Regional Land Transport Programme 2009 - 2010 (2MB) - Auckland ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 8.3: Comparison of actual expenditure versus planned expenditure for the 2007/08 Land Transport Programme $250 Planned expenditure (2007/08) Actual (Spend) (2007/08) $200 $150 $ Million $100 $50 $0 Road Maintenance and Renewals Road Infrastructure PT Services PT Infrastructure TDM and Walking and Cycling GPS work category Figure 8.3 shows the difference between the final 2007/08 planned expenditure and the actual expenditure. The following conclusions can be drawn from the chart. Apart from Public Transport Services all work categories were underspent in comparison with planned expenditure: > The Road Maintenance and Renewals categories were underspent by 12%. It is usual for local roading authorities to request more funding than is eventually agreed to after negotiations with the NZTA and ARTA. The final agreed figure was spent in its entirety. > Road Infrastructure, Public Transport Infrastructure, TDM and Walking and Cycling schemes are all underspent. The main reason for this is that territorial authorities tend to put forward more schemes than they have local share funding to implement. They do this as it is likely that some schemes will be delayed and will not be progressed in the forth-coming year. These unforeseen delays are often attributed to consent-related requirements and a shortage in professional service skills for design and evaluation analysis. Due to the downturn in the economy and the reduction in spending by local authorities, it expected that there will not be the shortage of professional services during this RLTP period as there was in the past. Further, as councils have put forward fewer projects for funding, the projects which are proposed should have a greater opportunity of being completed than in previous years. For these reasons, it is anticipated that there will be a closer match between planned expenditure and actual spend in this RLTP period than in previous years. Further Monitoring The monitoring carried out in the section above considers the amount proposed to be spent on transport in the Auckland region against the proportion proposed for each mode to achieve the desire strategic outcomes as indicated in the RLTS. However, this does not indicate whether the funding is actually achieving the outcomes and impacts set in the GPS and RLTS. ARTA is developing a series of key performance indicators (KPIs), which will measure changes in transport as a result of the investment considered above. Further information on how these KPIs will be monitored and interpreted once developed can be found in the Auckland Transport Plan and it is intended that results of ARTA’s monitoring of transport performance indicators will be published annually. 39
9 SIGNIFICANCE POLICY Legislation Section 106 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) states that ARTA must adopt a policy that determines significance in respect of variations made to the Auckland regional land transport programme (RLTP). ARTA will consult on the RLTP on a three-yearly basis, commencing in early 2009 with the draft 2009/10–2011/12 Auckland RLTP. After the RLTP has been formally adopted, any variations will be assessed to determine if they are a significant variation to the RLTP or not. All variations will be of some significance, ranging from insignificance to high significance, and may require consultation. Variations of a lesser significance will require a less rigorous decision-making process and a lesser level of consultation. There will be a threshold above which a variation is deemed to be significant and, as a result, requires the special consultative procedure in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002). Any variation that is deemed to be not significant may still be consulted on at the discretion of ARTA, using the consultation principles contained in the LGA 2002. Policy When considering the significance of a variation, ARTA shall give consideration to the following criteria: > The extent to which ARTA has responsibility for the relevant activity or project which is subject to the variation. > Any relevant consultation under the LTMA or the LGA, variation which has already been consulted on under the LTMA or the LGA may not be considered significant. > The extent to which there is, or is likely to be, a change in the capacity of ARTA to deliver its statutory objective, including giving effect to the RLTS (subject to specified legislative exceptions). > Alignment with ARTA’s plans and programme and the Government Policy Statement. > The costs and benefits of the consultation process. Procedures > Where possible, and if it is not contrary to the consultation principles of LGA, consultation will be carried out on an annual basis. Thresholds In deciding whether or not a proposed variation is significant or not, ARTA will assess, as a guideline, whether or not the proposed variation meets the following thresholds: > The inclusion of a construction phase for a new State highway project with a total activity or project cost greater than 10% of the activity class ‘New and Improved Infrastructure for State Highways’ in the Auckland RLTP. > Changes to the scope of an activity or project that increase expenditure in the relevant activity class in the Auckland RLTP by more than 10% (but at least $10 million) > > > > Final decisions on significance shall be made by ARTA. ARTA will consider requests for variations promptly at its regular meetings and communicate its decision in writing to the applicant and the NZTA. If there is benefit in consulting on a variation that is not significant then ARTA may still consult and will determine the appropriate level of consultation. ARTA will consider asking an applicant of a significant variation to contribute to the cost of the special consultative procedure. > Changes to this Significance Policy. The following variations are examples of proposed variations which do not meet the threshold and therefore may be considered not significant: > > > Deletion of an activity or project which is undertaken by, or the responsibility of, an Approved Organisation other than ARTA. Replacement of an activity or project within a group of related activities or projects by another activity or project of the same or substantially similar type. Cost changes that do not affect the scope of an activity or project. 40
Page 1 and 2: 2009/10-2011/12 AUCKLAND REGIONAL L
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD ....
Page 5 and 6: iv Figure 1: Major Construction Pro
Page 7 and 8: 2 CONTEXT ARTA’s Role Established
Page 9 and 10: Figure 2.2: Funding streams for lan
Page 11 and 12: What’s New in this Regional Land
Page 13 and 14: Figure 3.2: Population growth by re
Page 15 and 16: Figure 3.5: Road and rail freight m
Page 17 and 18: 6. Funding constraints The current
Page 19 and 20: Achievement of the expected increas
Page 21 and 22: 16 5. Completion of key links in th
Page 23 and 24: Walking and cycling initiatives Del
Page 25 and 26: 5 THE 2009/12 PROGRAMME 20 The Auck
Page 27 and 28: 22 Figure 5.1: Map of major constru
Page 29 and 30: GPS Funding Allocations and Request
Page 31 and 32: When taking into account the popula
Page 33 and 34: Table 5.4: Summary of the RLTP by A
Page 35 and 36: Table 5.4: Summary of the RLTP by A
Page 37 and 38: R and C Funding It is estimated tha
Page 39 and 40: 7 ROAD POLICING ACTIVITIES Road pol
Page 41 and 42: 8 MONITORING Implementing the Regio
Page 43: The proportion of funding proposed
Page 47 and 48: With respect to the tables (and hea
Page 49 and 50: 44 Table 10.1: Activity Class 1, Tr
Page 55 and 56: 50 Table 10.2: Activity Class 2, De
Page 57 and 58: 52 Table 10.3: Activity Class 3, Wa
Page 59 and 60: 54 Table 10.3: Activity Class 3, Wa
Page 61 and 62: 56 Table 10.5: Activity Class 5, Pu
Page 63 and 64: 58 Table 10.5: Activity Class 5, Pu
Page 65 and 66: 60 Table 10.6: Activity Class 8 and
Page 67 and 68: 62 Table 10.7: Activity Class 9 and
Page 69 and 70: 64 Table 10.8: Activity Class 12 ,
Page 79 and 80: 74 Table 10.9: Activity Class 13, I
Page 81 and 82: 76 Table 10.9: Activity Class 13, I
Page 83 and 84: APPENDIX 1: AUCKLAND RLTP’S LEGIS
Page 85 and 86: The prioritisation principles Serio
Page 87 and 88: Effectiveness Effectiveness is the
Page 89 and 90: Table 3 below shows the generic pro
Page 91 and 92: GLOSSARY ARLTP ARC ARTA ATP GPS NZT

Regional Land Transport Programme 2009 - 2010 (2MB) - Auckland ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?