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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Table 3 below shows the generic profiles for Seriousness and Effectiveness. The Efficiency of each activity is assessed separately. Table 3: NZTA and ARTA generic profiles for Seriousness and Effectiveness Generic project description NZTA standard profile ARTA profile Traffic management: network efficiency MH MH Effluent disposal facilities MM MM Bridge renewals: structural, seismic strengthening – safety HM HM Replacement of bridges: Route efficiency MM MM New roads and bridges: Safety HM HM New roads and bridges: Route efficiency LM LM Road reconstruction: Route efficiency improvements at intersections or along routes LM LM Road reconstruction: Passing lanes HM HM Road reconstruction: Rural realignment (travel time) LM LM Road reconstruction: Rural realignment (safety) HM HM Road reconstruction: Safety improvements at intersections/along urban routes HM HM Road reconstruction: Safety retro-fitting HM HM Road reconstruction: Seismic retro-fitting MM Road reconstruction: Street lighting improvements HM HM Road reconstruction: Pavement smoothing LM LM Seal extensions: > Community benefits MM MM > User benefits LM LM Advanced property purchase: Safety HM HM Advanced property purchase: Route efficiency LM LM Advanced property purchase: Alternative modes HM HM Purpose-built walking or cycling facilities HM HM Improvements to existing mixed walking or cycling networks HM HM Passenger transport infrastructure improvements HM HH Preventive maintenance MM MH Note: NZTA is considering up-dating its generic profiles and it is likely that ARTA will also update the generic profiles in the near future, however, the above profiles are current at the time of the evaluation of the RLTP. 84
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 and 44: The proportion of funding proposed
Page 45 and 46: 9 SIGNIFICANCE POLICY Legislation S
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: Effectiveness Effectiveness is the
Page 91 and 92: GLOSSARY ARLTP ARC ARTA ATP GPS NZT
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?