18pt
Auckland Draft Regional
Land Transport Plan
2015–2025
NZ Transport Agency, Kiwi Rail, Auckland Transport
Large Print Volume 2: Section 16; Appendices 1–3;
Glossary; Bibliography
Adapted in accordance with Section 69 of the Copyright
Act 1994 by the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the
Blind, for the sole use of persons who have a print
disability. No unauthorised copying is permitted.
Produced 2015 by Accessible Format Production, Blind
Foundation, Auckland
Print page range: 105–127
Total large print pages: 97
Notes for the Large Print Reader
Print page numbers are indicated as:
Page 1
Main text is in Arial typeface, 18 point.
Headings, in order of significance, are indicated as:
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Omissions and Alterations
Graphics have been omitted in this large print edition. In
some instances, figures have been described. In place of
maps is information on how to reach Auckland Transport
for further information.
Notes from the large print transcriber have been prefaced
by "TN" (transcriber's note).
Contents: Large Print Volume 2
Chapter
Print
Page
Large
print
page
16. Prioritised List of Projects
105
1
Appendix 1: Legislative Requirements
112
55
Appendix 2: Prioritisation Methodology
117
67
Appendix 3: Significance Policy
124
84
Glossary
126
93
Bibliography
127
94
Page 105
16. Prioritised List of
Projects
The following tables show the prioritised list of projects
which form the basis of Auckland Transport, NZTA and
Auckland Council funding requests for the Regional
Land Transport Plan 2015–18.
Not all the activities shown in the detailed tables are
expected to receive subsidy from NZTA. The
programme shows all significant land transport projects
and activities that will be carried out in Auckland over
the next three years, and how these will be funded.
One role of the RLTP is to make the business case to
NZTA for investment in Auckland Transport activities.
Those activities which NZTA considers to be a costeffective contribution to achieving the goals set out in
the Government Policy Statement (1) will be included in
the National Land Transport Programme. Auckland
Transport has estimated the funding it will receive from
NZTA in its budget, however this funding cannot be
guaranteed and must be applied for in individual
detailed applications. Consequently, there are no
financial implications of this RLTP, however when
detailed applications for funding are made and the NZTA
1
decides whether to support individual applications for
subsidy, there are significant financial implications.
16.1 Key to format and content of
prioritised list
All projects have been evaluated for their strategic fit,
effectiveness and efficiency using the process set out in
Chapter 4. For projects in the outer years of this plan,
information is currently incomplete and it is likely that the
profile and therefore priority of the project will change.
The tables (and headings) below use the following
abbreviations and terms:
Project name
Shaded projects are delivered by NZTA Highway and
Network Operations (state highways)—HNO
TN: Shading omitted.
Some of the activities listed in the tables (for example,
Walking and Cycling Programme and Safety
programmes) provide for a single region-wide funding
allocation that covers a large number of individual
projects. Within each of these groups of projects,
Auckland Transport and/or NZTA have agreed a
methodology for bringing forward the highest priority
projects for funding.
2
Cost ($)
This is the total cost of the identified activity for that
particular year in the RLTP (which may be or zero, and
may be the sum of multiple phases). Most activities are
funded through a combination of local share and NZTA
funding, but some activities have more complex funding
arrangements.
Phase: refers to the stage of development:
I = Investigation
D = Design
P = Property Purchase
C = Construction
Year 4–10 cost: The amount of money being requested
for all phases in years 4 to 10 of the RLTP. The
accumulation of the total costs in 2015/16, 2016/17 and
the year 4–10 costs equals the total 10-year cost.
Profile: The prioritisation profile assigned to the activity
based on AT's prioritisation process as set out in
Appendix 2.
The first letter represents the project's strategic fit
The second letter represents the project's effectiveness
The third letter represents the project's efficiency
3
Together the three letters create the profile
High = H
Medium = M
Low = L
L* = Efficiency of the project has not been assessed yet.
NZTA Work Category: This is Auckland Transport's
estimate of the likely work category (25) under which
NZTA may choose to fund the activity.
Pages 106–111
16.2 Details of projects and
priorities
TN: In the following tables, abbreviations have been
used in the header rows as follows: B = Basic transport
programme; A = Auckland Plan transport programme.
4
*Phase—I=Investigation, D=Design, P=Property, C=Construction
TN: In the following table, column one has been omitted. Each row of column one (bar the header row) was labelled "Committed".
Projects with
Commitments
B: 2015/16 B: 2016/17 B: 2017/18 B: 2018/19
$m, inflated $m, inflated $m, inflated to 2024/25
Phase*
Phase*
Phase*
A: 2015/16
A: 2016/17
A: 2017/18
A: 2018/19
$m, inflated $m, inflated $m, inflated to 2024/25
Phase*
Phase*
Phase*
Core Seal
Extensions
1.0 I, D, C
1.1 I, D, C
1.1 I, D, C
8.6
3.1 I, D, C
3.2 I, D, C
3.2 I, D, C
25.8
Local Board
Initiatives
10.3 D, C
10.5 D, C
10.8 D, C
85.9
10.3 D, C
10.5 D, C
10.8 D, C
85.9
AT Renewals
179.5
194.9
211.2
1,851.8
205.2
232.5
235.9
2,768.2
NZTA
Renewals
31.7
40.1
40.8
294.0
31.7
40.1
40.8
294.0
Estimate for
Seismic
Strengthening
Works
(excluding
Quay Street)
1.0 I, D
1.1 I, D
1.1 I, D
59.6
2.1 I, D, C
2.1 I, D, C
2.2 I, D, C
54.9
Albany
Highway
Upgrade
(North)
23.6 C
13.3 C
1.1 C
23.6 C
13.3 C
1.1 C
Projects with
Commitments
B: 2015/16 B: 2016/17 B: 2017/18 B: 2018/19
$m, inflated $m, inflated $m, inflated to 2024/25
Phase*
Phase*
Phase*
A: 2015/16
A: 2016/17
A: 2017/18
A: 2018/19
$m, inflated $m, inflated $m, inflated to 2024/25
Phase*
Phase*
Phase*
EMU
Procurement
26.8 C
26.8 C
1.0 C
1.0 D, C
1.1 D, C
1.1 D, C
2.6 D, C
2.6 C
2.8 C
17.1 D, P, C
9.7 D, C
6.2 D, C
1.0 C
Improvements 0.8 D, C
Complementing
Developments
0.8 D, C
0.9 D, C
Long Bay
Glenvar Ridge
Rd
2.6 D, C
2.6 C
2.8 C
NorthWest
Transformation
(NORSGA PC
15 Massey
North Town
Centre)
17.1 D, P, C 9.7 D, C
6.2 D, C
NorthWest
Transformation
(NORSGA PC
13 Hobsonville
Point Park and
ride)
0.0 P,
0.5 C
3.2 C
6.9
7.1
3.7 P, C
8.6
7.1
Projects with
Commitments
B: 2015/16 B: 2016/17 B: 2017/18 B: 2018/19
$m, inflated $m, inflated $m, inflated to 2024/25
Phase*
Phase*
Phase*
A: 2015/16
A: 2016/17
A: 2017/18
A: 2018/19
$m, inflated $m, inflated $m, inflated to 2024/25
Phase*
Phase*
Phase*
NorthWest
Transformation
(NORSGA
PC14
Hobsonville
Village)
0.2 D,
0.2 D,
2.7 D, P,
10.6 D, C
Plan Change
32 Penihana
North Transport
Mitigation
Swanson
Station
Upgrade
2.7 D, P,
10.6 D, C
0.4
0.7 C
Warkworth SH1
intersection
improvements
Waterview
Cycleway
connection
5.6
3.6 I, D, P,
C
0.4
0.7 C
3.8 C
3.7 C
3.7 C
6.7 C
5.6
6.2 I, D, C
5.3 C
2.3 C
*Phase—I=Investigation, D=Design, P=Property, C=Construction
TN: In the following table, column one has been omitted. Each row of column one (bar the header row) was labelled "Ongoing".
AT ongoing
operational
requirements
B: 2015/16 B: 2016/17 B: 2017/18 B: 2018/19
$m, inflated $m, inflated $m, inflated to 2024/25
Phase*
Phase*
Phase*
AIFS system—
extensions,
enhancements
and equipment
replacement
3.8 C
33.7
AIFS system— 10.3 C
integrated fares
A: 2015/16
A: 2016/17
A: 2017/18
A: 2018/19
$m, inflated $m, inflated $m, inflated to 2024/25
Phase*
Phase*
Phase*
1.8 C
1.9 C
4.2 C
28.1
10.3 C
Diesel
Refurbishment
(alternative to
electrification
Papakura to
Pukekohe)
8.1
8.1
Digital
Technology
6.7
6.9
7.1
56.4
6.7 C
6.9 C
7.1 C
56.4
General AT
Asset
Replacement
6.2
6.3
6.5
51.5
6.9 C
7.1 C
7.3 C
58.0
AT ongoing
operational
requirements
B: 2015/16 B: 2016/17 B: 2017/18 B: 2018/19
$m, inflated $m, inflated $m, inflated to 2024/25
Phase*
Phase*
Phase*
A: 2015/16
A: 2016/17
A: 2017/18
A: 2018/19
$m, inflated $m, inflated $m, inflated to 2024/25
Phase*
Phase*
Phase*
Operational
asset
replacement –
Paid Parking
Technology
2.1
1.1
1.1
16.5
0.3
6.1
Resolution of
0.3
Encroachments
and Legacy
Land Purchase
Arrangements
1.3
1.3
11.7
1.2 P,
1.3 P,
Greenfield
Growth
Networks
Transport
Improvements
in Strategic
Housing Areas
B: 2015/16 B: 2016/17 B: 2017/18 B: 2018/19
$m, inflated $m, inflated $m, inflated to 2024/25
Phase*
Phase*
Phase*
13.9
1.3 P,
10.5
A: 2015/16
A: 2016/17
A: 2017/18
A: 2018/19
$m, inflated $m, inflated $m, inflated to 2024/25
Phase*
Phase*
Phase*
119.7
TN: In the following table, column one and two of the print edition have been merged. Original column headings read: column one:
"Priority"; column two: "Ranked Capex Projects".
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
1: City Rail Link HHL*
Public
145.4 D,
transport
P, C
improvements
176.8 D,
P, C
77.9 D,
P, C
1,909.5
145.4 D,
P, C
176.8 D,
P, C
77.9 D,
P, C
1,909.5
2: AMETI
Panmure to
Pakuranga
Busway
HHL
Road
improvements
26.9 I, D,
P
363.6
16.7
11.6 I, D
52.7 I, D
244.1
3: AMETI
HHL
Pakuranga to
Botany Busway
Road
improvements
1.4 I
90.2
1.3
C
P, C
131.2
4: CBD Bus
Infrastructure
Requirement
Wellesley
Street
Public
transport
improvements
HHH
19.4
17.1
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
5: AMETI Mt
Wellington
Hway
HHL
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
Road
improvements
19.8
19.6
6: AMETI Morin HHL
to Merton Link
New roads
51.0
51.0
7: East West
HHL
Connections
(was East West
Link)
Property
purchase—
local roads
8: East West
Connections
State Hway
component
HHL*
State Highway
Improvements
9: CBD Bus
Infrastructure
Requirement
Fanshawe St
HHH
Public
transport
improvements
1.1 I
134.1
5.1 I, D,
P,
21.1 I, D, 30.4 P, C 61.0
P, C
39.0
5.1 I, D,
C
10.5 C
10.8 C
5.6
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
10: Lincoln
Rd—Corridor
Improvements
HHH
Road
improvements
11: Dominion
Road Corridor
Upgrade
HHL
Road
improvements
12: Walking
and Cycling
Programme—
AT
HHM
Walking and
Cycling
13: Walking
and Cycling
Programme—
NZTA
HHL*
Walking and
Cycling
14: Bus Priority HHH
Improvements
& Transit Lanes
Road
improvements
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
27.9 C
9.4
6.0
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
55.2
5.9 D, P,
10.6 P,
9.4 P, C
21.4
27.2 C
23.8 C
24.5 C
12.5
70.6
30.8 I, D, 31.6 I, D, 32.5 I, D, 257.6
C
C
C
7.2
9.4
6.0
12.5
7.2
72.4
9.1 I, D,
C
9.3 I, D,
C
9.6 I, D,
C
75.9
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
15: Southern
Corridor
Improvements
HHH
State Highway 49.7
Improvements
69.0
53.0
0.0
49.7
69.0
53.0
0.0
16: SH1
Northern
Corridor
Improvements
—Motorway
HHL
State Highway 25.5
Improvements
91.0
94.0
0.0
25.5
91.0
94.0
0.0
17: Manukau
Interchange
(was Manukau
City Rail Link)
HHM
Public
transport
improvements
20.2
13.2 C
4.2 C
18: Otahuhu
Bus
Interchange
HHL
Public
transport
improvements
20.5
13.8 C
3.8 P,
19: Wynyard
Bus
interchange
HHH
Public
transport
improvements
25.6
5.4 C
11.2
5.3 I, D,
C
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
20: SH1
Waitemata
harbour
crossing
(Planning and
route
protection)
HHL*
21: Safety
HHH
programmes
(including
safety and
minor
improvements,
safety around
schools, crash
reduction
implementation,
regional safety
programme and
safety speed
management)
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
State Highway 7.2
Improvements
5.1 D, C
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
9.2
11.3
0.0
7.2
9.2
11.3
0.0
174.2
26.5 I, D, 27.2 I, D, 28.0 I, D, 221.6
C
C
C
2.9 D, C
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
89.1
51.7
0.0
160.7
89.1
51.7
0.0
22: SH20/SH16 HHL
Western Ring
Route
State Highway 160.7
Improvements
23: Quay Street HHL*
Seawall
(including
Seismic
Strengthening)
Road
improvements
48.7
10.3 C
21.1 C
10.8 C
24: Red Light
Cameras New
New traffic
management
facilities
1.5
0.4 D, C
0.2 D, C
0.2 D, C
25: Akoranga
HHH
Busway Station
improvements
Public
transport
improvements
1.4
1.2
26: Plan
Change 127
Huapai North
Transport
Mitigation
Road
improvements
2.5
2.4
HHH
HHH
0.5
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
1.1 P,
27:
HHH
Taharoto/Waira
u—Stage 3
Road
improvements
5.7
0.5 D,
3.2 P, C
28: Flat Bush
Main Street
Collector Link
HHM
Road
improvements
7.7
2.2 C
4.5 C
29: Learning
Quarter—CBD
Bus
Infrastructure
HHH
Public
transport
improvements
8.4
30: Murphys Rd HHM
Upgrade Bridge
Improvements
(Plan Change
20)
Road
improvements
10.1
4.3 C
31: Te Atatu
Rd: Corridor
Improvements
Road
improvements
15.4
11.5 P, C 1.7 C
HHH
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
7.9
4.4 C
0.1 C
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
2.6 I,
0.5 I,
5.5 P,
7.8
32: SMART
(Airport Rail—
Planning and
Route
Protection)
HHL*
Public
transport
improvements
18.1
33: Downtown
Interchange
HHH
Public
transport
improvements
24.1
34: Minor PT
capex
allowance for
bus stops,
minor
improvements
at stations,
wharves,
provision of PT
information etc
HML
Public
transport
improvements
25.3
22.6
2.1 C
2.1 C
2.2 C
17.2
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
1.0
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
35: Seismic
HML*
Retrofit of State
Highways
State Highway 1.0
Improvements
0.0
36: Te Atatu
Motorway Bus
Interchange
HHH
Public
transport
improvements
46.4
37: Route
Optimisation
HHH
Road
improvements
6.3
0.5 I, D,
C
0.5 I, D,
C
0.5 I, D,
C
38: Brigham
Creek Road
Corridor
Improvements
HHL
Road
improvements
10.7
1.0 I, P,
8.1 D, P,
C
0.1 C
39: SH1 Puhoi
to Warkworth
New Road
MHL*
State Highway
Improvements
40: Airport
Access
Improvements
HML
State Highway 68.5
Improvements
18.0
47.9
0.0
45.9
0.0
0.0
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
18.0
68.5
47.9
4.3
0.0
0.0
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
41: Northern
HMH
Busway—
additional
stations
associated with
busway
extension
Public
transport
improvements
42: Mangere
Gateway Area
(Plan Change
14)
HML*
New roads
43: SH1
Northern
Corridor
Improvements
—Busway
Component
HML*
State Highway
Improvements
44: Mill Road
HMH
Road
improvements
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
6.7
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
7.3
24.2
143.6
26.8 I, D, 36.8 I, D, 20.8 D,
P,
P,
P, C
35.2
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
45: Tamaki
HMM
Drive & Ngapipi
Intersection
Road
improvements
46: Silverdale
Interchange
Upgrade
HMM
State Highway
Improvements
47: Rail
Crossing
Separation
(including
Newmarket
Crossing)
HML*
Road
improvements
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
2.1 C
2.1 C
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
0.0
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
0.0
3.8 D, P,
2.1 C
8.8
228.0
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
48: Intelligent
Transport
Systems
Infrastructure
(JTOC, ATOC,
CCTV, Incident
Management
Response
Systems)
HMH
49: EMUs—
additional
rolling stock &
stabling
TBC
50: Tactile
paving/pram
crossing
upgrades
HML*
New traffic
management
facilities
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
3.1 D, C
3.3 D, C
4.6 D, C
29.5
205.1
Walking
facilities
0.6 I, D,
C
0.6 I, D,
C
0.6 I, D,
C
4.5
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.0
51: Minor SH
Improvements
incl. Safety,
optimisation
and resilience
HML*
State Highway 1.3
Improvements
52: Park n
Ride—
Swanson
HMH
Public
transport
improvements
0.2 D,
0.8 C
53: Park n
Ride—
Westgate
HMH
Public
transport
improvements
1.4 D, C
1.9 C
54: Park n
Ride—
Pukekohe
HMH
Public
transport
improvements
3.0 I, D,
C
0.7 C
55: Parnell
Station
MMM
Public
transport
improvements
12.3 C
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
0.2 I,
10.6
56: Park n Ride HML
Silverdale-Stg 2
Public
transport
improvements
5.9 C
57: TivertonWolverton
Stage 2
HML
Road
improvements
6.5 D, C
58: Pukekohe
Station
Upgrade
MHL
Public
transport
improvements
9.9 C
59: Medallion
HML
Drive Extension
(Plan Change
32)
Road
improvements
1.0 P,
0.1 I,
60: Chapel Rd
Realignment &
New Bridge
New roads
5.2 D, C
6.5 C
HMH
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
61: Flat Bush
School Road
East Upgrade
(Plan Change
20)
HMM
Road
improvements
18.7
62: Thomas
Road—
Collector
Upgrade and
Re-alignment
(Plan Change
20)
HMM
Road
improvements
21.4
63: Takanini
Structure Plan
Area 6
Transport
Mitigation
HML*
New roads
0.2 I,
21.0
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
64: McQuoids
Road—
Collector
Upgrade (Plan
Change 20)
Road
improvements
24.3
65: Gills to
Oteha Valley
connection
Property
purchase—
local roads
26.6
Road
improvements
33.5
New roads
76.6
66: Albany
Highway
(Sunset to
SH18)
HMM
67: Private Plan HML*
Change 12
Drury South
Transport
Implementation
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
68: Wynyard
Quarter
Integrated
Road
Programme
HML*
69: Silverdale
Transport
Improvements
(incl. Penlink
designation)
TBC
Road
improvements
70: Coping with TBC
City Centre Bus
Congestion
71:
Albert/Vincent
Street
improvements
HMH
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
15.4 I, D, 5.3 D, C
P,
10.8 C
45.7
1.7 I, P,
13.0 I, D, 71.7
P, C
3.3 I, D,
P,
100.0
Public
transport
improvements
5.9
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
1.9 I, D,
C
2.3 I, D,
C
2.7 I, D,
C
34.9
72: Network
Operating Plan
Capital
Programme
HMH
New traffic
management
facilities
73: Grafton
Interchange
MHL*
Public
transport
improvements
74: Traffic
Signals New
MHH
New traffic
management
facilities
0.7 D, C
75: Real Time
Passenger
Information
System
enhancements
MHL
Public
transport
improvements
1.1 I, D,
C
6.4
0.7 D, C
0.8 D, C
5.1
1.6 I, D,
C
9.8
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
76: Peninsula
Golf Course
development
(Plan Change
159)
MML*
New roads
0.3
77: Whitford
Road/Jack
Lachlan
Intersection
Upgrade (Plan
Change
30/30A/34)
MML*
Road
improvements
5.2
78: Plan
Change 8 St
Lukes Mall
Transport
Mitigation
MML*
New roads
12.4
79: Paerata
Station and
Park and Ride
MML
Public
transport
improvements
18.9
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
7.2 I, D,
P,
5.5 C
5.7 C
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
80: Crown Lynn MML*
Regeneration—
New Public
Road (Plan
Change 17)
Road
improvements
81: Plan
Change 35
Puhinui
Gateway
Transport
Mitigation
MML*
New roads
21.7
82: Street
Lighting
improvementsregionwide
MML*
Road
improvements
3.4
83: SH1
Northbound
auxiliary lane
HMM
State Highway 17.1
Improvements
2.9
0.0
17.1
2.9
0.0
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
84: Double
MMH
decker network
mitigation works
85: Bus Stop
Improvements
Programme
MHL
Public
transport
improvements
86: SH16-Tapu
Rd Intersection
Upgrade
MMM
Road
improvements
87: Warkworth
Stage 1 (Hill
ST)
MHM
State Highway 1.8
Improvements
88: Tetratrap
Installation—
Central
MML*
Drainage
renewals
19.6
0.0
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
8.3 I, D,
C
6.0 I, D,
C
4.2 I, D,
C
7.6
4.4 D, C
4.3 D, C
2.3 D, C
21.4
0.3 I,
0.3 D,
4.5
1.8
0.1 I, C
0.0
0.1 I, C
0.1 I, C
0.9
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
0.1
4.1
0.0
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
89: Brigham
Creek-Railway
Rd Median
Barrier
MML*
State Highway
Improvements
90: Park n
Ride—
Bayswater
MMM
Public
transport
improvements
0.2 C
91: Park n
Ride—
Henderson
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
0.3 C
92: Park n
Ride—Sturges
Rd
MMM
Public
transport
improvements
0.3 C
93: Park n
Ride—Howick
MMM
Public
transport
improvements
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
0.1
4.1
0.0
0.3
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
94: Park n
Ride—Ranui
MMM
Public
transport
improvements
95: Park n
Ride—
Pakuranga
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
0.4 C
96: Park n
Ride—West
Harbour
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
0.4 D, C
97: Mission
MML*
Bay—Patterson
Ave
reconfiguration.
Road
improvements
98: Park n
Ride—
Papatoetoe
Public
transport
improvements
MMH
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
0.4
0.6
0.3 I, D,
C
0.3 C
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
0.4 C
99: Park n
Ride—
Meadowbank
MMM
Public
transport
improvements
0.6 I, D,
C
100: Park n
Ride—Glen
Eden
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
0.1 I,
0.2 D,
101: Park n
Ride—
Papakura
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
0.4 I, D,
C
0.4 C
102: Park n
Ride—Sylvia
Park
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
103: Ellerslie
Panmure
Highway/Lunn
Ave/Barrack
Road
intersection
upgrade
MML*
Road
improvements
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
1.0
0.0 I,
0.1 D,
1.0 C
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
104: Mount
Albert
Interchange
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
1.1 I, D,
C
105: Point
MMH
Chevalier
Shops (bus-bus
connection)
Public
transport
improvements
1.1 I, D,
P,
106: Park n
Ride—
Manurewa
MMM
Public
transport
improvements
1.3
107: Park n
Ride—Smales
Farm
MMM
Public
transport
improvements
1.6
108: Park n
Ride—
Avondale Stn
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
0.4 I, D,
1.3
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
109: Park n
Ride—
Birkenhead
MMM
Public
transport
improvements
110: Te Mahia
Station
Upgrade
MML*
Public
transport
improvements
1.0 I, D,
C
111: Mount
Eden Village
MML*
Road
improvements
2.1 I, D,
C
112:
Newmarket
Interchange
MML*
Public
transport
improvements
113: Takanini
Station
Upgrade
MML*
Public
transport
improvements
114: Park n
MMM
Ride—Highland
Park area
Public
transport
improvements
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
2.1
1.1 C
2.3
1.0 I, D,
C
1.1 C
2.6
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
115: Plan
MML*
Change 33
Manukau City
Centre
Implementation
New roads
116: Park n
Ride—Botany
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
117: Park n
Ride—Glen
Innes
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
2.3 I, D,
C
1.3 C
118: Park n
Ride—Puhinui
MMM
Public
transport
improvements
3.3 I, D,
C
0.3 C
119: St Lukes
Road (bus-bus
connection)
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
2.8 I, D,
C
3.4
4.6
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
120: Ormiston
Preston East
Tamaki Rd
I/SCTN
MMH
Road
improvements
121: Plan
Change 260—
Orakei Point
MML*
New roads
122: AIFS—
installation of
gates at
stations
MML
Public
transport
improvements
123: Dairy Flat
Highway/The
Avenue
MMM
New roads
124: Smales
Allens Rd
Widening &
Intersection
Upgrade
MMM
Road
improvements
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
2.3 C
2.4 C
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
5.6
1.6 D, C
7.4
11.6
5.0 C
5.1 C
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
125: Anzac St
MMM
(Auburn to Fred
Thomas)
Property
purchase—
local roads
35.1
126: Park n
MMM
Ride—Mt Albert
Stn
Public
transport
improvements
0.6
127: Avondale
Interchange
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
128: Henderson MMH
Bus
Interchange
Public
transport
improvements
2.3
129:
Southdown to
Avondale Loop
(Mt Roskill
spur)
Public
transport
improvements
3.7
MML*
2.1 I, D,
C
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
130: Park n
Ride—
Dominion Rd
MML
131:
Intersection
Upgrade
Programme
(less than
$5mil)
132:
McClymonts
Road (Don
McKinnon to
Medallion
Drive)
133: Downtown
Ferry Basin
Development
MML*
Public
transport
improvements
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
0.4 I,
0.4 D,
3.2 C
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
Road
improvements
16.0
Road
improvements
16.9
Public
transport
improvements
2.1 I, D,
5.3 C
5.4 C
3.3
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
134: Corridor
MML*
Management
Plans—General
works
Road
improvements
135: Ngakoroa
Realignment
(Passing)
MLM
State Highway
Improvements
136: DruryGlenbrook
Median barrier
MLL*
State Highway
Improvements
137: Homai
Station
Interchange
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
138:
MMH
Blockhouse
Bay Town
Centre (busbus connection)
Public
transport
improvements
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
87.3
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.4 I, D,
C
0.6
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
139: Walters
MML*
Rd—Porchester
to Grove
Improvements
Road
improvements
1.3
140: Massey
University bus
stops and bus
circulation
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
1.1
141: Massey
MML*
Road—
Buckland Road
Neighbourhood
Interchange
Public
transport
improvements
142: Takapuna
Bus
Interchange
Public
transport
improvements
MMH
1.3 I, D,
C
2.3
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
1.6 I, D,
C
1.7
143: Balmoral
Road bus
connection
improvements
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
144: Mt Albert
Road bus
connection
improvements
MMH
Road
improvements
145:
Middlemore
Interchange
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
5.1
146:
Newmarket
Station access
improvements
MML*
Public
transport
improvements
6.2
147: Devonport MML*
Ferry Terminal
Public
transport
improvements
3.1 I, D,
C
4.1 D, C
1.3 C
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
148: Long Bay
Southern
Corridor
MMM
Road
improvements
46.9
149: Sylvia
Park Station
MMH
Public
transport
improvements
4.3
150: Greenlane MML*
Station Access
Improvements
Public
transport
improvements
4.8
151: Bayswater MLL
Ferry Terminal
Upgrade
Public
transport
improvements
15.2
152: Northcote
Point Ferry
Terminal
Public
transport
improvements
1.2
MLL
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
153: Matakana MLL*
Village Centre
and Rodney
Leathers Bridge
(Plan Variation
New roads
1.7
154:
MLL*
Manukau/Harris
/Custom
Intersection
Improvements
Road
improvements
155: Lonely
Track Road
upgrade and
widening (Plan
Change 32)
MLL*
New roads
11.7
156: Stockyard
Falls Light
Industrial and
Retail Parks
(Variation 158)
LML*
New roads
4.9
0.2 I, D,
1.2 D, P,
2.2 C
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
157:
McKinney/Wec
h Dr
Intersection
LML*
State Highway
Improvements
158: Lonely
Track Gills
Road
Intersection
Upgrade (Plan
Change 32)
MLL*
Road
improvements
1.0
159: Porchester MLL*
Road—
Manuroa to
Stream
Road
improvements
3.6
160: Wharehine MLL
Road
State Highway
Improvements
161: Long Bay
Ashley Avenue
Upgrade
Road
improvements
MLL*
0.9
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
162:
Destination &
Urban Route
Signage
MLL*
Road
improvements
163: Half Moon
Bay Ferry
Terminal
Upgrade
MLL
Public
transport
improvements
164: DruryGlenbrook Bay
Treatments
MLL*
State Highway
Improvements
165: Ormiston
Rd (East of
Murphy Rd)—
Upgrade
RegionalArterial Road
LLM
Road
improvements
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
0.5 I, D,
C
0.5 I, D,
C
0.5 I, D,
C
4.3
6.9
2.4
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
166: Station
Amenity
Improvements
LLL*
Public
transport
improvements
167: Flat Bush
Terminus
LLL*
Public
transport
improvements
168: Hingaia
LLL*
Peninsula Road
Improvement
Road
improvements
169: Long Bay
bus turnaround
facility
LLL*
Road
improvements
170:
Newmarket
Terminus
LLL*
Public
transport
improvements
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
0.7 I, D,
C
2.0 I, D,
C
2.1 I, D,
C
16.5
0.6
0.5 D, C
0.4 C
1.1 I, D,
C
1.1 I, D,
C
Priority:
AT
NZTA work
Ranked Capex Profile category
Projects
171: Linwood
Rd Route
Improvements
(Franklin)
LLL*
Road
improvements
172:
SH16/Muriwai
Rd Intersection
LLL*
State Highway
Improvements
173: Westfield
Station
Upgrade
LLL*
Public
transport
improvements
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
1.7
2.5
0.0
2.5
1.0 I, D,
C
1.1 C
0.0
Auckland
AT
Council
Profile
projects to
be
transferred
to AT—
Prioritisation
scores
pending
NZTA
work
category
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
Quay Street
Boulevard
Upgrade
7.2 I, D, C 7.4 I, D, C 7.6 I, D, C 35.1
Hobson &
Nelson
Upgrade
5.1 I, D, C 5.3 I, D, C 5.4 C
17.0
Parking
AT
NZTA work
initiatives— Profile category
to be
considered
outside of
prioritisation
methodology
above
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.1
0.5
New
Residential
Parking
Schemes
N/A
Not Eligible
for Subsidy
0.2
Off-Street
Paid Parking
(New)
N/A
Not Eligible
for Subsidy
0.1
On-street
Information
Paid Parking
New Areas
N/A
Not Eligible
for Subsidy
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.7
Licence Plate N/A
Recognition—
car parks
Not Eligible
for Subsidy
0.3 C
0.3 C
0.3 C
0.7
Parking
AT
NZTA work
initiatives— Profile category
to be
considered
outside of
prioritisation
methodology
above
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
Minor OnN/A
street parking
improvements
Not Eligible
for Subsidy
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
Parking
Enforcement
—Projects
N/A
Not Eligible
for Subsidy
1.1
1.4
0.6
7.8
NZTA
Projects—
Profiles
pending
AT
NZTA work
Profile category
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
0.0
3.4
Hobsonville
Deviation
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
State Highway 3.4
Improvements
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
Auckland
AT
NZTA work
Rail
Profile category
Initiatives
(delivered by
KiwiRail,
dependent
on Central
Government
funding)
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
15.4
15.8
16.3
0.0
10.5
10.8
0.0
6.8
7.0
Third Rail
Line
Otahuhu/Wiri
KiwiR ITP
Auckland Rail 15.4
(Basic)
15.8
16.3
0.0
Auckland
Train Control
Centre
KiwiRail
Auckland Rail
(Basic)
10.5
10.8
0.0
Crossovers
Auckland Rail 6.4
(Basic)
6.6
6.8
7.0
6.4
6.6
Signalling
Improvements
Auckland Rail 1.0
(Basic)
1.1
0.0
1.0
1.1
Catchup
renewals etc.
Auckland Rail 16.2
(Basic)
16.7
54.6
16.2
16.7
17.1
0.0
17.1
54.6
Auckland
AT
NZTA work
Rail
Profile category
Initiatives
(delivered by
KiwiRail,
dependent
on Central
Government
funding)
B:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
B:
2018/19
to
2024/25
A:
2015/16
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2016/17
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2017/18
$m,
inflated
Phase*
A:
2018/19
to
2024/25
13.5
13.9
12.8
13.2
13.5
13.9
0.0
10.3
10.5
Traction
Auckland Rail 12.8
(Basic)
13.2
Port of
Auckland
Access
Improvements
Auckland Rail 10.3
(Basic)
10.5
Pukekohe
Rail
Electrification
Auckland Rail
(AK Plan)
174.6
Paerata
Junction/
Mission Bush
Auckland Rail
(AK Plan)
13.2
0.0
Page 112
Appendix 1: Legislative
Requirements
The legislative requirements for Auckland RLTP are
contained in the Land Transport Management Act 2013.
1.1 Core requirements
TN: The table content has been listed. Column headings in
the print edition read: Column one: "LTMA S14 Core
Requirements of Regional Land Transport Plans"; Column
two: "How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP". The
column one heading has been omitted.
Before a regional transport committee submits a regional
land transport plan to a regional council or Auckland
Transport (as the case may be) for approval, the regional
transport committee must—
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: The Board
of Auckland Transport is the Regional Transport
Committee for Auckland and will adopt the draft RLTP for
consultation, confident that it satisfies the requirements of
the Act.
"(a) be satisfied that the regional land transport plan—
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: [blank]
"(i) contributes to the purpose of this Act; and
55
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: [Section 3]
sets out how this plan contributes to an effective, efficient,
and safe land transport system in the public interest.
"(ii) is consistent with the GPS on land transport; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Auckland
Transport considers that this draft RLTP is consistent with
the draft GPS released in July 2014, and will take the final
GPS into account in finalising this RLTP.
"(b) have considered—
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: "(b) have
considered—
"(i) alternative regional land transport objectives that would
contribute to the purpose of this Act; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Section 3
sets out the alternative transport scenarios and funding
scenarios considered in the preparation of this draft RLTP.
"(ii) the feasibility and affordability of those alternative
objectives; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP:
"(c) have taken into account any—
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: "(c) have
taken into account any—
"(i) national energy efficiency and conservation strategy;
and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: The
Transport goal of the NEECS is "A more energy efficient
56
transport system, with a greater diversity of fuels and
alternative energy technologies." Energy efficiency and
alternative fuels were among the criteria used to weight
projects as shown in [Appendix 3].
"(ii) relevant national policy statements and any relevant
regional policy statements or plans that are for the time
being in force under the Resource Management Act 1991;
and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Auckland
Transport worked closely with Auckland Council in the
preparation of this draft RLTP, to ensure that it was
consistent with the Unitary Plan and Auckland Plan.
"(iii) likely funding from any source."
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: The RLTP
sets planned sources of funding, by activity, in the detailed
chapters. The overall balance of funding is considered in
[Section 3.2].
57
Pages 113–115
1.2 Form and content requirements
TN: The table content has been listed. Column headings in
the print edition read: Column one: "LTMA S14 Core
Requirements of Regional Land Transport Plans"; Column
two: "How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP". The
column one heading has been omitted.
(1) A regional land transport plan must set out the region's
land transport objectives, policies, and measures for at
least 10 financial years from the start of the regional land
transport plan.
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Objectives,
policies and detailed performance measures are included
in the Activity chapters of this draft RLTP.
(2) A regional land transport plan must include—
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: As set out
in Chapters 3 to 5.
"(a) a statement of transport priorities for the region for the
10 financial years from the start of the regional land
transport plan; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: In this draft
RLTP, two investment packages are included, with those
projects in the "Basic" programme having a higher priority
than the projects in the "Auckland Plan" programme.
58
"(b) a financial forecast of anticipated revenue and
expenditure on activities for the 10 financial years from the
start of the regional land transport plan; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP:
Expenditures and revenues are covered in outline in
[Section 3] and in detail in the Activity chapters of this draft
RLTP.
"(c) all regionally significant expenditure on land transport
activities to be funded from sources other than the national
land transport fund during the 6 financial years from the
start of the regional land transport plan; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: [Section
14] includes all regionally significant expenditure on land
transport including activities funded 100% by Auckland
Council, KiwiRail projects, and NZTA projects funded from
Government sources outside the NLTF.
"(d) an identification of those activities (if any) that have
inter-regional significance.
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: A
statement on interregional significance has been agreed
between AT and Upper North Island councils and is
included in Section 5 of this draft RLTP.
"(3) For the purpose of seeking payment from the national
land transport fund, a regional land transport plan must
contain, for the first 6 financial years to which the plan
relates,—
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP:
59
"(a) for regions other than Auckland [...]
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP:
"(b) in the case of Auckland, activities proposed by
Auckland Transport; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: All
activities proposed by Auckland Transport are included.
"(c) the following activities that the regional transport
committee decides to include in the regional land transport
plan:
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP:
"(i) activities proposed by approved organisations in the
region or, in the case of Auckland, by the Auckland
Council, other than those activities specified in paragraphs
(a) and (b); and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Auckland
Council's transport planning activities are included in
Chapter 13.
"(ii) activities relating to State highways in the region that
are proposed by the Agency; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: HNO's draft
programme is included in the Roads chapter of this draft
RLTP.
"(iii) activities, other than those relating to State highways,
that the Agency may propose for the region and that the
Agency wishes to see included in the regional land
transport plan; and
60
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: NZTA's
Road Safety activities, also Police activities, are included
in the Safety chapter of this draft RLTP.
"(d) the order of priority of the significant activities that a
regional transport committee includes in the regional land
transport plan under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c); and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: The
prioritisation methodology is set out in [Section 4 and
Appendix 3, and the prioritised list of projects is in Section
16].
"(e) an assessment of each activity prepared by the
organisation that proposes the activity under paragraph
(a), (b), or (c) that includes—
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: AT has
included in this draft RLTP all information supplied by
NZTA Highway and Network Operations in support of
requirements (i) through (v).
"(i) the objective or policy to which the activity will
contribute; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Objectives
and policies are included in each of the Activity chapters.
"(ii) an estimate of the total cost and the cost for each year;
and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Costs are
included in each of the Activity chapters.
"(ii) the feasibility and affordability of those alternative
objectives; and
61
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Timing and
project phases are included in [Section 16].
"(iii) the expected duration of the activity; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Proposed
funding of activities is included in each of the Activity
chapters.
"(iv) any proposed sources of funding other than the
national land transport fund (including, but not limited to,
tolls, funding from approved organisations, and
contributions from other parties); and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Each
chapter also provides background on the activity, and a
statement of value for money/prioritisation.
"(v) any other relevant information; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: KPIs and
targets are included in each of the Activity chapters.
"(f) the measures that will be used to monitor the
performance of the activities.
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: The RLTP
sets planned sources of funding, by activity, in the detailed
chapters. The overall balance of funding is considered in
[Section 3.2].
"(4) An organisation may only propose an activity for
inclusion in the regional land transport plan if it or another
organisation accepts financial responsibility for the activity.
62
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Proposed
funding of activities is included in each of the Activity
chapters.
"(5) For the purpose of the inclusion of activities in a
national land transport programme,—
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP:
"(a) a regional land transport plan must be in the form and
contain the detail that the Agency may prescribe in writing
to regional transport committees; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: AT have
followed all NZTA guidelines in the preparation of this draft
RLTP.
"(b) the assessment under subsection (3)(e) must be in a
form and contain the detail required by the regional
transport committee, taking account of any prescription
made by the Agency under paragraph (a).
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: NZTA have
been closely involved in the preparation of this draft RLTP
and have not raised any issues with the level of detail of
financial and policy information presented.
"(6) A regional land transport plan must also include—
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP:
"(a) an assessment of how the plan complies with section
14; and
63
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: [Section 3]
sets out how this draft RLTP contributes to the Act, the
GPS, and the Auckland Plan.
"(b) an assessment of the relationship of Police activities to
the regional land transport plan; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Road
Safety priorities set out in the Safety section have been
agreed with NZ Police.
"(c) a list of activities that have been approved under
section 20 but are not yet completed; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: [Section
16] includes all projects for which AT or NZTA will incur
expenditure from 1 July 2015, including the completion of
approved projects.
"(d) an explanation of the proposed action, if it is proposed
that an activity be varied, suspended, or abandoned; and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: [Need to
review closer to the time whether there are any variations
to note here].
"(e) a description of how monitoring will be undertaken to
assess implementation of the regional land transport plan;
and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: KPIs are
included in the Activity chapters and the method of
monitoring and reporting is set out in [Section 14].
"(f) a summary of the consultation carried out in the
preparation of the regional land transport plan; and
64
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: [Section 2]
sets out consultation to date and the process for consulting
on this draft RLTP.
"(g) a summary of the policy relating to significance
adopted by the regional transport committee under section
106(2); and
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP: Appendix 3
sets out Auckland Transport's significance policy and the
process for varying this RLTP.
"(h) any other relevant matters.
How this Requirement is Met in Draft RLTP:
TN: End of Table.
Page 116
1.3 Consultation requirements
TN: The table content has been listed. Column headings in
the print edition read: Column one: "Consultation
Requirements"; Column two: "Amended (Simplified) 2013".
The column one heading has been omitted.
(1) When preparing a regional land transport plan, a
regional transport committee—
Amended (Simplified) 2013:
"(a) must consult in accordance with the consultation
principles specified in section 82 of the Local Government
Act 2002; and
65
Amended (Simplified) 2013: Auckland Transport is
consulting on this RLTP alongside Auckland Council's
consultation on the LTP and in accordance with the LGA
principles.
"(b) may use the special consultative procedure specified
in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002
Amended (Simplified) 2013: Auckland Council will follow
the special consultative procedure in its consultation on the
LTP, which includes the same transport work program as
this draft RLTP.
(2) [...] Auckland Transport must consult both the
governing body and each affected local board of the
Council
Amended (Simplified) 2013: Auckland Transport has
worked closely with the Auckland Council governing body
and has held pre-consultation meetings with local boards,
iwi and transport stakeholders as part of the preparation of
this draft RLTP.
18C Reasons for not including activities in Auckland's
regional land transport plan
Amended (Simplified) 2013:
If Auckland Transport decides not to include in its regional
land transport plan an activity proposed by the Auckland
Council or the Agency, Auckland Transport must, when
forwarding its plan to the Agency, give the Auckland
Council or the Agency (as the case may require) written
advice of the decision and the reasons for the decision.
66
Amended (Simplified) 2013: This provision does not
apply as all activities proposed by Auckland Council and
by NZTA are included.
TN: End of Table.
Page 117
Appendix 2: Prioritisation
Methodology
The following tables detail the system that AT has
employed to consider Strategic Fit, and Effectiveness
when prioritising improvement projects.
2.1 Strategic Fit Assessment
TN: The table content has been listed.
Benefit 1: Increased access to a wider range of quality
affordable transport choices
ITP Desired Outcome: Services that align with future land
use patterns
ITP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly increases the proportion of Aucklanders
living within walking distance (500m) of frequent PT
(FTN/RTN) e.g. RTN extensions or geographic widening of
the FTN
67
1: Increases the proportion of Aucklanders living within
walking distance (500m) of frequent PT (FTN/RTN) e.g.
additional station on existing RTN or increases the
proportion of Aucklanders living within walking distance of
any form of PT
0: No effect on the proportion of Aucklanders living within
walking distance of frequent PT
Red flag: Decreases the proportion of Aucklanders living
within walking distance of frequent PT
ITP Desired Outcome: Services that meet customer
needs
ITP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly increases the proportion of PT customers
satisfied with their service
1: Likely to increase the proportion of PT customers
satisfied with their service
0: No effect on customer satisfaction
Red flag: Detrimental effect on customer satisfaction
ITP Desired Outcome: Increased use of public transport
ITP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly increases use of the PT system and
consequentially has an impact on reducing peak
congestion
1: Increases use of the PT system
0: No effect on use of the PT system
68
Red flag: Decreases use of the PT system
ITP Desired Outcome: Improved connections between
transport modes & services
ITP Scoring Criteria:
2: Improves connections between modes/services that
optimise PT services & infrastructure
1: Improves connections between modes/services
0: No effect on connections between modes/services
Red flag: Negative effect on connections between
modes/services
ITP Desired Outcome: Faster PT and reduced journey
times
ITP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly reduces PT travel times and/or significantly
increases PT travel speeds and/or reduces delay to PT
services due to severe congestion
1: Reduces PT travel times and/or increases PT travel
speeds and/or reduces delay to PT services due to
congestion
0: No effect on PT speed/journey times
Red flag: Detrimental effect on PT speed/journey times
ITP Desired Outcome: Improved reliability of PT services
ITP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly increases the punctuality/reliability of PT
services
69
1: Increases the punctuality/reliability of PT services
0: No effect on the reliability of PT services
Red flag: Detrimental effect on the reliability of PT
services
ITP Desired Outcome: Reduced private vehicle
dependency
ITP Scoring Criteria: This is a Programme Measure Not
proposing to use this to prioritise individual projects
remove from "Calculator" but keep in Strategic Framework
ITP Desired Outcome: Improved affordability of transport
TP Scoring Criteria: This is a Programme Measure Not
proposing to use this to prioritise individual projects
remove from "Calculator" but keep in Strategic Framework
ITP Desired Outcome: Significant increase in use of
active modes
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly increases use of active modes and
consequentially has an impact on easing urban congestion
1: Increases use of active modes or links to complete or
complement existing walking & cycling networks
0: No effect on use of active modes
Red flag: Decreases use of active modes
Page 118
Benefit 2: Auckland's transport system moves people
& goods efficiently
70
ITP Desired Outcome: Managing severe urban
congestion
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly reduces delay due to severe congestion or
maintains average vehicle speeds in a growing Auckland
or significantly relieves capacity constraints
1: Reduces delay due to congestion or relieves capacity
constraints
0: No effect on severe urban congestion
Red flag: Detrimental effect on severe urban congestion
ITP Desired Outcome: More efficient freight supply chains
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly reduces delay to freight vehicles due to
severe congestion including designated routes for HPMV
vehicles
1: Reduces delay to freight vehicles due to congestion
0: No effect on delay to freight vehicles
Red flag: Detrimental effect to freight supply chains
ITP Desired Outcome: Support Auckland's economic
aspirations
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Directly facilitates the concentration of economic activity
in a major business area, metropolitan centre or the city
centre (as identified in the map below); or has potential to
deliver a nationally significant contribution to economic
71
growth and/or productivity on a key route—including key
freight routes, designated HPMV routes and key tourism
routes.
1: Supports economic activity in a major business area,
metropolitan centre or the city centre.
0: No effect on the agglomeration of economic activity into
centres.
Red flag: Detrimental effect on the agglomeration of
economic activity into centres.
ITP Desired Outcome: Improved network resilience &
travel time reliability
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly improves the network's ability to cope with
unexpected events or significantly improves travel time
reliability
1: Improves the network's ability to cope with unexpected
events or improves travel time reliability
0: No effect on network resilience or travel time reliability
Red flag: Detrimental effect on network resilience or travel
time reliability
Benefit 3: Better use of transport investment
ITP Desired Outcome: Missing links in the strategic
transport network are filled
TP Scoring Criteria:
72
2: Links to complete or complement existing networks and
implementation will result in the easing of severe urban
congestion
1: Links to complete or complement existing networks
0: No relevance to links in existing networks
Red flag: Detrimental effect to links in existing networks
ITP Desired Outcome: Wider network benefits achieved
through smaller investments in existing assets
TP Scoring Criteria:
2. Wider network benefits are achieved which result in the
reduction of severe congestion (project cost is less than
$5m) or makes better use of existing transport capacity on
a key route
1. Wider network benefits are achieved which result in the
reduction of congestion or improved travel time reliability
(project cost is less than $5m)
0: Project costs more than $5m, or does not deliver wider
network benefits
Red flag: Project has detrimental effects on the wider
transport network
ITP Desired Outcome: The transport network is optimised
through being managed and prioritised as a single system
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: One System initiatives that manage demand to address
journey time reliability/ease severe congestion or One
73
System initiatives that make better use of existing transport
capacity on a key route
1: One System initiatives that manage demand/ease
congestion
0: Not a One System/demand management initiative
Red flag: Detrimental effect to a One System approach
ITP Desired Outcome: Improved value for money from
future operating expenditure
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Improves whole of life costs or optimises the cost of PT
services (for example: increased PT fare box recovery
ratio, reduced operating subsidy per PT passenger KM, or
via a reduction in network operating costs)
1: Not applicable for this criteria
0: Normal project effect on operating costs
Red flag: Project significantly increases network operating
costs which are likely to exceed network benefits
Assets are renewed and maintained optimally
This is an asset management measure and does not
relate directly to prioritising new capex projects
ITP Desired Outcome: Right sized solutions at the
appropriate time
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Delivers an optimised solution which has been proven to
balance cost with the achievement of benefits or the
74
project provides an acceptable interim solution which
postpones the need for significant further investment
1: Options evaluation has been undertaken which proves
this project to be the best alternative available
0: Project not related to this measure or no options
evaluation completed to date
Red flag: Ignores cheaper and/or interim solutions that
may delay the need for larger-scale investment
Page 119
Benefit 4: Auckland's transport system enables growth
in a way that supports communities and a high quality
urban form
ITP Desired Outcome: Support housing and employment
growth in identified strategic growth areas (including
Special Housing Areas)
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Required to enable the development of an identified
strategic growth area or AT/NZTA obligation documented
in an operative Plan Change
1: Highly desirable to support the development of an
identified strategic growth area
0: Not related an identified strategic growth area
Red flag: Detrimental effect on the development of an
identified strategic growth area
Note that for the purposes of this criteria, strategic growth
areas include:
75
 Identified Strategic Housing Areas
 greenfield growth areas identified in the Auckland Plan
 priority infill growth areas identified in the Auckland
Plan
ITP Desired Outcome:Improved connectivity to and within
the city centre, metropolitan centres & town centres
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly improves connectivity for the city centre or
a metropolitan centre or a town centre
1: Improves connectivity for the city centre or a
metropolitan centre or a town centre
0: Not related to the connectivity of centres
Red flag: Detrimental effect on the connectivity of centres
ITP Desired Outcome: Improved accessibility to
employment
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly improves the accessibility to markets/areas
of employment or economic growth
1: Improves the accessibility to markets/areas of
employment or economic growth
0: No effect on the accessibility to employment areas
Red flag: Detrimental effect on the accessibility to
employment areas
76
ITP Desired Outcome: Aligns with the goals of the
Auckland Plan's identified geographic priorities (City
Centre and Southern Initiative)
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Aligns with the goals for the Auckland Plan's identified
geographic projects (City Centre or Southern Initiative
area)
1: Aligns with the delivery of another identified AC
geographic priority area
0: Not related to an AC geographic priority area
Red flag: Detrimental to an AC geographic priority area
ITP Desired Outcome: Improved social and cultural
outcomes and focus on
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Reduces the financial burden for those most in need or
improves accessibility for young people/Maori (to
employment or other activities) or improves Maori social
wellbeing
1: Provides improved transport choices for those with
limited access to a car/most in need
0: Not related
Red flag: Detrimental effect on social and cultural
aspirations or reduces transport choices for those most in
need
ITP Desired Outcome: Contribute to place-making and
helps achieve a high quality urban form
77
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly contributes to place-making and the
achievement of a high quality urban form
1: Contributes to place-making and the achievement of a
high quality urban form
0: No effect on place-making or the achievement of a high
quality urban form
Red flag: Detrimental effect on place-making or the
achievement of a high quality urban form
Benefit 5a: Reduce adverse effects from Auckland's
transport system
ITP Desired Outcome: Reduce serious injuries and
fatalities
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Potential to significantly reduce the actual crash risk
involving deaths & serious injuries or part of a Model
Walking/Cycling Community to make walking and cycling a
safer transport choice
1: Potential to reduce transport related deaths and serious
injuries
0: No effect on reducing deaths and serious injuries
Red flag: Detrimental effect on deaths and serious injuries
ITP Desired Outcome: Improved personal security
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly improves personal security
78
1: Improves personal security
0: No effect on personal security
Red flag: Detrimental effect on personal security
Page 120
Benefit 5b: Reduce adverse effects from Auckland's
transport system—Environmental & Health
ITP Desired Outcome: Reduced greenhouse gas
emissions
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions
1: Reduces greenhouse gas emissions
0: No effect on greenhouse gas emissions
Red flag: Detrimental effect on greenhouse gas emissions
ITP Desired Outcome: Reduced air and water pollutants
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Significantly reduces air or water pollutants
1: Reduces air or water pollutants
0: No effect on air or water pollutants
Red flag: Detrimental effect on air or water pollutants
ITP Desired Outcome: Increased health through active
transport
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Promotes a significant increase in the level of walking
and cycling thereby produces positive health outcomes
79
1: Increases the level of walking and cycling
0: No effect on walking and cycling uptake
Red flag: Detrimental effect on walking and cycling uptake
Increased fuel resilience
This is a programme measure—Not proposing to use
this to prioritise individual projects—remove from
'Calculator' but keep in Strategic Framework
ITP Desired Outcome: Increased use of renewable fuels
TP Scoring Criteria:
2: Directly increases the level of renewable fuel use in
Auckland
1: Indirectly increases the level of renewable fuel use in
Auckland
0: No effect on renewable fuel use
Red flag: Detrimental effect on the use of renewable fuel
use
Benefit 5c: Reduce adverse effects from Auckland's
transport system—Cultural
ITP Desired Outcome: Minimal cultural adverse effects
from transport
TP Scoring Criteria:
Measured through the presence of Red flagS in the
outcome 'improved social and cultural outcomes and focus
on those most in need'
TN: End of Table.
80
Page121
2.2 Effectiveness Assessment
TN: The table content has been listed.
High:
Evidence is provided to demonstrate that the activity or
combination of activities delivers on each of the following:
Covers all of the low and medium effectiveness criteria
plus:
 Improves integration within and between transport
modes/services
 Is part of a whole of network/One System approach
 Is a key component of one of AT's strategic plans (e.g.
the RPTP) or part of a State Highway Strategy (e.g.
the RoNS Network Plan) or a key component of an
NZTA-supported strategy, endorsed package,
programme or plan
 Supports regional transport networks
 Provides a solution that successfully integrates land
transport, land use, other infrastructure and other
activities
 Provides a solution that significantly contributes to
more than one benefit in the ITP Strategic Framework,
where appropriate to the activity
 Is optimised against multiple transport outcomes and
objectives
81
Medium:
Evidence is provided to demonstrate that the activity or
combination of activities delivers on each of the following:
All the low effectiveness criteria, plus:
 Provides a long term solution with enduring benefits
appropriate to the scale of the solution
 Delivers a measurable impact or outcome in achieving
the potential impact or outcome identified in the
"Strategic Fit" assessment.
 Is a part of one of AT's strategic plans (e.g. the RPTP)
or part of a State Highway Strategy (e.g. the RoNS
Network Plan) or a part of an NZTA-supported
strategy, endorsed package, programme or plan
 Provides a transport solution that is consistent with the
land use described in the Auckland Plan/Unitary Plan
 Provides a solution that makes a contribution to more
than one benefit in the ITP Strategic Framework,
where appropriate to the activity
Low:
Evidence is provided to demonstrate that the activity or
combination of activities delivers on each of the following:
 Delivers the potential benefit or outcome identified in
the "Strategic Fit" assessment
 An agreed level of service as described in the AMP or
existing strategic document
 The purpose and objectives of the Land Transport
Management Act (LTMA)
82







Has defined and considered:
The relevant problems, issues & opportunities
The appropriate alternatives & options
Opportunities for collaboration
Any adverse effects or impacts
Is an affordable solution with a funding plan
The scale of the proposed solution is appropriate to
the potential benefit or outcome in the Strategic Fit
assessment
 Avoids duplication of activities
No Rating:
When there is no supporting evidence or the assessment
has not been conducted
TN: End of Table.
83
Page 122
Appendix 3: Significance
Policy
Background
3.1.1 Requirement to develop a Significance
Policy
Section 106(2) of the Land Transport Management Act
2003 requires Auckland Transport to adopt a policy that
determines significance in respect of:
(a) variations made to the regional land transport plan; and
(b) the activities that are included in the regional land
transport plan.
In adopting its Significance Policy, Auckland Transport is
acting in its role as the Regional Transport Committee for
Auckland.
3.1.2 Legal definitions of significance
The following decisions defined in legislation as significant:
 Developing the Regional Land Transport Plan by June
2015 and reviewing it at least every six years
thereafter (17);
 Replacing or varying this significance policy (17); and
84
 Any decision involving transfer of ownership or control
of a strategic asset (18).
3.1.3 Auckland Council Significance Policy
Auckland Council adopted its Significance and
Engagement Policy (32) in November 2014, following
public consultation. AC's Significance and Engagement
Policy is required by the Section 76AA of the Local
Government Act 2002 and is distinct from Auckland
Transport's Significance Policy.
Auckland Council's Significance and Engagement Policy
applies to Auckland Transport through the CCO
Accountability Policy.
Some extracts from Auckland Council's policy are quoted
below for context:
"The council's thresholds relevant to determining
significance are:
 creating a new group of activity;
 stopping carrying out a group of activity;
 increasing (by 33 per cent or more) or decreasing (by
20 per cent decrease or more) spending on a group of
activity; [The groups of activities delivered by
Auckland Transport are defined in Auckland Council's
2015 Long Term Plan and are: The Public Transport
and Travel Demand Management; Roads and
Footpaths; Parking and Enforcement.]
 transferring the ownership or control of our strategic
assets.
85
Where a decision meets this criteria it will be "significant"
and will automatically trigger a requirement to consult."[...]
"Auckland Council has defined as strategic assets any AC
or AT owned asset which is integral to the functioning of:


The public transport network, including Britomart; and
The roading network."[...]
"The governing body and local boards will consider the
following matters when determining the degree of
significance of a decision:

the number of people affected, the degree to which
they are affected and the likely impact of a decision;
Page 123




whether this type of decision has a history of
generating wide public interest within the local board
area (for a local board decision) or Auckland or New
Zealand generally (for a governing body decision);
the impact of the decision on the governing body or
local board ability to deliver on actions that contribute
to the Auckland Plan, as well as any statutory
responsibility;
the impact of the decision on intended service levels
for a group of activities, including the start/or stop of
any group of activity;
the degree to which the decision or proposal can be
reversed should circumstances warrant."
86
3.2 Auckland Transport's
Significance Policy
Auckland Transport is committed to involving the public in
decisions which affect them.
Auckland Transport will undertake public consultation, in
accordance with the consultation principles set out in the
Local Government Act, for decisions which it decides are
significant under this Significance Policy.
If a change to the RLTP is not considered significant, then
the change can be made by Auckland Transport. This
includes making the decision in an open and transparent
way, and consulting with those affected, in a way
appropriate to the scale of the decision.
The following decisions are significant:
Decisions which are defined in legislation as
significant.
 Any decision involving transfer of ownership or control
of an asset defined by Auckland Council as a strategic
asset.
 A new Auckland Transport activity or project, or a
change to the scope of an Auckland Transport activity
or project, which the Auckland Transport Board
considers to represent a 30% or greater increase or a
20% or greater decrease in the nature of a group of
activities. The groups of activities delivered by

87




Auckland Transport are defined in Auckland Council's
2015 Long Term Plan and are:
o The Public Transport and Travel Demand
Management;
o Roads and Footpaths;
o Parking and Enforcement.
The inclusion of a construction phase for a new state
highway project with a total activity or project cost
greater than 10 per cent of the activity class New and
Improved Infrastructure for State Highways in this
RLTP.
Changes to the scope of an activity or project, whether
delivered by Auckland Transport or NZTA, that
increases expenditure by more than $10 million and
increases expenditure in the relevant activity class by
more than 10 per cent, relative to the totals set out in
Section [16] of this RLTP.
Public Transport decisions which represent a
significant variation to the Regional Public Transport
Plan (see Section 3.2.1).
Any other decision which Auckland Transport
considers to be a significant variation to this Regional
Land Transport Plan (see Section 3.2.2).
The following decisions will generally not be significant:

Replacement of an activity or project by another
activity or project of the same or substantially similar
type;
88




Cost or timing changes that do not affect the scope of
an activity or project;
A change arising from the decision of a third party (for
example, the declaration or revocation of a State
Highway by NZTA);
An increase in revenue or decrease in costs which
does not significantly change the nature of a group of
activities (as defined by Auckland Council) or activity
class (as defined by NZTA);
A decision to progress emergency works.
Page 124
3.2.1 Varying the Regional Public Transport
Plan
Auckland Transport recognises that changes to the nature
of the public transport network have historically been of
high public interest, can affect residents and ratepayers
both positively and negatively, and can be difficult or
impossible to reverse. Therefore variations the Regional
Public Transport Plan (6) are subject to a more restrictive
Significance Policy, as set out in the RPTP.
3.2.2 Varying this Regional Land Transport
Plan
Legislation provides for this Regional Land Transport Plan
to remain in force for six years. However the Plan must be
reviewed by Auckland Transport, having regard to the
views of representative groups of land transport users and
89
providers, after three years. Following the review, or where
good reason exists, a variation to the RLTP may be
prepared by Auckland Transport. The process of varying
the RLTP involves the same steps as preparing the RLTP.
Where necessary due to changing circumstances, a
variation to the RLTP may be prepared by Auckland
Transport before the three-yearly review.
When considering the significance of a variation, Auckland
Transport will consider the following criteria:





The extent to which Auckland Transport has
responsibility for the relevant activity or project which
is subject to the variation;
Whether the variation has already been consulted on
under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 or
the Local Government Act 2002, in which case further
consultation may be unnecessary;
The extent to which there is, or is likely to be, a
change in the capacity of Auckland Transport to
deliver its statutory objective, including giving effect to
its Statement of Intent and this Regional Land
Transport Plan;
Alignment with Auckland Transport's plans and
programme and the Government Policy Statement;
and
The costs and benefits of the consultation process.
Auckland Transport will use the following procedures in
considering future variations to the RLTP, and this policy
on significance:
90

Where possible, and if it is not contrary to the
consultation principles of the LGA, consultation on
significant variations to this RLTP will be carried out
via the Auckland Council Annual Plan;
Page 125
Figure 37: Process to vary the Regional Land Transport
Plan
TN: Diagram text follows with labels added by the
transcriber.
[1] Variation proposed to RTLP
[2] Auckland Transport prepares a variation to the RLTP
[3] Does Auckland Transport determine that variation is
significant? [arrows point to 4a and 4b]
[4a] Consult on variation [arrow points to 4b]
[4b] Auckland Transport adopts variation to RLTP
[5b] Auckland Transport submits varied RLTP to NZTA
[6b] NZTA considers variation to NLTP
[7b] NZTA informs Auckland Transport of variation to
NLTP
TN: End of Diagram.
91
3.3 Inclusion of activities in this
RLTP
An activity must be named and prioritised in this Regional
Land Transport Plan if it has a total cost of $5 million or
more. Projects may either be included separately, or
presented as part of a group, package or programme.
92
Page 126
Glossary
AC: Auckland Council
AMETI: Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative
AT: Auckland Transport
BCR: Benefit to cost ratio
CRL: City Rail Link
FTN: Frequent Transit Network (key bus and ferry routes)
GPS: Government Policy Statement on land transport
funding
HNO: NZTA Highways Network and Operations
responsible for state highways
HPMV: High productivity motor vehicles
KPIs: Key performance indicators
LGA: Local Government Act 2002
LTMA: Land Transport Management Act 2003
NLTF: National Land Transport Fund
NLTP: National Land Transport Programme
NORSGA: Northern Strategic Growth Area
NZTA: NZ Transport Agency
RLTP: Regional Land Transport Plan
RoNS: Roads of National Significance
RTN: Rapid Transit Network (passenger rail and Northern
Busway)
SH: State Highway
93
Page 127
Bibliography
1. Auckland Council. Mayor's Proposal for the Longterm Plan 2015–25. [Online] 28 August 2014.
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojec
ts/plansstrategies/longtermplan2015/Documents/mayorsltp
proposal201525.pdf
2. Ministry of Transport. Draft Government Policy
Statement on Land Transport 2015/16–2024/25. [Online]
15 June 2014.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/keystrategiesandplan
s/gpsonlandtransportfunding/gps2015/.
3. Dearnely, Mathew. [Online] 22 October 2013.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&obj
ectid=11143807.
4. Auckland Council and Sinclair Knight Merz. City
Centre Future Access Study. 2012.
5. Auckland Council. Auckland Plan. 2012.
6. Auckland Transport. Regional Public Transport
Plan. 2013.
7. —. Arterial Roads Deficiency Analysis. 2014.
8. —. Draft Parking Discussion Document. 2014.
9. Auckland Transport and Ascari Consulting. The
Auckland Freight Story (draft). 2014.
94
10. Hinckson, E and Badland, H. School Travel Plan
Evaluation Report. s.l. : Auckland Regional Transport
Authority, 2006.
11. Statistics NZ. Census Journey To Work. 2001, 2006
and 2013.
12. Ministry of Transport. Fact Sheet: Cycling for
Transport. Continuous Household Travel Survey.
[Online] 2013.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Import/Documents/Cyc
ling-2013.pdf.
13. Auckland Transport. Auckland Transport Regional
Cycle Monitoring Report. [Online] 2014.
https://at.govt.nz/media/572288/AT-RegionalCycleMonitoring-Regional-Summary2014.pdf.
14. Ministry of Transport. Road Crash Statistics.
Ministry of Transport. [Online]
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/roadcrashstatistics/
15. —. Safer Journeys. [Online] 2010.
http://www.saferjourneys.govt.nz/.
16. Road Safe Auckland. Strategic Guidance for Road
Safety Planning. s.l. : Unpublished, available from
Auckland Transport Road Safety, 2014.
17. Land Transport Management Act. 2003 (as at 04
October 2013).
18. Local Government Act. 2002 (as at 1 April 2014).
19. Auckland Council. Significance Policy Toolkit.
2013.
95
20. Auckland Transport. Integrated Transport
Programme modelling results (to be published early
2015). 2015.
21. Auckland Regional Council. Auckland Regional
Land Transport Strategy. 2010.
22. Statistics NZ. Census Journey To Work. 2001, 2006
and 2013.
23. Ministry of Transport. Fact Sheet: Cycling for
Transport. Continuous Household Travel Survey.
[Online] 2013.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Import/Documents/Cyc
ling-2013.pdf.
24. Auckland Transport. Auckland Transport Regional
Cycle Monitoring Report. [Online] 2014.
https://at.govt.nz/media/572288/AT-RegionalCycleMonitoring-Regional-Summary2014.pdf.
25. Ministry of Transport. Safer Journeys. [Online]
2010. http://www.saferjourneys.govt.nz/.
26. Auckland Transport. Draft Parking Discussion
Document. [Online] 2014. https://www.google.co.nz/
27. Auckland Council. Long Term Plan Transport
Proposal. [Online] 5 November 2014.
http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2014/11/B
UD_20141105_AGN_5253_AT.htm#PDF2_ReportName_
37518.
96
28. Independent Advisory Board to Auckland Council.
Funding Auckland's Transport Future. Shape
Auckland. [Online] October 2012.
http://www.shapeauckland.co.nz/media/1043/iab_transport
_funding_final.pdf.
29. NZ Transport Agency. NZTA Work Categories and
Activity Classes.
30. Land Transport Management Act. 2003 (as at 04
October 2013 ).
31. Local Government Act. 2002 (as at 1 April 2014).
32. Auckland Council. Significance and Engagement
Policy. [Online] November 2014.
http://www.shapeauckland.co.nz/consultations/significance
-and-engagement-policy/documents/.
33. —. Significance Policy Toolkit. 2013.
34. Auckland Transport. Integrated Transport
Programme modelling results (to be published early
2015). 2015.
35. Auckland Regional Council. Auckland Regional
Land Transport Strategy. 2010.
36. Auckland Transport. Annual Report. [Online] 2014.
https://at.govt.nz/about-us/reports-publications/annualreports/.
97