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

Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:

Monday, 15 August 2011 2.00 pm Reception Lounge Auckland Town Hall 301-305 Queen Street Auckland

Transport Committee OPEN ADDENDUM 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 6 members) Desiree Tukutama Committee Secretary 12 August 2011 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 15 August 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PROCEDURAL DECISION MAKING

Reports of Chief Executive 12 Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress 7

PAGE

INFORMATION

Page 3

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

File No.: CP2011/05300

Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to update the Transport Committee on progress relating to the proposal for a walking and cycling pathway, along the Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB). This report explains the investigations undertaken to date into the AHB Pathway Group proposal, in particular, the engineering feasibility, potential issues and potential funding options. This report outlines 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. It introduced the Pathway Working Groups proposal for a pathway across Auckland Harbour Bridge. Key issue for providing an AHB Pathway include the need to resolve technical engineering details and the fact that funding by traditional methods is unlikely (and not prioritised). Since then, a Technical Steering Group has overseen the work on design, identification of a strategic approach to walking and cycling access across the Waitemata Harbour, and identification of issues and options around funding and partnership approaches. Preliminary investigations have identified that the Pathway Working Groups revised proposal only meets NZTAs current loading requirements for the Auckland Harbour Bridge. Future loading requirements (i.e. with the expectation of heavy vehicle traffic growth) would not be met unless users of the pathway were managed. As part of their proposal to the Council, the Pathway Working Group and Infrasol have put forward a public private partnership (PPP) financing arrangement as a possible option. An initial assessment of this proposal indicates a number of issues regarding the financial underwrite sought from the Council and that further PPP investigations are required. The report concludes that further investigation of the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway is required to better-understand a way forward in terms of progressing a pathway across the Harbour Bridge. These investigations include areas of responsibility, an economic benefits investigation, funding, procurement/financial structure, people management methods and maximum numbers of people permitted on the pathway, formal scheme assessment, as well as other assessments to fulfil planning requirements, ownership, consultation and detailed design, as well as understanding potential impacts on existing infrastructure. It will also be necessary to understand the impact of the further investigations on timeframes and funding options available through NZTA, Auckland Transport and the Council.

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 7

Item 12

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Item 12

Recommendations
a) b) That the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress report be received. That the Transport Committee recognises that providing a pathway alongside the Auckland Harbour Bridge as a strategically important project. That the Transport Committee recognises the work of the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group, particularly New Zealand Transport Agency, for the engineering investigation of options for the pathway proposal. That the Transport Committee requests Auckland Transport to: i. identify appropriate resourcing and budget for a financial contribution to an Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project, for consideration in the half-yearly review and the next Long Term Plan; ii. conduct more detailed investigations with New Zealand Transport Agency into design, procurement and financial arrangements, including an assessment of risks, in relation to the proposed Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway; iii. write to the Board of New Zealand Transport Agency to consider funding support to continue investigations into an Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway; iv. write to the Board of New Zealand Transport Agency to consider funding support for an Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project from the state highway fund, to reflect New Zealand Transport Agencys responsibilities to provide for walking and cycling alongside state highways. e) That Auckland Transports further investigations into the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway be reported back to the appropriate Council Committee for consideration as part of the draft Long Term Plan process. That the Transport Committee support Councils ongoing role in coordinating the AHB Technical Steering Group, as well as involvement in investigating financing aspects of the AHB Pathway. That the Waitemata, Kaipatiki and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards continue to be involved and receive reports in relation to the proposed Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway and that this report be referred to those Local Boards for their information.

c)

d)

f)

g)

Background
A report was presented to the May 2011 Transport Committee outlining the proposal for a pathway across Auckland Harbour Bridge. The Transport Committee resolved:
a) b) That the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group report be received. 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 Councils Manager, Transport Strategy (or substitute) as Auckland Councils representative on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group. That the Transport Committee endorses the Draft Terms of Reference of the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group.

c)

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 8

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. That the report be referred to the Waitemata Local Board, Kaipatiki Local Board and DevonportTakapuna Local Board for their information. 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.

e)
f)

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 km Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB). The pathway would be attached underneath the southbound clip-on on the eastern (city) side of the AHB. The proposal was for a 4-metre wide shared pathway, designed to allow users to view from the structure, but provide some degree of protection from the elements. It is intended that it be a world-class pathway, in keeping with the iconic AHB. The AHB Pathway could potentially include built-out areas at intervals along the length, providing platforms for seating, viewing, etc or potentially for lease (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 relationship between the participants. To establish an agreed baseline, a brief history of investigations of options for walking and cycling 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 for pedestrian and cyclist access between Auckland City Centre and the North Shore which is in keeping with existing strategies, policies and projects that affect walking and cycling access between Auckland City Centre and the North Shore. It was also acknowledged that there is a need to consider walking and cycling access if an AWHC is in place. The longterm 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 Groups PPP proposal (note that this requires further financial advice); Consideration of potential links into the existing transport network; Review of the PWGs draft operational plan; Initial discussions on potential consenting issues; and Consideration of alignment with Councils strategic plans.

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 9

Item 12

Transport Committee 15 August 2011 1.3 Roles and responsibilities Auckland Council is involved from the point of view of being local government, an adjacent land owner and funder of Auckland Transport. Council determines the desired outcomes and associated strategic plan related to land use and supporting infrastructure. Auckland Transport is the CCO for transport, it performs and manages all transport functions and operations for the city (excluding state highways) and is responsible for developing the regional land transport programme and fulfilling Aucklands transport requirements. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) controls the AHB and state highway infrastructure and manages the operation of these assets. NZTAs role is to promote as affordable, integrated, safe, responsive and sustainable land transport system. It also has a role in providing for cycling and walking adjacent to state highways. NZTA provides funding subsidies to Auckland Transport for projects that meet national funding criteria. The Pathway Working Group (PWG) have developed a proposal for a walking and cycling pathway on the AHB and approached Council to gain support to progress the pathway. Infrasol is a subsidiary of Hopper Developments Limited, proposed partner to the PWG to provide financing, construction and management in relation to the pathway. Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) have an interest in the interface of the AHB Pathway with the city, as well as the potential visitor experience.

Item 12
2.1

Decision Making
Engineering solution The NZTA, their AHB engineering consultants; Beca, and the Pathway Working Group have met regularly since the start of May to agree on an engineering solution for the pathway that meets the load requirements of the Auckland Harbour Bridge. Their joint statement about the engineering aspects of the preliminary design is included in Appendix 3. The engineering assessment of the original proposal found that the extra loadings created by the pathway fall within both the local and global capacities of the southbound extension bridge on current numbers. However, to avoid reducing the future capacity for traffic and road freight thus reducing the service life of the AHB, it would be necessary to proactively manage the total number of Pathway users. Subject to significant further investigation and resolution of issues, it can be concluded that the AHB Pathway revised proposal may be suitable as a preliminary design. However, it would require further development for detailed/construction design and would need to be approved by NZTAs Value Assurance Committee and/or Board as it is likely to depend on a departure form the standard adopted in the NZTA Bridge Manual and has potentially significant safety implications. This design solution has involved considerable cost, time and resource from the PWG, Infrasol and NZTA.

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 10

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

2.2

Operation and safety of AHB Pathway There are a number of issues that would require resolution, relating to the width of path, personal security, loading constraints (including user numbers), gradient, safe mix and use of pedestrians, cyclists and tourists, emergency requirements, land requirements at either end to accommodate safety needs and equipment and operational costs. These issues need to be investigated once there is a better understanding of the detailed pathway design.

2.3

Cost of AHB Pathway The previous cost estimates for the AHB Pathway relate to the basic design and it has been necessary to get an updated cost on the enhanced design, which includes the proposed viewing platforms. WT Partnership has undertaken an assessment of anticipated costs for the enhanced AHB Pathway with input from Beca, NZTAs AHB consultants. While this assessment has not been reviewed by Auckland Council or Auckland Transport, it provides a good indication and is useful for preliminary assessments of costs and benefits. WT Partnerships indicative preliminary cost estimate of the enhanced design of the AHB Pathway is between $25 - 31.6 million, as shown below. Pathway with basic (straight/switchback) access ramps: $25 million; and Pathway with basic access ramps and three viewing platforms: $31.6 million.

2.4

Anticipated timeframes At this preliminary stage, there is some uncertainty around timeframes, although the PWG would like this project to be designed and constructed as soon as possible. The following provides some indication of potential timeframes: Scheme design 8 months duration Financial investigations/negotiations 8 months 24 months duration (LTP confirmed in June 2012) Consenting 4-18 months (depending on appeals) Detailed design 12 months Construction 12 months Opening still to be determined. The PWG anticipates a more optimistic timeframe, with construction commencing in late 2012 and opening in April 2013.

2.5

Potential revenue from AHB Pathway A proposal for funding the AHB Pathway was submitted by PWG and Infrasol. Under this proposal, a toll is contemplated at $5.00 for casual users, and $1.95 for smart card users (the toll for children will be approximately half these rates). These charges are comparable to: Birkenhead/Northcote Point ferry cost of $4.90 for an adult (or $3.70 with concession); and $3.00 for a child (or $1.70 with concession) Bus journey from Akoranga to Britomart cost of $3.40 for an adult and $2.00 for a child.

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 11

Item 12

Transport Committee 15 August 2011 Table 1 shows the PWGs estimation of walking and cycling demand per day.

Item 12

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 PWGs estimations of net projected income for different terms and loan interest 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 tolls could potentially repay. PWG has identified that naming rights for the pathway could also provide an up-front or ongoing revenue source. PWGs preliminary discussions with naming rights valuers suggest that the naming rights could be worth around $200,000 - $500,000 annually. The AHB Pathway proposal does not include any financial subsidy from Auckland Transport or NZTA. 2.6 Procurement investigation To date, no commitments have been made regarding the procurement process or the involvement 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 and structures, 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, which would limit the ability of a $25-31.6 million cycle project to proceed in the short term. The PWG and Infrasol have proposed a PPP arrangement to the Council which involves private borrowing, a toll on users, and an underwrite from the Council. It would be usual to compare a PPP arrangement against a traditionally funded scheme. A PPP would be considered if it would provide better value for money.
Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress Page 12

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

NZTA projects that are strategic walking and cycling connections (and subject to criteria) may be funded from this NZTA regional funding pool for walking and cycling. Where NZTA state highway projects incorporate provision for walking and cycling, this may be funded as part of the state highway project (i.e. not from the more limited NZTA regional funding pool for walking and cycling). More local transport facilities (provided by Auckland Transport) along roads and paths in parks, may be eligible for partial subsidy from the NZTA regional funding pool for walking and cycling (subject to criteria), including planning criteria and benefit 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 regional transport 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 is unlikely to have a high priority ranking for NZTA subsidy within the next 20 years (subject to a full scheme assessment). NZTA has advised that the AHB Pathway project would not attain 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, it may be appropriate for advocacy to NZTA on this position and reconsider options to contribute 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 lot sooner and would avoid the need for the removal of two lanes for provision of walking and cycling 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 the proposed pathway) could be redirected to the AHB Pathway project. A conventional procurement process for a project of this scale might involve the public sector calling for proposals to develop a design. However, given the history and context of this project, this has not been the case. Advice from Council procurement specialists is that the direct approach to Council from the PWG, although it falls outside of usual process, doesnt contravene Council procurement policy at this stage. As the proposal is a transport one, Auckland Transport will need to be involved in identifying the most appropriate procurement methodology for the continuation of the project. Going forward, it is important that there is transparency and contestability in relation to procurement of the project or aspects of it. For this project to progress, determination of the procurement method (or strategy) is critical. An important consideration is a method which would best balance the control of project cost and risk against achieving project objectives and outcomes. The procurement method should achieve the Councils wider objectives, while providing value for money. A PPP should be part of a wider procurement strategy, rather than something that is considered on a standalone basis. It is anticipated that the following factors would need to be 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;
Page 13

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Item 12

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

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.

Item 12

2.6.1

Options to progress procurement In order to progress this project, the Council would need to signal that walking and cycling access across the AHB is of strategic importance and that Auckland Transport should progress investigations as a matter of priority. The Technical Steering Group has identified three main procurement strategies to progress a pathway across the Harbour Bridge. These are explained, as well as their merits and disbenefits, in more detail below. (1) (2) (3) The Pathway Working Group proposal Publically owned, tolled for revenue/repayment 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 because the decision or responsibility referred to is within Transport Committee delegation or for Council 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 as the 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 by infrastructure developers (proposed as Infrasol NZ Ltd) and half by the AHB Pathway Trust. The JVC would be responsible for the design, funding (subject to the structure explained), construction, and operation of the pathway. The PPP vehicle borrows for construction and repays the debt by selling future toll revenue. 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 resources to 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 of operations 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 participate in any upside/profits.
Page 14

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

The PWG has stated that it is open to other possible PPP or financing arrangements: its main goal 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 a suitable PPP structure. A key consideration for whether this proposal should progress would be to fully understand the benefits 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, including design, construction, consenting/licensing/approving, toll collection/administration and operation. It would also be important to understand how these and any other risks could be minimised for the public sector. It is also unclear whether NZTA would contribute to the project if there is the possibility of the private 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) to own and manage the AHB Pathway. Under this option, further design and detail would be developed by the public sector. There are some advantages to this option: More public sector involvement in the project could enable the public sector to manage the 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 are covered. Similar to the PWG proposal the sale of future potential toll revenue could enable the public sector to pay for construction upfront, thereby removing the cost of interest. There is potential for any profits to be hypothecated or directed towards the betterment of regional cycling and walking (e.g. the NZTA regional cycling and walking fund).

There are some disadvantages to this option: There could be greater delays and costs through the design process with the public sector leading this work. The whole of life costs and risks (e.g. those referred to in 2.6.1.1) relating to all aspects 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.

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 15

Item 12

The Council would bear the cost of the enhancements to the pathway, but the JVC would potentially profit from the additional patrons who would be attracted to the viewing platforms. There is a lack of contestability in relation to aspects of this PPP arrangement.

Transport Committee 15 August 2011 2.6.1.3 Option 3 - Publically owned, not tolled

Item 12

This would require Council/NZTA either reallocating funding away from other prioritised projects or changing their funding to enable this project to proceed without a toll revenue source. Prioritising this project ahead of other walk and cycle projects would limit the ability to implement other priority walking and cycling projects around the region. This project should not proceed to the detriment of other high priority projects around the region (as mentioned, with a three-year NZTA fund of around $20 million, this programme would absorb the entire three year allocation). Given the limited NZTA funding and NZTAs stated position on funding (letter from NZTA included in Appendix 4) for walking and cycling projects, this project could only proceed in the short term on an un-tolled basis with 100% Council funding. The project has not been able to progress on this basis to date. This method of funding would place the cost solely on ratepayers, with no cost borne by those who directly benefit patrons using the bridge or 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 section 3.1. 2.7 Longterm/strategic approach One of the key issues considered by the Technical Steering Group was the long-term approach 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 see the design/consent/construct process. After this, the AHB Pathway would be promoted for maximum 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 could remain 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 to implementing 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 AHB Pathway to progress.
2.9

Local connections Connections to a potential AHB Pathway already exist at both ends of the AHB. On the northern side, Queen Street and Princes Street provide local road connections which can be used relatively safely by pedestrians and cyclists. On the southern/city side of the AHB Westhaven Drive and Curran Street provide local connections to the potential AHB Pathway, which can also be used relatively safely by pedestrians and cyclists. A pedestrian bridge (Jacobs Ladder) is currently being built across State Highway 1. There is potential for walking and cycling connections to improve connectivity between the AHB and communities and town centres to the north, as well as for connections linking to the City Centre and city fringe suburbs. These have been identified and planned as part of the regional cycle network to support a pathway across the harbour. Some of these

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 16

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Another related project is the proposal for a pathway along the Waterfront, this is proposed as a part of the Waterfront Masterplan. Other network/operational issues have also been identified, including parking access and the extent to which this should be provided/restricted/managed. Progressing the project would require these matters to be investigated. 2.10 Public launch The AHB Pathway proposal is being launched by the Pathway Working Group on Sunday August 21st at 3pm on the waterfront at Silo Park. This is being arranged by the Pathway Working Group with awareness of Council-led initiatives such as the Draft Auckland Plan launch. The AHB Pathway launch is intended to raise public support for the project. The launch is likely to raise public expectations for the AHB Pathway to proceed and may impose pressure on the Council to support it.

Significance of Decision
Walking and cycling access across the harbour is provided for in strategic plans. To date, no timeframe for this has been set because there has been no identified option, which addresses all the 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. Councils Public Private Partnership Policy is currently being developed to incorporate and rationalise legacy councils PPP policies. 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 of Council plans (including, the Auckland Plan, the City Centre Masterplan, the Waterfront Masterplan) and Auckland Transport plans (including the Sustainable Transport Plan and the Regional Land Transport Plan).

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 17

Item 12

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

Transport Committee 15 August 2011 3.1 Benefits The AHB is arguably the most significant gap in the Auckland Regions walking and cycling network. It is potentially a catalyst for the ongoing improvement and uptake of walking and cycling, providing Aucklanders with an improved range of travel choices. Access for pedestrians 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.

Item 12
a)

Consultation
At this stage, no formal/Council-led public consultation is proposed. Consultation through the LTP process would be required if the Council intends to make a financial commitment to an AHB Pathway 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 late August. 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 resolutions regarding 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. That Kirsten Shouler, Alex Swney and Barry Copeland, Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway members be thanked for their presentation to the Board regarding the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project. That the Waitemata Local Board strongly supports the Governing Bodys directive to Auckland Transport for investigation on how best to progress work on a walking and cycling link across the Auckland Harbour Bridge. That the 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. 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.

b)

c) d)

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 18

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

a) b) c)

That the report and resolutions from the Transport Committee, regarding Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group Report, be received. That the Kaipatiki Local Board strongly endorses and supports the concept of enabling walking and cycling access between the city and the North Shore via the Harbour Bridge. That the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group consults with the Kaipatiki Local Board for input during the preparation of the proposal.

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board 17th May 2011 Report and Resolutions from Transport Committee - Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group Report a) b) c) d) That the report and resolutions from the Transport Committee, regarding Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group Report, be received. That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board endorses the resolutions of the Transport Committee made on 3 May 2011. 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. 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 gain Local Board feedback, from their knowledge of local issues. The PWG is also making deputations to the Devonport-Takapuna after the 15th August Transport Committee meeting. This report and subsequent resolutions would provide useful information to the Local Boards and it is recommended that this report be forwarded to them for their information and so they can remain involved.

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 Councils financial planning in terms of LTP allocations. 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 Technical Steering Group, including providing comment on aspects of the PWG proposal. Auckland Transport has been involved in the Technical Steering Group and provided response/comment on some aspects of the PWG proposal. If the Council decides to proceed with this project, this responsibility for progressing should transfer to Auckland Transport. This would require direction to Auckland Transport from the Council 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 Councils contribution and a PPP arrangement;
Page 19

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Item 12

Kaipatiki Local Board 25th May 2011 Report and Resolutions from the Transport Committee - Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group Report

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Item 12

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 and negotiations for any proposal that could commit the Council financially. NZTA has participated in the Technical Steering Group. The cost for NZTA in developing engineering design and traffic surveys has been in the order of $300,000. A decision from the Council to progress the AHB Pathway could involve Council advocacy to NZTA to consider funding support from a state highway fund, to reflect their responsibilities to provide for walking and cycling adjacent to state highways. The PWG has participated in the Technical Steering Group. The cost for PWG in developing the concept and design to 30 June 2011 has been in the order of $471,000 to $530,000 (however this does not included any of the cost for Infrasol developing the PPP proposal). PWG is seeking Council 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 and NZTA. At this stage, decisions to support investigation of the AHB Pathway do not have significant capital investment commitment, but are potentially leading to a significant decision (e.g. unplanned funding or underwriting) in the Long Term Plan. These resolutions are subject to the consultation process for the Long Term Plan and a subsequent decision through the deliberations process. A decision will need to be made as part of the Long Term Plan process as to whether the Councils financial contribution to this project constitutes a significant decision in terms of the Councils significance 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 and restricts. The Land Transport Management Act 2003, Subpart 2Road tolling schemes and concession agreements is an example of legislation that would require some interpretation and advice 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 section 6.0 above) will identify some of the implementation issues. The preliminary engineering investigations have identified that there is a potentially feasible engineering solution, providing that issues 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 issues with 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 to progress lie. As Councils implementation and operational arm for transport, Auckland Transport is best-placed to continue investigation of the design and operational elements of the AHB Pathway.

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 20

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

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

Attachments
No. 1 2 3 4 5 Title Cross Section of the AHB Pathway Proposal Brief History of Investigations of Options for Walking and Cycling Across the AHB NZTA and PWG Joint Statement on Engineering Investigations NZTAs Letter Stating their Position on Funding the AHB Regional Cycle Network Map Showing the AHB Pathway Page 22 23 27 30 33

Signatories
Authors Authorisers Claire Covacich, Principal Transport Planner Kevin Wright, Manager: Transport Strategy Ree Anderson, Manager: Regional Strategy Community and Cultural Policy Andrew McKenzie, Chief Financial Officer Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 21

Item 12

It is recommended that Auckland Transport is requested to progress this project, initially by identifying appropriate resourcing and budget for Auckland Councils contribution. This is aligned to Auckland Transports Statement of Intent for Auckland Transport to work with NZTA to define options to progress work on walking/cycling bridge under the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Attachment A
Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Item 12

Page 22

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 23

Attachment A

Item 12

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Attachment A
Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Item 12

Page 24

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 25

Attachment A

Item 12

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Attachment A
Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Item 12

Page 26

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 27

Attachment A

Item 12

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Attachment A
Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Item 12

Page 28

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 29

Attachment A

Item 12

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Attachment A
Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Item 12

Page 30

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 31

Attachment A

Item 12

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Attachment A
Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Item 12

Page 32

Transport Committee 15 August 2011

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Progress

Page 33

Attachment A

Item 12