proposal for a cycleway beneath the auckland harbour bridge eastern clipon

8/6/2019 Proposal for a Cycleway beneath the Auckland Harbour Bridge eastern clipon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/proposal-for-a-cycleway-beneath-the-auckland-harbour-bridge-eastern-clipon 1/30



Transport Committee

15 August 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

PROCEDURAL

DECISION MAKING

Reports of Chief Executive12 Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress 7

INFORMATION



I t e m

1 2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress Page 7

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway ProgressFile No.: CP2011/05300

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to update the Transport Committee on progress relating to theproposal for a walking and cycling pathway, along the Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB). Thisreport explains the investigations undertaken to date into the AHB Pathway Group proposal, inparticular, the engineering feasibility, potential issues and potential funding options. This reportoutlines risks, offers options for progressing and recommends a way forward for the project.

A report was presented to the May 2011 Transport Committee giving context to this project. Itintroduced the Pathway Working Group’s proposal for a pathway across Auckland Harbour Bridge.Key issue for providing an AHB Pathway include the need to resolve technical engineering detailsand the fact that funding by traditional methods is unlikely (and not prioritised). Since then, aTechnical Steering Group has overseen the work on design, identification of a strategic approachto walking and cycling access across the Waitemata Harbour, and identification of issues andoptions around funding and partnership approaches.

Preliminary investigations have identified that the Pathway Working Group’s revised proposal onlymeets NZTA’s current loading requirements for the Auckland Harbour Bridge. Future loadingrequirements (i.e. with the expectation of heavy vehicle traffic growth) would not be met unlessusers of the pathway were managed. As part of their proposal to the Council, the PathwayWorking Group and Infrasol have put forward a public private partnership (PPP) financingarrangement as a possible option. An initial assessment of this proposal indicates a number ofissues regarding the financial underwrite sought from the Council and that further PPPinvestigations are required.

The report concludes that further investigation of the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway isrequired to better-understand a way forward in terms of progressing a pathway across the HarbourBridge. These investigations include areas of responsibility, an economic benefits investigation,

funding, procurement/financial structure, people management methods and maximum numbers ofpeople permitted on the pathway, formal scheme assessment, as well as other assessments tofulfil planning requirements, ownership, consultation and detailed design, as well as understandingpotential impacts on existing infrastructure. It will also be necessary to understand the impact ofthe further investigations on timeframes and funding options available through NZTA, AucklandTransport and the Council.



I t e m 1

2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011


Recommendations

a) That the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress report be received.

b) That the Transport Committee recognises that providing a pathway alongside theAuckland Harbour Bridge as a strategically important project.

c) That the Transport Committee recognises the work of the Auckland Harbour BridgePathway Technical Steering Group, particularly New Zealand Transport Agency, forthe engineering investigation of options for the pathway proposal.

d) That the Transport Committee requests Auckland Transport to:

i. identify appropriate resourcing and budget for a financial contribution to anAuckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project, for consideration in the half-yearlyreview and the next Long Term Plan;

ii. conduct more detailed investigations with New Zealand Transport Agency intodesign, procurement and financial arrangements, including an assessment ofrisks, in relation to the proposed Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway;

iii. write to the Board of New Zealand Transport Agency to consider funding supportto continue investigations into an Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway;

iv. write to the Board of New Zealand Transport Agency to consider funding supportfor an Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project from the state highway fund, toreflect New Zealand Transport Agency’s responsibilities to provide for walkingand cycling alongside state highways.

e) That Auckland Transport’s further investigations into the Auckland Harbour BridgePathway be reported back to the appropriate Council Committee for considerationas part of the draft Long Term Plan process.

f) That the Transport Committee support Council’s ongoing role in coordinating theAHB Technical Steering Group, as well as involvement in investigating financing

aspects of the AHB Pathway.

g) That the Waitemata, Kaipatiki and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards continue tobe involved and receive reports in relation to the proposed Auckland HarbourBridge Pathway and that this report be referred to those Local Boards for theirinformation.

Background

A report was presented to the May 2011 Transport Committee outlining the proposal for a pathwayacross Auckland Harbour Bridge. The Transport Committee resolved:

a) That the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group report be received.b) That the Transport Committee:

i) supports enabling walking and cycling access between the City Centre and the North

Shore;

ii) supports establishment of an Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering

Group; and

iii) endorses Council’s Manager, Transport Strategy (or substitute) as Auckland Council’s

representative on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group.

c) That the Transport Committee endorses the Draft Terms of Reference of the Auckland Harbour

Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group.



I t e m

1 2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011


d) That the Transport Committee urges the Pathway Technical Steering Group to work with the New

Zealand Transport Agency within the special physical constraints of the Harbour bridge to achieve a

walking and cycling crossing as soon as possible.

e) That the report be referred to the Waitemata Local Board, Kaipatiki Local Board and Devonport-

Takapuna Local Board for their information.

f) That progress regarding the Auckland Harbour Board Pathway Technical Steering Group's findings

in relation to the Pathway Group's proposal be reported back to the Transport Committee within

3 months.

This report is in response to resolution f.

1.1 The Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway proposal

The original AHB Pathway proposal was for a walking and cycling pathway across the 1 kmAuckland Harbour Bridge (AHB). The pathway would be attached underneath thesouthbound clip-on on the eastern (city) side of the AHB. The proposal was for a 4-metrewide shared pathway, designed to allow users to view from the structure, but provide somedegree of protection from the elements. It is intended that it be a world-class pathway, inkeeping with the iconic AHB. The AHB Pathway could potentially include built-out areas atintervals along the length, providing platforms for seating, viewing, etc or potentially forlease (coffee carts, information etc).

A cross-section of the proposal is shown in Appendix 1.

1.2 Establishment of the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group

The AHB Pathway Technical Steering Group (the Steering Group) was established in May.The Steering Group has facilitated a constructive and collaborative working relationshipbetween the participants.

To establish an agreed baseline, a brief history of investigations of options for walking andcycling across the AHB was put together. This is included in Appendix 2.

As a long-term approach, the steering group agreed on a goal and desired outcomes forpedestrian and cyclist access between Auckland City Centre and the North Shore which isin keeping with existing strategies, policies and projects that affect walking and cyclingaccess between Auckland City Centre and the North Shore. It was also acknowledged thatthere is a need to consider walking and cycling access if an AWHC is in place. The long-term goal developed by the Steering Group is:

A world-class pathway, in keeping with the iconic Auckland Harbour Bridge, providing attractive commuting and recreational opportunities for Aucklanders and visitors to make walking and cycling journeys between Auckland City Centre and the North Shore.

The Steering Group identified the following actions and these have been undertaken over

the past three months by members:

• Further design work on the AHB Pathway proposal to determine engineering feasibility;• Traffic surveys on south-bound clip-ons to contribute to design work;• Cost reviews;• Initial review of the Pathway Working Group’s PPP proposal (note that this requires

further financial advice);• Consideration of potential links into the existing transport network;• Review of the PWG’s draft operational plan;• Initial discussions on potential consenting issues; and• Consideration of alignment with Council’s strategic plans.



I t e m 1

2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011


Table 1 shows the PWG’s estimation of walking and cycling demand per day.

Table 1: Estimated daily demand for the pathway (ref: adapted from tables in the report ”Auckland Harbour Bridge Walking and Cycling Access” prepared by the AHB Pathway Working Group)

Table 2 shows the PWG’s estimations of net projected income for different terms and loaninterest rates.

Table 2: Net projected income based on an 8% discount factor (ref: PWG “The Auckland Harbour Bridge Walking and Cycling Pathway - Draft Proposal for Public Private Partnership to

Deliver This Infrastructure”)

Net Present Value Year 1-15 Year 1-20 Year 1-25

Earnings before interest & tax

$17.8 million $23.2 million $28.2 million

The net present value figures roughly indicate the size of a loan that the expected tollscould potentially repay.

PWG has identified that naming rights for the pathway could also provide an up-front or on-going revenue source. PWG’s preliminary discussions with naming rights valuers suggestthat the naming rights could be worth around $200,000 - $500,000 annually.

The AHB Pathway proposal does not include any financial subsidy from AucklandTransport or NZTA.

2.6 Procurement investigation

To date, no commitments have been made regarding the procurement process or theinvolvement of Council, Auckland Transport, the NZTA, Waterfront Auckland or ATEED(other than resourcing to investigate), in relation to the AHB Pathway.

Options need to be explored with different types of procurement arrangements andstructures, including:

• The Pathway Working Group proposal;• Publicly owned, tolled for revenue/repayment; and• Publicly owned (Council and/or NZTA).

There are considerable funding constraints through traditional funding sources, whichwould limit the ability of a $25-31.6 million cycle project to proceed in the short term. ThePWG and Infrasol have proposed a PPP arrangement to the Council which involves privateborrowing, a toll on users, and an underwrite from the Council. It would be usual tocompare a PPP arrangement against a traditionally funded scheme. A PPP would beconsidered if it would provide better value for money.



I t e m

1 2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011


As stated in the May report, conventional funding for walking and cycling facilities aregenerally from two sources: local council funding and central government funding.National funding is allocated by way of an NZTA regional funding pool for walking andcycling. This funding pool is shared by NZTA and local government. To summarise thisdivision of funding:

- NZTA projects that are strategic walking and cycling connections (and subject tocriteria) may be funded from this NZTA regional funding pool for walking andcycling. Where NZTA state highway projects incorporate provision for walking andcycling, this may be funded as part of the state highway project (i.e. not from themore limited NZTA regional funding pool for walking and cycling).

- More local transport facilities (provided by Auckland Transport) along roads andpaths in parks, may be eligible for partial subsidy from the NZTA regional fundingpool for walking and cycling (subject to criteria), including planning criteria andbenefit cost assessments.

The current Regional Land Transport Programme 2009/10-2011/12 (RLTP) allocated$24.6 million to walking and cycling in the Auckland region (around 0.9% of regionaltransport funding) over the three year period. An AHB pathway could cost in the order of$25-31.6 million, close to the entire three year funding allocation for cycling and walking.

Aside from the scale of cost, under conventional funding evaluation, the AHB Pathway isunlikely to have a high priority ranking for NZTA subsidy within the next 20 years (subjectto a full scheme assessment). NZTA has advised that the AHB Pathway project would notattain a sufficient priority profile, against their funding criteria in terms of strategic fit,effectiveness or efficiency to gain funding. Pending a Council decision on this project, itmay be appropriate for advocacy to NZTA on this position and reconsider options tocontribute to planning/design/funding.

The AWHC is proposed to provide for walking and cycling on the deck of the AHB.However, the AHB Pathway could provide the benefits of walking and cycling access a lotsooner and would avoid the need for the removal of two lanes for provision of walking andcycling access on the deck of the AHB. Theoretically, the costs associated with retrofitting

for walking and cycling across the AHB (although these are far lower than the cost of theproposed pathway) could be redirected to the AHB Pathway project.

A conventional procurement process for a project of this scale might involve the publicsector calling for proposals to develop a design. However, given the history and context ofthis project, this has not been the case. Advice from Council procurement specialists isthat the “direct approach” to Council from the PWG, although it falls outside of usualprocess, doesn’t contravene Council procurement policy at this stage. As the proposal isa transport one, Auckland Transport will need to be involved in identifying the mostappropriate procurement methodology for the continuation of the project. Going forward, itis important that there is transparency and contestability in relation to procurement of theproject or aspects of it.

For this project to progress, determination of the procurement method (or strategy) iscritical. An important consideration is a method which would best balance the control ofproject cost and risk against achieving project objectives and outcomes. The procurementmethod should achieve the Council’s wider objectives, while providing value for money. APPP should be part of a wider procurement strategy, rather than something that isconsidered on a standalone basis. It is anticipated that the following factors would need tobe considered in relation to any PPP options:

• Ability to specify outputs and outcomes;• Risk transfer to the party best able to manage it;• Ability to quantify and limit the whole of life cost of the project;



I t e m 1

2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011


• Complexity of contractual arrangements which can combine design, construction,operation, and finance;

• Competition between bidders to achieve best value for money;• Potential for innovative solutions and maximising benefits to users at a reasonable

cost;• Potential for revenue from other sources;• Time required to deliver the project;

• The service required by the public sector is not subject to large change over time; and• The PPP is of sufficient scale to justify the upfront costs to create the PPP.

2.6.1 Options to progress – procurement

In order to progress this project, the Council would need to signal that walking and cyclingaccess across the AHB is of strategic importance and that Auckland Transport shouldprogress investigations as a matter of priority.

The Technical Steering Group has identified three main procurement strategies toprogress a pathway across the Harbour Bridge. These are explained, as well as theirmerits and disbenefits, in more detail below.

(1) The Pathway Working Group proposal(2) Publically owned, tolled for revenue/repayment(3) Publically owned

In this section, reference is made to the public sector. This includes Auckland Council,Auckland Transport and NZTA. Where the Council is specifically referred to, it is becausethe decision or responsibility referred to is within Transport Committee delegation or forCouncil decision.

2.6.1.1 Option 1 - PWG proposal

(As described above in section 1.1.)In brief, the PWG proposal is for a public private partnership (PPP), with the arrangement

of a BOOT (build, own, operate and transfer) scheme. The Council has been identified asthe public sector involvement. In summary, under this proposal:

• Users of the pathway would pay a toll, which, along with the sale of the naming rights,would be used to fund construction and operation of the pathway.

• The PPP vehicle is a limited liability joint venture company (JVC) owned in half byinfrastructure developers (proposed as Infrasol NZ Ltd) and half by the AHB PathwayTrust. The JVC would be responsible for the design, funding (subject to the structureexplained), construction, and operation of the pathway.

• The PPP vehicle borrows for construction and repays the debt by selling future tollrevenue.

• The Council contributes $5 million (by way of a convertible debenture) for the

enhanced components of the project and underwrites the toll revenue.• Ownership of the JVC would be transferred to the Council after an agreed term (e.g. 20

years).

Due to long term plan commitments, Auckland Council finance staff have not had the resourcesto review this proposal, but have noted/endorsed the following issues relating to this proposal:

• The Council does not participate in the PPP vehicle or control any aspects ofoperations such as the setting of toll revenue or promotion of the pathway.

• The Council would bear all of the risk relating to toll revenue, but would not participatein any upside/profits.



I t e m

1 2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011


• The Council would bear the cost of the enhancements to the pathway, but the JVC wouldpotentially profit from the additional patrons who would be attracted to the viewingplatforms.

• There is a lack of contestability in relation to aspects of this PPP arrangement.

The PWG has stated that it is open to other possible PPP or financing arrangements: its maingoal is to have the pathway built. A key objective of this PPP proposal is to demonstrate that a

PPP could work from a financial perspective and would be a starting point for negotiation of asuitable PPP structure.

A key consideration for whether this proposal should progress would be to fully understand thebenefits that the private sector could bring to a partnership. For instance, under this proposal,there would be a number of areas of risk that could be borne by the private sector, includingdesign, construction, consenting/licensing/approving, toll collection/administration andoperation. It would also be important to understand how these and any other risks could beminimised for the public sector.

It is also unclear whether NZTA would contribute to the project if there is the possibility of theprivate sector gaining a profit from tolling.

There could be variations of the PWG proposal which may be acceptable to the public sector,but further investigation will be required.

2.6.1.2 Option 2 - Publically owned and tolled

Another option could be for the public sector (Council, Auckland Transport and/or NZTA) toown and manage the AHB Pathway. Under this option, further design and detail would bedeveloped by the public sector.

There are some advantages to this option:

• More public sector involvement in the project could enable the public sector to managethe risks and have competition between private sector bidders for components of the

project (detailed design, construction, operation).• There could be more public acceptance of a toll if the money is being returned to the

public sector, rather than private sector, and the toll is discontinued once costs arecovered.

• Similar to the PWG proposal the sale of future potential toll revenue could enable thepublic sector to pay for construction upfront, thereby removing the cost of interest.

• There is potential for any profits to be “hypothecated” or directed towards thebetterment of regional cycling and walking (e.g. the NZTA regional cycling and walkingfund).

There are some disadvantages to this option:

• There could be greater delays and costs through the design process with the publicsector leading this work.

• The whole of life costs and risks (e.g. those referred to in 2.6.1.1) relating to allaspects of the project rest with the public sector.

• There is no profit incentive or focus which would drive the project.

This option would need to be assessed in comparison with option 1.



I t e m 1

2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011


2.6.1.3 Option 3 - Publically owned, not tolled

This would require Council/NZTA either reallocating funding away from other prioritisedprojects or changing their funding to enable this project to proceed without a toll revenuesource.

Prioritising this project ahead of other walk and cycle projects would limit the ability toimplement other priority walking and cycling projects around the region. This projectshould not proceed to the detriment of other high priority projects around the region (asmentioned, with a three-year NZTA fund of around $20 million, this programme wouldabsorb the entire three year allocation).

Given the limited NZTA funding and NZTA’s stated position on funding (letter from NZTAincluded in Appendix 4) for walking and cycling projects, this project could only proceed inthe short term on an un-tolled basis with 100% Council funding. The project has not beenable to progress on this basis to date. This method of funding would place the cost solelyon ratepayers, with no cost borne by those who directly benefit – patrons using the bridgeor motorists who would benefit from fewer vehicles on the AHB.

Although, if additional funding were to become available through Council or NZTA

allocation, this project could be put forward, due to the regional benefits noted in section3.1.

2.7 Longterm/strategic approach

One of the key issues considered by the Technical Steering Group was the long-termapproach to walking and cycling access across the AHB.

If a decision were made to progress with the AHB Pathway, the next 2-4 years would seethe design/consent/construct process. After this, the AHB Pathway would be promoted formaximum use and revenue return.

The AHB Pathway proposal has a design-life of in excess of 50 years, so regardless of

decisions on an Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing (AWHC), the AHB Pathway couldremain as the key walking/cycling access across the harbour.

2.8 Planning issues

A preliminary meeting with council planners has identified a number of constraints toimplementing the pathway, including heritage values on the northern side of the AHB,some mature trees, the existing consents for utilities, the state highway designation.These and other planning/consenting issues would need to be resolved to enable the AHBPathway to progress.

2.9 Local connections

Connections to a potential AHB Pathway already exist at both ends of the AHB. On thenorthern side, Queen Street and Princes Street provide local road connections which canbe used relatively safely by pedestrians and cyclists. On the southern/city side of the AHBWesthaven Drive and Curran Street provide local connections to the potential AHBPathway, which can also be used relatively safely by pedestrians and cyclists. Apedestrian bridge (Jacobs Ladder) is currently being built across State Highway 1.

There is potential for walking and cycling connections to improve connectivity between theAHB and communities and town centres to the north, as well as for connections linking tothe City Centre and city fringe suburbs. These have been identified and planned as part ofthe regional cycle network to support a pathway across the harbour. Some of these



I t e m

1 2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011


potential connections would require work within the motorway corridor north of the HarbourBridge.

Another related project is the proposal for a pathway along the Waterfront, this is proposedas a part of the Waterfront Masterplan.

Other network/operational issues have also been identified, including parking access andthe extent to which this should be provided/restricted/managed. Progressing the projectwould require these matters to be investigated.

2.10 Public launch

The AHB Pathway proposal is being launched by the Pathway Working Group on SundayAugust 21st at 3pm on the waterfront at Silo Park. This is being arranged by the PathwayWorking Group with awareness of Council-led initiatives such as the Draft Auckland Planlaunch.

The AHB Pathway launch is intended to raise public support for the project. The launch islikely to raise public expectations for the AHB Pathway to proceed and may imposepressure on the Council to support it.

Significance of Decision

Walking and cycling access across the harbour is provided for in strategic plans. To date, notimeframe for this has been set because there has been no identified option, which addresses allthe issues (such as engineering and funding). The Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-2040(RLTS) contains policies relating to an AWHC:

“Investigate and take the necessary steps to plan, protect and identify funding for ...... an additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing that would also enable walking and cycling on any new crossing or on the existing bridge”.

Cycle access on the AHB is identified in the Regional Cycle Network map contained in the RLTS.This is attached in Appendix 5.

Policy 8.3 of the RLTS is to:“Investigate the use of alternative funding mechanisms, including developer contributions (levied to fund transport improvements required to support developments and redevelopments),infrastructure bonds, strategic network tolling, parking levies, regional fuel tax, public private partnerships and strategic use of publicly owned assets to underwrite financing of major projects. “

This project is aligned to this policy on seeking alternative funding. Council’s Public PrivatePartnership Policy is currently being developed to incorporate and rationalise legacy councils’ PPPpolicies. The key factors relating to PPPs have been identified in this report.

From a Council perspective, it is important that the AHB Pathway proposal aligns with a number ofCouncil plans (including, the Auckland Plan, the City Centre Masterplan, the WaterfrontMasterplan) and Auckland Transport plans (including the Sustainable Transport Plan and theRegional Land Transport Plan).



I t e m 1

2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011


3.1 Benefits

The AHB is arguably the most significant gap in the Auckland Region’s walking and cyclingnetwork. It is potentially a catalyst for the ongoing improvement and uptake of walking andcycling, providing Aucklanders with an improved range of travel choices. Access forpedestrians and cyclists between Auckland City Centre and the North Shore would:

• provide a key regional connection for people who walk and cycle;• it would provide opportunity for more active transport (including extra transport capacity

for crossing the AHB);• it would provide opportunity for recreation;• it would promote sustainable transport options (including environmental benefits in

terms of reduced air pollution and carbon emissions);• it is likely to be a strong tourist attraction;• it would open up opportunities on either side of the harbour for improved amenity

(shops, cafes etc) and make land development on the waterfront more attractive; and• there is currently no “free” way for people to walk or cycle across the harbour, except at

the Upper Harbour Crossing.

Consultation

At this stage, no formal/Council-led public consultation is proposed. Consultation through the LTPprocess would be required if the Council intends to make a financial commitment to an AHBPathway through the LTP. A consultation strategy could be developed as the project progresses.

As outlined in section 2.9, the PWG intends to publicly launch the AHB Pathway proposal in lateAugust.

The PWG is also seeking endorsement for the AHB Pathway from the Waterfront Auckland Board.

Local Board Views

The following are recent Waitemata, Kaipatiki and Devonport-Takapuna Local Board resolutionsregarding the pathway proposal:

Waitemata Local Board 12th April 2011

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project – Kirsten Shouler, Alex Swney and Barry Copeland

Kirsten Shouler, Alex Swney and Barry Copeland presented on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway

Project.

a) That Kirsten Shouler, Alex Swney and Barry Copeland, Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway

members be thanked for their presentation to the Board regarding the Auckland Harbour Bridge

Pathway project.

b) That the Waitemata Local Board strongly supports the Governing Body’s directive to Auckland

Transport for investigation on how best to progress work on a walking and cycling link across the

Auckland Harbour Bridge.

c) That the Transport West Portfolio holders report back to the earliest practical Board meeting how

the Board can best progress the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathways project proposals.

d) That the Waitemata Local Board seek from the Governing Body to commit budget to formally play a

role in a partnership with the pathways steering group to promote the project to the NZTA.



I t e m

1 2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011


Kaipatiki Local Board 25th May 2011

Report and Resolutions from the Transport Committee - Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical

Steering Group Report

a) That the report and resolutions from the Transport Committee, regarding Auckland Harbour Bridge

Pathway Technical Steering Group Report, be received.

b) That the Kaipatiki Local Board strongly endorses and supports the concept of enabling walking and

cycling access between the city and the North Shore via the Harbour Bridge.

c) That the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group consults with the Kaipatiki

Local Board for input during the preparation of the proposal.

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board 17th May 2011

Report and Resolutions from Transport Committee - Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering

Group Report

a) That the report and resolutions from the Transport Committee, regarding Auckland Harbour Bridge

Pathway Technical Steering Group Report, be received.

b) That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board endorses the resolutions of the Transport Committee

made on 3 May 2011.

c) That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board requests that it be kept informed and be given the

opportunity to provide input to the Transport Committee on this matter.d) That the resolutions b) and c) be conveyed to the Transport Committee.

In addition, the PWG attended a Kaipatiki Local Board workshop to discuss the proposal and gainLocal Board feedback, from their knowledge of local issues. The PWG is also making deputationsto the Devonport-Takapuna after the 15th August Transport Committee meeting.

This report and subsequent resolutions would provide useful information to the Local Boards and itis recommended that this report be forwarded to them for their information and so they can remaininvolved.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

Any decision to proceed will have implications for project resourcing, staff time and budget.Where this obligation lies will depend on determination of the relative responsibilities.

A decision to proceed will also have implications for Council’s financial planning in terms of LTPallocations. This work would be required prior to December and would strain existing resources.

To date, Auckland Council staff have administered and participated in the AHB Pathway TechnicalSteering Group, including providing comment on aspects of the PWG proposal.

Auckland Transport has been involved in the Technical Steering Group and providedresponse/comment on some aspects of the PWG proposal.

If the Council decides to proceed with this project, this responsibility for progressing shouldtransfer to Auckland Transport. This would require direction to Auckland Transport from theCouncil on prioritising or reallocating financial resource.

Key elements of the project that would require further investigation are:

• Procurement strategy;• Assessment of risks;• Consideration of operational aspects (as well as design aspects);• Negotiation of Council’s contribution and a PPP arrangement;



I t e m 1

2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011


• Planning consents;• Network planning (construction of the AHB pathway could change priorities for cycling/walking

network planning);• Public consultation;• Detailed design; and• Document preparation.

It may be appropriate for Council finance staff to remain involved in investigations andnegotiations for any proposal that could commit the Council financially.

NZTA has participated in the Technical Steering Group. The cost for NZTA in developingengineering design and traffic surveys has been in the order of $300,000. A decision from theCouncil to progress the AHB Pathway could involve Council advocacy to NZTA to considerfunding support from a state highway fund, to reflect their responsibilities to provide for walkingand cycling adjacent to state highways.

The PWG has participated in the Technical Steering Group. The cost for PWG in developing theconcept and design to 30 June 2011 has been in the order of $471,000 to $530,000 (however thisdoes not included any of the cost for Infrasol developing the PPP proposal). PWG is seekingCouncil funding for its ongoing costs in relation to the development of a PPP and its further

participation may depend on the level of commitment from the Council, Auckland Transport andNZTA.

At this stage, decisions to support investigation of the AHB Pathway do not have significant capitalinvestment commitment, but are potentially leading to a significant decision (e.g. unplannedfunding or underwriting) in the Long Term Plan. These resolutions are subject to the consultationprocess for the Long Term Plan and a subsequent decision through the deliberations process. Adecision will need to be made as part of the Long Term Plan process as to whether the Council’sfinancial contribution to this project constitutes a significant decision in terms of the Council’ssignificance policy.

Legal and Legislative Implications

Given the potential for the project to be a precedent for providing land transport in New Zealand(tolling pedestrians and cyclists), there would need to be consideration of what the law allows andrestricts. The Land Transport Management Act 2003, Subpart 2—Road tolling schemes andconcession agreements is an example of legislation that would require some interpretation andadvice on what legislative steps are required to be met.

Implementation Issues

Investigation of the different procurement options and key elements of the project (refer to section6.0 above) will identify some of the implementation issues. The preliminary engineeringinvestigations have identified that there is a potentially feasible engineering solution, providing thatissues regarding pathway management could be resolved. Other implementation and operational

issues for the AHB Pathway do not appear to be insurmountable. There are a number of issueswith the PPP financing proposal which would need to be addressed.

In order to progress this project, it is important to decide where the relative responsibilities toprogress lie. As Council’s implementation and operational arm for transport, Auckland Transportis best-placed to continue investigation of the design and operational elements of the AHBPathway.



I t e m

1 2

Transport Committee

15 August 2011


It is recommended that Auckland Transport is requested to progress this project, initially byidentifying appropriate resourcing and budget for Auckland Council’s contribution. This is alignedto Auckland Transport’s Statement of Intent for Auckland Transport to work with NZTA to defineoptions to progress work on walking/cycling bridge under the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

The AHB Technical Steering Group could continue to provide a forum for the parties to worktogether during the investigation stage, with appropriate staff to address the financial andprocurement aspects of that stage.

Attachments

No. Title Page

1 Cross Section of the AHB Pathway Proposal 22

2 Brief History of Investigations of Options for Walking and Cycling Acrossthe AHB

23

3 NZTA and PWG Joint Statement on Engineering Investigations 27

4 NZTA’s Letter Stating their Position on Funding the AHB 30

5 Regional Cycle Network Map Showing the AHB Pathway 33

Signatories

Authors Claire Covacich, Principal Transport Planner

Authorisers Kevin Wright, Manager: Transport Strategy

Ree Anderson, Manager: Regional Strategy Community and Cultural Policy

Andrew McKenzie, Chief Financial Officer

Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer