Transport Committee April 2012

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Transport Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
Tuesday, 3 April 2012 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
Ex-Officio
(Quorum 7 members) Desiree Tukutama Committee Secretary 29 March 2012 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.
Transport Committee 03 April 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PROCEDURAL

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 Electric Multiple Units - Ms Claire Stewart, Corporate Manager Special Projects, Auckland Transport Public Transport Development - Mr Mark Lambert, Manager Public Transport Operations, Auckland Transport 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 19 97 117
PAGE
Local Board Input Extraordinary Business Notices of Motion Strategic Overview of Bus Services Transport Update Air Quality Management in Auckland: Transport Emisisons Reductions Report and Resolutions from the Environment and Sustainability Forum Correspondence Consideration of Extraordinary Items
Page 3
Transport Committee 03 April 2012 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, 7 March 2012, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting. 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 Electric Multiple Units - Ms Claire Stewart, Corporate Manager Special Projects, Auckland Transport Executive Summary Ms Claire Stewart from Auckland Transport will provide an update on the proposed Electric Multiple Units to be acquired by Auckland Transport and the depot where they are proposed to be stored. Recommendations a) That the Electric Multiple Units presentation be received. b) That Ms Claire Stewart, Corporate Manager: Special Projects, Auckland Transport, be thanked for her presentation.
5.2
Public Transport Development - Mr Mark Lambert, Manager Public Transport Operations, Auckland Transport Executive Summary Mr Mark Lambert from Auckland Transport will provide an outline of public transport operational development over the next three years and the new public transport operating model. Recommendations a) That the Public Transport Development presentation be received. b) That Mr Mark Lambert, Manager Public Transport Operations, Auckland Transport be thanked for his presentation.
Page 5
Transport Committee 03 April 2012 6 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 3.9.4 to speak to matters on the agenda. At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received. 7 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.
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.
At the close of the agenda no requests for extraordinary business had been received. 8 Notices of Motion At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Page 6
File No.: CP2012/04347
Executive Summary
This report has been prepared to provide the Transport Committee with a strategic overview of Aucklands bus system and how recent changes and the programme of upcoming planned changes can provide a higher quality system that is more attractive to customers (driving patronage growth) without requiring a large amount of additional expenditure on public transport services. Changes to the contracting and operation of bus services in Auckland will be implemented over the next few years in Auckland. The implementation of the new Public Transport Operating Model (PTOM) for service contracting, as well as the continued rollout of integrated ticketing, provides an opportunity to significantly restructure Aucklands bus network so it operates more efficiently and effectively, contributing to reversing a general trend of the last decade where spending on public transport services increased at a faster rate than patronage. Both PTOM and integrated ticketing make it easier to plan and operate the bus network in a holistic and integrated manner, complementing (rather than competing with) the rail and ferry networks, encouraging crosstown and off-peak trips, ultimately helping to increase patronage towards achieving targets set in the Auckland Plan. Fully leveraging the benefits of PTOM and integrated ticketing will require significant changes to how the network operates and a greater use of connections/transfers. Minimising the inconvenience of a connection/transfer will be critical in achieving the cost-efficiency and patronage growth benefits outlined in this report. Integrated fares (with no transfer penalty) and improved waiting facilities will be part of the solution to minimise inconvenience of connections/transfers.
Recommendations
a) b) That the Strategic Overview of Bus Services report be received. That the Transport Committee notes the implementation of integrated ticketing and the Public Transport Operating Model for service procurement allows for the bus network to be planned in a more holistic manner than has been possible in the past. That the Transport Committee supports the need for a comprehensive reconfiguration of Aucklands bus network to improve its cost-efficiency, integrate better with the rail network, increase the proportion of Aucklanders within walking distance of frequent services and contribute to achieving the patronage targets of the Auckland Plan. That the Transport Committee notes the increased role of connections/transfers in enhancing the performance of the bus network and requests officers to work with Auckland Transport and report back to the committee in relation to how the inconvenience of connections/transfers to customers can be minimised.
c)
d)
Strategic Overview of Bus Services
Page 7
Item 9
Item 9
Background
Current Role of Buses in Aucklands PT network Bus trips make up approximately 77% of Aucklands PT patronage (53,426,487 bus trips out of 69,417,517 total trips in the 2011 calendar year). Figure 1 below shows how this trend has changed over time, decreasing from 2002 when bus trips made up over 88% of all public transport trips in Auckland.
Figure 1: PT mode split by trips 2002-2011 It is important to note that the total number of bus trips over this time has increased, from 45.9 million in 2002 to 53.4 million in 2011. The decreased proportion is predominantly the result of rail trips increasing so significantly (from 2.4 million to 10.8 million). While the majority of PT trips are taken by bus, average trip length by mode varies considerably, with trips on the rail network being significantly longer than those taken by bus or ferry. This means that trips by rail generate significantly higher congestion relief benefits (also aided by rail trips being completely taken away from the road corridor). This is highlighted in the NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual (volume 2):
Urban area Mode Average trip length (km) 7.70 16.50 6.60 12.14 22.76 6.97 8.05 7.86 Road traffic reduction benefits Peak 12.61 17.27 11.73 13.25 17.70 11.97 2.71 2.06 Off peak 0.86 1.65 0.76 1.25 1.99 0.89 1.24 1.00 Passenger transport user benefits Peak 8.59 13.18 8.02 10.90 16.44 8.21 8.78 8.68 Off peak 5.73 8.78 5.35 7.27 10.96 5.48 5.85 5.78
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch Other
All Rail Bus/ferry All Rail Bus/ferry All All
Figure 2: Benefits per additional passenger boarding (2008)
Page 8
Transport Committee 03 April 2012 The table below gives some indication of where in Auckland bus trips are taken:
Figure 3: Bus patronage trends by sector The table splits bus patronage as follows: Northern Sector (adjusted to include Northern Express) 24% West Sector 9% South Sector 20% Isthmus Sector 47% It is important to note that this table is grouped by route sector, which means that trips that occur wholly on the isthmus on a bus that comes from the south e.g. a trip from Britomart to Ellerslie on a Great South Road bus is counted in the south sector. This means that the Isthmus Sector is likely to be even more dominant of patronage than is highlighted above. Bus Patronage Trends In the year to February 2012 there were 54 million bus trips taken in Auckland, a 7.7% (+3.887 million) increase on the year to February 2011. As the figure below indicates, fluctuations in bus patronage have a significant effect on total patronage trends, due to the dominance of bus patronage. Bus improvements such as the Northern Busway, the introduction of b-line routes and the Link Services have contributed to the significant increase in bus patronage in recent years.
Page 9
Item 9
Item 9
Figure 4: Change in public transport patronage from previous year, by mode 2002-2011 With Aucklands rail capacity constrained (at approximately 20-22 million trips per year) until such time as the City Rail Link is constructed and the ferry network (even with expansion) only serving a relatively limited part of the city, a significant proportion of increasing public transport patronage in the short to medium term will need to come through the bus network. Although Auckland has seen significant increases in public transport patronage over the past few years, when compared to many comparative international cities Auckland still performs quite poorly especially in terms of public transport trips per capita. This is illustrated by the figure below:
Figure 5: Comparison of Auckland with international cities (from Ian Wallis & Associates and McCormick Rankin Cagney report to Auckland Council, August 2011)
Strategic Overview of Bus Services Page 10
Transport Committee 03 April 2012 The Auckland Plan includes two patronage targets: Doubling patronage from current levels to 140 million trips by 2022, subject to additional funding; and
Increasing per capita patronage from 44 to 100 trips per annum by 2040. Both targets require a significant increase in public transport patronage. The figure below graphs the necessary increase in patronage to meet the targets comparing it with historic patronage levels:
Figure 6: Historic Patronage and Auckland Plan targets
Funding Trends and Challenges Over the last 10 years, expenditure on public transport services has generally increased at a faster rate than patronage, although this trend has been reversed in more recent times.
Page 11
Item 9
Item 9
Figure 7: Patronage and funding trends (AT Board Paper, October 2011) A number of factors have contributed to the increase in public transport services expenditure over the past decade. These include the revival of Aucklands rail network, a significant renewal of bus rolling stock, challenges with the legislative environment for public transport contracting and a general lengthening of trips. It is important to note that average public transport trip length has also increased during this time, meaning that the level of subsidy per service kilometre has not increased at such a high rate. The graph above is also not inflation adjusted. Part of the increase between 2006 and 2008 was a significant series of withdrawal of commercial registered services by bus operators requiring an immediate $15 to $20 million per annum subsidy injection to retain service levels. Service levels and patronage actually fell despite this funding injection. This funding shock led to a review of the then existing Transport Services Licensing Act 1989 and resulted in legislative change around the bus procurement framework resulting in the Public Transport Management Act 2008 as discussed below and has ultimately resulted in a further review of the Public Transport Management Act 2008 that will be the Public Transport Operating Model (PTOM). Under the majority of existing bus service arrangements of commercial registrations and net cost contracts, local government does not see a benefit of increasing fare revenue from patronage growth in the form of subsidy reduction. PTOM is also designed to correct this situation. The 2012-2022 Government Policy Statement (GPS) provides NZTA with strategic direction relating to central governments transport priorities, and including funding bands for various transport activities. The public transport services activity class has some increase in funding allocation in the GPS (from $220m nationwide in 2011/12 to a midpoint of $285m in 2014/15), but most of this additional funding is allocated to Metro Rail improvements in Auckland and Wellington, including NZTAs contribution to repaying the loan for Aucklands Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) trains. Under the current GPS, it is highly unlikely that NZTAs contribution to public transport services will be able to increase as rapidly in the next few years as it has done so in the past few years, especially for bus services. This situation is likely to mean that additional public transport services costs would fall with the Council.
Page 12
Significant improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of Aucklands bus system are therefore required if bus patronage is to continue to grow in the future, contributing to achieving the Auckland Plans targets, but in a way that does not significantly increase the operating cost of the system and is consistent with NZTAs farebox recovery policy. Short-Term Opportunities There are three important changes to the operation of Aucklands bus system occurring in the near future that open up opportunities to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. The implementation of the Public Transport Operating Model (PTOM), an updated system for contracting public transport services from private operators; The implementation of integrated ticketing, allowing a single fare card (the HOP card) to be used on all bus, rail and ferry services. This will make transferring between services a more viable option for users and should also speed up bus boarding times; and As part of reviewing the Public Transport Network Plan (PTNP), Auckland Transport is undertaking a clean-slate review of all public transport routes in Auckland.
Public Transport Operating Model (PTOM)

The implementation of PTOM over the next few years provides a number of opportunities and implications for the planning of Aucklands bus network. The specific division of the network into units needs to be undertaken in a way that ensures units are integrated across the whole region and contribute to the development of an easily understood, efficient and effective network. Non-traditional routes, such as cross-town services or services that operate through the city centre rather than terminating there (such as a Takapuna to Onehunga bus, for example) need to be given consideration in the planning of the units; and As commercial services no longer need to be worked around, a more holistic and integrated approach to planning routes within a unit can be undertaken.
Auckland Transport, with the MoT, NZTA and Greater Wellington Regional Council has been leading the development of PTOM policy and is nearing the completion of the drafting of its first new PTOM contracts. Auckland Transport has engaged transport consultancy firm McCormick Rankin Cagney to undertake a comprehensive study of Aucklands bus network and how it can be improved. It will be important for changes suggested by this study to be implemented in manner that is integrated with the rollout of PTOM contracts.
Integrated Ticketing
The implementation of integrated ticketing creates a number of opportunities for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Aucklands bus network. It is important to note that some of these opportunities arise once the next phase of integrated ticketing has been implemented (i.e. once the HOP Card is accepted on all buses, trains and ferries later in 2012) while other opportunities arise only when the fare system has been changed to allow completely free transfers between services (integrated fares).
Page 13
Item 9
NZTA is also requiring higher farebox recovery rates (the proportion of operating costs paid for by public transport users). The NZTAs farebox recovery policy requires a national farebox recovery ratio of no less than 50 per cent in the medium term (ie two cycles of the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) - six years after the end of the current NLTP concluding in June 2018).
Transport Committee 03 April 2012 Once the HOP Card is fully implemented, it will be much easier for passengers to use multiple operators on a regular basis, as well as taking trips which involve a change of modes between buses, trains or ferries. For bus corridors served by different operators (such as inner sections of Great South Road and Great North Road), there will be an increased number of services available for passengers on which they can use their HOP Card. For other areas, such as Papakura, catching the bus as a feeder to the train station, rather than for the whole journey, may prove to be a faster and more attractive option and no longer be penalised by incompatible fare options. A 50c transfer discount for using different services within 2 hours of each other will remove some of the disincentive for people to pay multiple fares despite having the one integrated ticket. For bus network planning purposes, the next phase of integrated ticketing removes an existing barrier that discourages passengers from connecting between public transport services. This enables the bus network to be utilised as part of an integrated public transport network, rather than as a complete network that operates independently of the rail and ferry system. A more network like approach, allowing higher frequencies, greater service legibility and faster travel times for most passengers will be implemented on the back of integrated ticketing and PTOM. The shift to a network style bus system is a critical contributor to enabling patronage to increase without significantly increasing operating costs. Auckland Transport has commenced a review of the Public Transport Network Plan to define a new connected and integrated network using a huband-spoke design principle that will be implemented across Auckland over the next three years. Once changes to the fares system which eliminate penalties for transferring between services have been completed, to form integrated fares in addition to integrated ticketing, further reduction to the disincentive for customers to transfer between services will be achieved.
Item 9
Optimising the Bus Network

A number of matters require consideration in efforts to optimise and improve Aucklands bus system in the next few years. These include improvements to the route structure of the network, improving bus priority measures and undertaking further investigation of how to best provide services in new development areas and rural areas. Network Route Structure Improvements An important element of making the bus system more efficient is through enhancements to its network. Unlike trains and ferries, bus routes can be altered relatively easily and significant efficiency/effectiveness improvements can be made to the bus system through well targeted network changes. Areas of discussion relating to public transport network design typically involve the following: The extent to which network design should or should not require connections/transfers; Whether stops/stations should be located close together for accessibility, or further apart for higher speeds; The ideal level of complexity/simplicity of a network; The extent to which high frequency should be a core focus of improvements, even if that requires connections/transfers; The level of focus given to peak time services compared to all-day (and weekend) services; and The extent to which a network focuses on generating the highest level of efficiency compared to the extent to which it focuses on coverage for social reasons.
Page 14
Transport Committee 03 April 2012 Over the past few decades Aucklands public transport network has predominantly focused on providing a transport option for those unable to drive leading to a system dominated by low frequencies, complex routes and long journey times (recent improvements notwithstanding). Ticketing systems have generally penalised connections/transfers, leading to demand for a large number of anywhere to anywhere routes which make the network difficult to understand and expensive to operate. A recent study published in the Journal of Transport Geography1 assessed the accessibility and frequency of public transport in Auckland. The study calculated that while 94.4% of the urban population has at least a medium level of accessibility to public transport, only 26.5% of the population has accessibility to services that average at least two trips per hour and only 5% of the population has accessibility to services that average at least four trips per hour. The study reinforces the poor coverage of high-frequency public transport in Auckland caused by the need to spread resources across a vast number of low frequency anywhere to anywhere routes. The implementation of PTOM and integrated ticketing allows a clean-slate review of Aucklands bus network to occur. Auckland Transport is undertaking this work as part of their review of the 2006 Passenger Transport Network Plan (PTNP). Officers are involved in this work. Auckland Transport will provide further details relating to the outcome of this work, but in general the bus networks review has the following key elements: Primary focus on developing a frequent transit network where services operate every 15 minutes at worst for the entire span of service, seven days a week; Services designed in a way that is based on current/potential person travel demand rather than by historic operator/ contract area boundaries; Great integration with rail services and less service duplication; and Services provided at higher frequencies along key corridors, leveraging the advantages of connections/transfers rather than avoiding them.
A similar network redesign is underway in Wellington. The Wellington redesign has significantly increased the proportion of the citys population within walking distance of frequent public transport without increasing the cost of operating the network. A critical ingredient to the success of changing Aucklands bus network in the manner described above will be making connecting/transferring between services more attractive for customers. This will require fare integration (so customers are not penalised for changing services), service integration (e.g. so that feeder bus timetables align with rail timetables) and a greater focus on ensuring the physical environment where connections occur makes the process as easy as possible (e.g. changing the location of bus stops at intersections to avoid the need to cross busy roads multiple times). Improving Bus Priority Measures Most of Aucklands buses currently run in mixed traffic, sharing road space with general vehicles. In mixed traffic, buses cannot compete with cars undertaking the same trip as the bus will always need to stop to pick up and drop off passengers. Running buses in mixed traffic also leaves buses subject to congestion: contributing to slow and unreliable journey times. Bus priority measures include bus lanes, T2/T3 lanes, b-aspect traffic signals and busways (such as the Northern Busway and proposed AMETI busway). These measures help provide bus passengers with faster and more reliable travel times, as well as enabling streets to handle greater numbers of buses in an efficient manner. By enabling buses to complete their journeys faster, bus priority measures also create resource efficiencies as fewer buses are required to maintain a desired level of frequency.
1
Mavoa, S., Witten, W., McCreanor, T. and OSullivan, D (2012) GIS based destination accessibility via public transit and walking in Auckland, New Zealand Journal of Transport Geography 20, pp-15-22.
Page 15
Item 9
Item 9
Providing for higher levels of bus patronage in an efficient manner will require the expansion of bus priority measures, to provide faster and more reliable trips for passengers. The review of Aucklands bus network will highlight areas where infrastructure investment is necessary. Locations subject to significant congestion where high frequency service is proposed are most likely to require priority measures Provision of Bus Services to New Development and Rural Areas The Auckland Plan proposes a number of greenfield development areas that will be urbanised over the next 30 years. At a strategic level, it is important to provide these areas with public transport services as the first residents and businesses locate in the area. This enables prospective buyers to see that public transport operates in that area and to get residents into the habit of using public transport. For example, the Hobsonville Point area is served by the bus network and the planned ferry terminal is an attraction for people looking to live or work in the area. The provision of bus services to newly developed areas requires an additional level of funding, as patronage generated will start low before it increases over time. Providing buses in rural areas is challenging from a cost-effectiveness perspective, but can be very important for other reasons. Further discussion with the Ministry of Education about improving the network of school buses is an important part of developing a strategy for rural buses in Auckland.
Decision Making
The recommendations in this report fall within the delegated authority of the Committee. Auckland Transport is responsible for the overall planning and management of the Auckland transport network (together with NZTA and KiwiRail) which involves the investigation, design and delivery of major transport projects. Auckland Council is responsible for land development and the wider economic, social, cultural and environmental outcomes. This report is intended to provide the Committee with a background of Aucklands bus system and an overview of how, at a strategic level, it can be improved over the next few years. Auckland Transport is responsible for implementing any changes to Aucklands bus network and is progressing the programme of change discussed in this report.
Significance of Decision
The contents of this report are not significant in terms of the Councils Significance Policy.
Maori Impact Statement

There are no specific Maori implications at this stage from the preparation of this report. Maori would benefit from improvements to Aucklands bus network, along with other citizens.
Consultation
Consultation has taken place with Auckland Transport in the preparation of this report.
Page 16
Local Boards will be consulted as part of any change to Aucklands bus system.
Financial and Resourcing Implications

Direct resource implications from the recommendations of this report are limited to staff time to prepare a subsequent report to the Committee. There are a number of funding challenges for public transport services over the next 10 years. These challenges primarily arise from uncertainties around new contracts for operators under the PTOM system and little increase in available funding from NZTA (as outlined in the GPS) for bus services. The next three years will be a time of transition for the public transport network, as electric trains are progressively introduced, as integrated ticketing is fully implemented and as the bus network is completely reviewed. The transition process may have a funding requirement as changes are bedded in which will need to be considered when finalising the Regional Land Transport Programme as well as in Annual Plans over the next three years. Higher patronage has the potential to reduce the reliance on Council funding, as fares cover an increasing proportion of public transport operating costs. Realising this opportunity will rely on a more efficient network. Constructing infrastructure to support the strategic changes to Aucklands bus network will have a resource implication, as will providing additional services to places that are unlikely to generate sufficient patronage to cover costs (e.g. rural areas and new development areas). Changes to Aucklands bus network may have a resourcing implication, which will be agreed upon between the Council and Auckland Transport through the Long Term Plan process.
Legal and Legislative Implications

There are no legislative implications at this stage from the preparation of this report.
Implementation Issues
There are no implementation issues at this stage from this report.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Joshua Arbury, Principal Transport Planner Kevin Wright, Manager: Transport Strategy Ree Anderson, Manager: Regional Strategy Community and Cultural Policy Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer
Page 17
Item 9
Local Board Views
File No.: CP2012/04349
Executive Summary
This report outlines key matters that were reported to the Auckland Transport Board at its March 2012 meeting which may be of interest to the Transport Committee. Key information includes: Business Report on Auckland Transport operations in February, including a review of the Public Transport Network Plan, information about on-street parking in the City Centre, stakeholder engagement and an update on the construction and investigation programme. Tamaki Drive proposal; Regional Cycle Programme Update; St Marys Bay Parking Trial; Safe School Transport Programme (Travelwise); and Recreational Wharves.
Recommendations
a) b) That the Transport Update report be received. That this report be referred to all Local Boards and the Independent Maori Statutory Board for their information.
Background
At is meeting on 21 March 2012, the Auckland Transport Board considered in its open agenda a range of reports including: Business report on the activities of each division for February; Tamaki Drive proposal; Regional Cycle Programme Update; St Marys Bay Parking Trial; Safe School Transport Programme (Travelwise); and Recreational Wharves.
Parts of the above reports are set out in Attachments A - F. Highlights from the above include: The Public Transport Network Plan is being reviewed, which will set a revised public transport network structure and enable a redesign of bus services across the whole of the Auckland region between 2012 and 2015. Information about on-street parking in the City Centre is reported. This indicates a reduction of 843 on-street parking spaces since 2007. City Rail Link work is focused on preparation of a Notice of Requirement and commissioning a City Centre Future Access Study. This study will include an investigation of future bus access to and within the City Centre and is in response to a requirement from central governments review of the business case.
Transport Update Page 19
Item 10
Transport Update
Transport Committee 03 April 2012 Construction of the AMETI project commenced in February.
Item 10
Stakeholder engagement on the draft Regional Land Transport Programme began in February. In response to safety issues along Tamaki Drive and the safety audit done by Cycle Action Auckland, a programme of actions is set out over the next two years. A parking trial is proposed at St Marys Bay to limit parking to two hours and provide local residential and business parking permits. The Travelwise programme in 2011 resulted in 9,104 vehicle trips removed from the road network (a 10% increase from the previous year). Auckland Transport is proposing to assume responsibility in relation to three recreational wharves, located at Sandspit, South Cove and Schoolhouse Bay.
Decision Making
This report is for the information of the Transport Committee. No decisions are proposed in this report.
Significance of Decision
No decisions are required in relation to this report.
Maori Impact Statement

The Key Relationships Unit section of the Business report notes that a Maori Engagement Plan is being refined before presentation to the Auckland Transport Board. A RLTP hui was completed in conjunction with the Councils draft Long Term Plan consultation. Active iwi engagement is taking place in relation to infrastructure projects such as AMETI, Long Bay, Half Moon Bay, Dominion Road, Wiri Depot, Oteha-Gillis, Tiverton/Wolverton, rail network upgrades and City Rail Link. 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.
Consultation
As this is an information item, no consultation has been done in the preparation of this report. This update refers to consultations on major projects, the draft Regional Land Transport Programme and draft Long Term Plan.
Local Board Views

Local Boards are involved, and will become involved, in Auckland Transports consultation on major transport projects and planning processes. Presentations on the City Rail Link to Local Boards commenced in February. Specific issues being worked through include: Te Atatu Road upgrade process (Henderson-Massey); Road maintenance issues (Waiheke); Roading and traffic issues in Silverdale (Hibiscus and Bays); Dominion Road (Albert-Eden and Puketapapa); and Remuera Road HOV lanes (Orakei).
Page 20
Transport Update
Financial and Resourcing Implications

The projects and programmes outlined in the reports to Auckland Transport are subject to finalisation of the Long Term Plan and Regional Land Transport Programme.
Legal and Legislative Implications

Auckland Transport is responsible for taking legal advice in relation to its operations. The Council would need to consider the legal implications of a transfer of recreational wharves to Auckland Transport.
Implementation Issues
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 E F Title Extracts from Auckland Transport's Business Report - March 2012 Tamaki Drive Proposal Regional Cycle Programme Update St Marys Bay Residential Parking Trial Safe School Transport Programme Recreational Wharves Page 23 53 69 81 87 91
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Kevin Wright, Manager: Transport Strategy Ree Anderson, Manager: Regional Strategy Community and Cultural Policy Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer
Transport Update
Page 21
Item 10
Auckland Transport provides a quarterly report to individual Local Boards which now includes an analysis of how Auckland Transport is responding to key transport projects identified in the Local Board Plans.
Transport Update
Page 23
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 24
Transport Update
Page 25
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 26
Transport Update
Page 27
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 28
Transport Update
Page 29
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 30
Transport Update
Page 31
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 32
Transport Update
Page 33
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 34
Transport Update
Page 35
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 36
Transport Update
Page 37
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 38
Transport Update
Page 39
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 40
Transport Update
Page 41
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 42
Transport Update
Page 43
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 44
Transport Update
Page 45
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 46
Transport Update
Page 47
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 48
Transport Update
Page 49
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 50
Transport Update
Page 51
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 52
Transport Update
Page 53
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 54
Transport Update
Page 55
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 56
Transport Update
Page 57
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 58
Transport Update
Page 59
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 60
Transport Update
Page 61
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 62
Transport Update
Page 63
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 64
Transport Update
Page 65
Attachment B
Item 10
Attachment B
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 66
Transport Update
Page 67
Attachment B
Item 10
Transport Update
Page 69
Attachment C
Item 10
Attachment C
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 70
Transport Update
Page 71
Attachment C
Item 10
Attachment C
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 72
Transport Update
Page 73
Attachment C
Item 10
Attachment C
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 74
Transport Update
Page 75
Attachment C
Item 10
Attachment C
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 76
Transport Update
Page 77
Attachment C
Item 10
Attachment C
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 78
Transport Update
Page 79
Attachment C
Item 10
Transport Update
Page 81
Attachment D
Item 10
Attachment D
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 82
Transport Update
Page 83
Attachment D
Item 10
Attachment D
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 84
Transport Update
Page 85
Attachment D
Item 10
Transport Update
Page 87
Attachment E
Item 10
Attachment E
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 88
Transport Update
Page 89
Attachment E
Item 10
ATTACHMENT 1
SAFE SCHOOL TRANSPORT PROGRAMME
Transport Update
Page 91
Attachment F
Item 10
Attachment F
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 92
Transport Update
Page 93
Attachment F
Item 10
Attachment F
Transport Update
Item 10
Page 94
Transport Update
Page 95
Attachment F
Item 10
File No.: CP2012/04126
Executive Summary
At its meeting on 20 March 2012, the Environment and Sustainability Forum resolved as follows: Resolution number ES/2012/1 MOVED by Cr Walker, seconded Deputy Mayor Hulse: a) b) That the report be received. That the Environment and Sustainability Forum requests a further focused report addressing implementation of initiatives noted in the Air Quality Management in Auckland Transport Emissions Reductions report. That the Air Quality Management in Auckland Transport Emissions Reductions report and these resolutions be forwarded to the Transport Committee for their information and consideration. That it be noted that no funding has been allocated to education and partnerships on air quality initiatives in the draft Long Term Plan 2012-2022. CARRIED
c)
d)
This report actions resolution c) above. The original report and attachments to the Environment and Sustainability Forum are appended at Attachment A.
Recommendations
a) b) That the report be received. That the Air Quality Management in Auckland Transport Emissions Reductions report and associated resolutions from the Environment and Sustainability Forum be noted.
Attachments
No. A Title Original report and attachments to the Environment and Sustainability Forum Page 99
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Emma Joyce - Committee Secretary Warwick McNaughton, Manager: Governance Support
Air Quality Management in Auckland: Transport Emisisons Reductions - Report and Resolutions from the Environment and Sustainability Forum
Page 97
Item 11
Page 99
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 100
Page 101
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 102
Page 103
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 104
Page 105
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 106
Page 107
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 108
Page 109
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 110
Page 111
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 112
Page 113
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 115
Attachment A
Item 11
File No.: CP2012/04394
Recommendation
That the following inward correspondence be received and outward correspondence be endorsed: 13/02/2012 Letter from Peter Clark, Corporate Manager: Strategy and Planning Public Transport Benchmark Study re:
Attachments
No. A Title Letter from Peter Clark, Auckland Transport - Public Transport Benchmark Study Page 119
Correspondence
Page 117
Item 12
Correspondence
Correspondence
Page 119
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Correspondence
Item 12
Page 120
Correspondence
Page 121
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Correspondence
Item 12
Page 122
Correspondence
Page 123
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Correspondence
Item 12
Page 124

Transport Committee April 2012

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Transport Committee April 2012

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

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

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PROCEDURAL

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

File No.: CP2012/04347

Strategic Overview of Bus Services

Strategic Overview of Bus Services

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

All Rail Bus/ferry All Rail Bus/ferry All All

Figure 2: Benefits per additional passenger boarding (2008)

Strategic Overview of Bus Services

Strategic Overview of Bus Services

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Figure 6: Historic Patronage and Auckland Plan targets

Strategic Overview of Bus Services

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Strategic Overview of Bus Services

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Public Transport Operating Model (PTOM)

Strategic Overview of Bus Services

Optimising the Bus Network

Strategic Overview of Bus Services

Strategic Overview of Bus Services

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Maori Impact Statement

Strategic Overview of Bus Services

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Financial and Resourcing Implications

Legal and Legislative Implications

Strategic Overview of Bus Services

Local Board Views

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

File No.: CP2012/04349

Maori Impact Statement

Local Board Views

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Financial and Resourcing Implications

Legal and Legislative Implications

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012

Transport Committee 03 April 2012