March 2016. The PBC is currently scheduled to be signed off by the AT and NZTA Boards in July 2017. 16. The PBC prioritises according to Investment Logic Mapping (ILM) and Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) (see Attachment A) which takes account of factors such as safety, access to jobs and schools, health inequalities and deliverability. Against these criteria, the project area for the EWL is not a sufficiently high priority to justify being included AT’s programme for the 2018-21 period, though Onehunga and Mangere Bridge are identified as longer term priorities for investment in future funding programmes. 17. I note for the avoidance of confusion that a number of proposed walking and cycling improvements are being funded as part of the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) and the Frequent Network 32 (FN32) projects. These are discussed further at paragraphs 19(d) and 21. 18. While some walking and cycling facilities exist in the area and are well used (such as the Waikaraka Cycleway), there are significant gaps in the network throughout the project area and limited ability for local people to access key destinations by bicycle or on foot. As such, AT 20958869_4 5 strongly supports the NZTA’s proposed delivery of significant walking and cycling infrastructure through the EWL project. The East West Link in the context of Auckland Transport’s walking and cycling plans 19. I note from the evidence of Mr Andrew Murray for the NZTA that the project provides for over double the linear length of walking and cycling facilities in the project area compared with the existing network.
Recommended publications
  • Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan Draft Integrated Transport Assessment

    Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan Draft Integrated Transport Assessment

    Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan Draft Integrated Transport Assessment 2 April 2019 Document Status Responsibility Name Author Liam Winter, Senior Planner Reviewer Andrew Murray, Transport Planning lead Approver Andrew Murray, Transport Planning lead Disclaimer: At the time of production of this ITA, the SGA draft business case for the Southern Area has not been approved by both the Auckland Transport and NZ Transport Agency Boards (due by mid-2019). Projects identified in this ITA are therefore indicative only and subject to change. Projects are also yet to be prioritised for funding and delivery over the next 30 years, and will require further technical investigations and consultation to confirm detailed location and land requirements. They may also require statutory approvals, which will be subject to the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Land Transport Management Act 2003. Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan ITA | April 2019 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... viii Context ........................................................................................................................................ viii Land Use ..................................................................................................................................... viii Proposed Transport Networks ......................................................................................................ix
  • Released Under the Official Information

    Released Under the Official Information

    Attachment E crassi RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIALNZ Transport INFORMATION Agency and Auckland ACT Transport East West Connections Project Ecological Assessment to Support Option Selection November 2014 RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT GHD | Report for NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport - East West Connections Project, 51/326513/202 | i Table of contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 5 2. Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................................. 6 3. Background Information - Existing Environment ............................................................................ 7 4. Key Design Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 8 5. Assessment of Options ................................................................................................................ 10 5.1 Potential Environmental Effects ........................................................................................
  • Monitoring Market Research Report

    Monitoring Market Research Report

    MONITORING REPORT Prepared For Regional Cycle Monitoring Working Group (Co-ordinated by Auckland Regional Transport Authority) MANUAL CYCLE MONITORING IN THE AUCKLAND REGION March 2010 Auckland City Prepared by Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited FINAL VERSION 28th May 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. AUCKLAND CITY SUMMARY OF RESULTS ..................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Summary Of Results ................................................................................................. 12 1.4 Morning Peak Summary Results ............................................................................... 13 1.5 Evening Peak Summary Results ............................................................................... 20 1.6 Aggregated Total Summary Results .......................................................................... 29 1.7 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Estimate .......................................................... 34 1.8 School Bike Shed Count Summary ............................................................................ 36 2. VICTORIA STREET/WELLESLEY STREET/HALSEY STREET (SITE 1) ......................... 37 2.1 Morning Peak ...........................................................................................................
  • Summary of Feedback on the Victoria Street Cycleway

    Summary of Feedback on the Victoria Street Cycleway

    Summary of feedback on the Victoria Street Cycleway Victoria Street Cycleway feedback report – December 2017 Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3 Major topics in feedback ................................................................................................... 3 Outcome .............................................................................................................................. 3 Next steps ............................................................................................................................ 4 Purpose of this report ......................................................................................................... 5 Project background ............................................................................................................ 5 Consultation ........................................................................................................................ 8 Activities to raise awareness ............................................................................................ 8 Feedback form ................................................................................................................. 8 Respondent demographics ............................................................................................... 9 Feedback ..........................................................................................................................

  • Have Your Say

    on cycling, walking, Have bus stop and bus lane improvements in the your wider Grey Lynn, Arch Hill say... and Westmere areas Auckland Transport is proposing improvements for pedestrians, people on bikes and bus users on four routes: • Route 1: Surrey Crescent to Garnet Road • Route 2: Richmond Road • Route 3: Greenways (Richmond Road to Great North Road) • Route 4: Great North Road Public feedback for all four routes is open until midnight Sunday 9 October 2016. J001614_KH_08.2016 Image supplied by NZ Transport Agency What will we do with your feedback? What are we seeking We will: • Consider all feedback and use it to help refine the feedback on? designs for each route We want your feedback to help us improve the design • Prepare a report on the feedback received for each Image supplied by NZ Transport Agency route, which will be posted on the project webpage. of these routes. In the case of Route 1 (Surrey Cresent to The report will include any changes made to the Garnet Road), your feedback will also help us decide on proposal following the feedback period. If you provide the most suitable cycleway option before we progress your contact details when you give us feedback you will to the detailed design phase of the project. be notified when the report is available. Each route has different improvements proposed Feedback and therefore separate feedback forms. We welcome from the public Further feedback on all or any of the routes. Other projects investigations How do I provide feedback? Internal and external Other stakeholders technical – e.g.

  • Have Your Say

    Have on the Ian McKinnon your Drive Cycleway say... Project The missing cycleway link connecting the Northwestern Cycleway and Dominion Road cycle lanes to the Grafton Gully Cycleway, Te Ara I Whiti – Lightpath and Nelson Street Cycleway. Public feedback is open until 4.00pm on 29 August 2016. What will we do with your feedback? We will: What are we seeking feedback on? • Consider all feedback and use it to help select the preferred cycleway design and develop that design We want your feedback to help us improve the in more detail cycleway design and select a preferred cycleway option before we progress to the detailed design • Prepare a report on the feedback received which will stage of the project. be posted on the project webpage. If you provide your contact details when you give us feedback you will be Please tell us: notified when the report is available • Whether you support the cycleway design options • Seek further public feedback on a detailed version • What you like or would change about each option of the preferred design later this year • Any comments you have on the Suffolk Reserve • Construct the cycleway by mid-2018. section of the cycleway Feedback from Other projects landowners Further – Light Rail and the public investigations How do I provide feedback? Internal Other and external stakeholders If you wish to make comments, please read the information technical – Local Board, in this booklet then complete our freepost feedback form specialist inputs Bike Auckland AUCKLAND and return it to us by 4.00pm on 29 August 2016. Safety TRANSPORT Operational considerations DECISION considerations Alternatively, you can provide feedback at AT.govt.nz/haveyoursay International AC & AT strategic best practice documents If you have difficulty completing the form, you can call us on (09) 355 3553 and our contact centre staff Design Funding standards constraints will fill in the feedback form with you over the phone.
  • Business Unit Report Template

    Business Unit Report Template

    Board Meeting | 05 December 2017 Agenda Item no.10. Open Session Business Report Recommendation: That the Chief Executive’s report be received. Prepared by: David Warburton, Chief Executive Farewell and Acknowledgements As this is the last Board meeting in my tenure as Chief Executive, I wish to take the opportunity to make some passing comments and acknowledgements. It is not possible, nor appropriate, to name individuals who have contributed so much to the organisation, and Auckland as a whole over the past seven years. Suffice to say the staff of this organisation, past and present, can be justifiably proud of where we have come from and what we have achieved. Those who were not here when the organisation first came into being on 1 November 2010 will find it hard to imagine what things were like – over the space of 12 months the Auckland Local Government Reforms delivered the largest restructure in Australasian corporate history. Eight organisations – each with their own distinct policies, procedures and cultures were brought together against a backdrop of community and political distrust of the “super city” and the effect on staff morale cannot be underestimated. In responding to the Chairman’s question on the induction programme for the new Chief Executive, there was no precedent. In my case there was no organisation to be inducted into. At that time people asked me what my biggest worries were: the first was that our staff would be paid correctly and secondly our suppliers. Everybody worked incredibly hard just to ensure the basics were done and the organisation didn’t fall apart.
  • Download Original Attachment

    Download Original Attachment

    Attachment D East West Connections Report Options shortlisting – preliminary groundwater assessment Prepared for NZTA and Auckland Transport THE ACT Prepared by Beca Ltd UNDER INFORMATION RELEASED OFFICIAL THE ACT UNDER INFORMATION RELEASED OFFICIAL [Document title] Executive Summary The East West Connections project is a joint NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport programme to improve freight efficiency, commuter travel, public transport and walking and cycling options over the next 30 years in the area between Onehunga, Penrose, East Tamaki and Auckland Airport. Six options were short- listed for the Onehunga-Penrose connection (a description of each is held in the Detailed Business Case): Option A (Long List Option 1): Existing route upgrade Option B (Long List Option 2): Upgrade with South Eastern Highway Ramp Option C (Long List Option 5): Upgrade with new Galway Street and inland connections Option D (Long List Option 8): Upgrade with Gloucester Park interchange and new Galway St and inland connections Option E (Long List Option 13): New foreshore connection Option F (Long List Option 14): New foreshore and inland connection. This report provides a high level assessment of the effects of the each of the six options on groundwater levels and flow. Groundwater quality is addressed in a separate assessment.THE ACT Existing groundwater levels and flow may be influenced by the project if there are changes to surface water flows and infiltration, where earthworks and subsurface construction require drainage or take place below
  • 6 NZ Cycling Conference, 2 November 2007 Diagonal Cycle

    6 NZ Cycling Conference, 2 November 2007 Diagonal Cycle

    6th NZ Cycling Conference, 2 November 2007 Diagonal cycle crossing for signalised intersection Axel Wilke, Matthew Hinton and Daniel Newcombe Abstract Auckland City Council has developed an innovative cycling proposal to resolve a difficult continuity problem on a significant cycleway currently under construction. The planned State Highway 20 (Mt Roskill) cycleway will run in parallel with the motorway corridor but at its western end the off-road cycleway finishes at a large signalised intersection. Cyclists wishing to continue westwards are presented with the difficult situation of attempting to cross the large and complicated intersection diagonally. This would normally require cyclists to dismount and use two pedestrian phases to reach the desired side of the intersection. Designers ViaStrada and Maunsell have developed an innovative concept, which proposes a diagonal cycle phase to run concurrently with opposing right-turning traffic (i.e. during the ‘single diamond phase’). This is believed to be the first of its kind in NZ, and whilst the concept is described in the Dutch CROW manual, it appears that it has not been tried before in The Netherlands either. This paper will present the concept, and discuss its benefits and risks. This paper has been co-authored by Axel Wilke (ViaStrada), Matthew Hinton (Maunsell) and. Daniel Newcombe (Auckland CC) Contents 1. Introduction.....................................................................................................1 2. Background ....................................................................................................1
  • Quarterly Report to Auckland Council for the Quarter Ended 31 December 2015

    Quarterly Report to Auckland Council for the Quarter Ended 31 December 2015

    Board Meeting | 23 February 2016 Agenda item no. 11.5 Closed Session CONFIDENTIAL Quarterly Report to Auckland Council for the Quarter Ended 31 December 2015 Recommendations That the Board: i. Approves this Quarterly Report for submission to Auckland Council (Attachment 1). ii. Agrees to make this report public after it has been received by Auckland Council. Executive Summary AC requires AT to deliver, no later than eight weeks after the end of the second quarter of each financial year, a report against the performance targets set out in AT’s Statement of Intent (SOI). The report, included as Attachment 1, provides an overview of AT’s performance against the SOI during this period. Attachment Number Description 1 AT Quarterly Report to AC for the quarter ended 31 December 2015 Board Meeting | 23 February 2016 Agenda item no. 11.5 Closed Session CONFIDENTIAL Document ownership Submitted by Harlem Cabuhat Senior Financial Reporting Accountant Recommended by Julian Michael Financial Reporting Manager Stephen Smith Group Manager – Finance Approved for Submission Richard Morris Chief Financial Officer David Warburton Chief Executive ATTACHMENT 1 Auckland Transport Quarterly Report Quarter ended 31 December 2015 CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee Nelson Street Cycleway is now open to the public. It was opened by Transport Minister Simon Bridges. Representatives from NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Bike Auckland attended the opening. Auckland Transport Quarterly Report – Quarter ended 31 December 2015 Page
  • Submission of the Campaign for Better Transport on Waterview Connection Project

    Submission of the Campaign for Better Transport on Waterview Connection Project

    Environmental Protection Authority Waterview Connection project PO Box 10720 The Terrace Wellington 6143 Submission of the Campaign for Better Transport on Waterview Connection Project 1. Introduction: The Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) is a non-politically aligned group that advocates for sustainable transport policies and projects throughout Auckland and the rest of New Zealand. The CBT regularly advocates for better alignment between land- use planning and its effects on the transport network, better public transport and better walking and cycling facilities. 2. Summary of Submission: The CBT generally opposes the Waterview Connection project. This is for a number of reasons that will be further detailed in this submission. In short: - It is questionable whether the project will achieve the objectives that NZTA have highlighted. - The proposed bus shoulder lanes along State Highway 16 are an inadequate gesture to provide high quality “Quality Transit Network” standard public transport along this route. Suggestions to improve the quality of the lanes are detailed further in the submission. - Further public transport improvements on local arterial roads must form part of this project package, to ensure that the traffic benefits of the project are “locked in” and not lost to induced demand. - Extensions and improvements to the proposed cycle paths are required to ensure the project contributes to multi-modal transport benefits. - The widening of State Highway 16 must be questioned and reassessed, as the documentation accompanying the application states it will not bring any congestion relief benefits – but will cause significant environmental effects. It is also noted that the State Highway 16 works have been “snuck into” this application – which is generally presented as only the Waterview Connection.

  • Destination AKL 2025 Supplementary Report

    Destination AKL 2025 A new direction for Auckland's visitor economy SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT SUPPLEMENTARY 1 DESTINATION AKL STRATEGY - SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION | Contents 1. ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT ______________________________________________ 4 2. SCOPE & BOUNDARY _________________________________________________ 5 2.1 Geographical scope of the Strategy __________________________ 5 3. FULL LIST OF CONSULTATION __________________________________________ 6 3.1 Who was consulted _________________________________________ 6 3.2 Industry Leaders Group ______________________________________ 7 3.3 Organisations represented __________________________________ 8 4. SETTING THE SCENE _________________________________________________ 9 4.1 About Auckland _____________________________________________ 9 4.2 Our people ________________________________________________ 11 4.3 Our visitors _________________________________________________ 12 4.4 Value of the visitor economy _________________________________ 18 5. SURVEYS ____________________________________________________________ 20 5.1 Auckland industry stakeholder survey __________________________ 20 5.2 Auckland visitor survey (domestic market) ______________________ 24 6. AUCKLAND AS A COMPETITIVE DESTINATION CITY _______________________ 31 6.1 Defining competitiveness ____________________________________ 31 6.2 The cities assessed _________________________________________ 32 6.3 The results of the benchmarking ______________________________ 32 6.4 Auckland’s performance in each category _____________________