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

Strategic Balance: a factor that allows a structured judgement to be applied to ensure that the overall shape of the Auckland Transport Plan
is acceptable, recognises the modal shares and outcomes indicated in the RLTS, and takes account of broader considerations (including national
issues) that might influence the priority and timing of projects and packages.
The balance of projects and packages in the ATP will seek to enable:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The achievement of the Government Policy Statement targets.
Achievement of the expected outcomes of the RLTS.
The general allocation of transport resources in accordance with the RLTS.
An overall plan that builds for the future.
Projects that contribute to an integrated solution, including the completion of a network.
The best use of existing transport assets.
Strong network resilience and reduced risk of network failure, with a particular focus on lifelines, civil emergencies and civil defence
evacuation procedures.
Options to be kept open for the future, and not foreclosing on opportunities (including corridor protection and advance land purchase).
Taking proactive actions early to influence future demand in a more sustainable way, or avoid future problems (for example early introduction
of passenger transport to newly developing areas).
Sufficient flexibility in the programme to enable other projects to be advanced when projects encounter implementation problems.
Fundability (i.e. local share, and the ability to gain funding from other sources).
Affordability of the programme as a whole, recognising available resources and contingency planning.
A reasonable balance between rural and urban requirements.
Community aspirations to be met through an equitable balance of transport resources, and opportunities between different communities
and socio-economic groups.
Risks to be appropriately managed.
Efficiency
Efficiency (of the proposed solution)
The Efficiency of an activity is based on its benefit/cost ratio. In
calculating the BCR, sensitivity analysis of the key BCR drivers should
be undertaken, and consideration given to including all benefits and
costs such as agglomeration impacts, enhanced land use outcomes
and positive urban design outcomes. The economic efficiency of an
activity does not necessarily have to be based on the BCR even though
it almost always is the case for roading improvement schemes.
It is reported in LTP Online to one decimal place. At time of writing,
the profile relationship for the Efficiency is:
> High: BCR ≥ 4.0
> Medium: 2.0 ≤ BCR < 4.0
> Low: 1.0 ≤ BCR < 2.0
Where no details on the Efficiency of a project are known at the RLTP
stage, then a low value is given to the project and a dashed line
shown in the table in Section 10.
2.3 Generic projects
Projects which are below $4.5 million in capital value and are generally
simple, routine types of capital improvement are categorised as
‘generic’ for profiling purposes.
The profiles for these schemes have been developed and refined by
NZTA over the last few years and are applied uniformly across the
country. ARTA has amended the profile for public transport
infrastructure to be higher than the NZTA profile to take account of
greater importance of public transport in addressing Auckland’s
transport issues given the larger size, faster growth and higher levels
of congestion in Auckland relative to other regions.
In light of the changes in emphasis in the 2009 GPS, ARTA has
considered whether it is necessary to alter our generic profiles. ARTA
believes it is not necessary to change the profiles as public transport
and walking and cycling are able to make significant contributions to
decongesting routes in heavily populated areas with high congestion
levels such as the Auckland region, which will improve journey
reliability for freight and other economically valuable trips. The
ranking of projects in the same profile group has altered to be
consistent with the 2009 GPS, this is discussed in 2.4 on page 85.
83