Transcript Barry Mein presentation (PPTX, 10 MB)

Introducing Barry Mein
Programme Director
7 September 2016
Recent background
Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP)
• Set up by Government and Auckland Council in August 2015
• Purpose: to develop an aligned strategic approach for the development of
Auckland’s transport system over the next 30 years
• Background: disagreement over funding tools and need to get alignment on
what needs to be done before discussing how to fund
• Multi-agency project across central and local government
• Final report expected to be released this month
• Some similarities and differences between ATAP and Let’s Get Wellington
Moving which are useful to understand
ATAP: test for better return on transport investment
Detailed objectives:
• Support economic growth and increased productivity by ensuring access to
employment/labour improves, relative to current levels, as Auckland’s
population grows
• Improve congestion results, relative to predicted levels, in particular travel
time and reliability, in the peak period and to ensure congestion does not
become widespread during working hours
• Improve public transport's mode share, relative to predicted results, where it
will address congestion
• Ensure any increases in the financial costs of using the transport system
deliver net benefits to users of the system
ATAP Process: SIMILARITIES
Activity
ATAP
LGWM
Small number of key
objectives agreed
between parties
1.Improve access to
labour/employment
2.Improve congestion
3.Improve PT mode share
4.Net benefits to users
12 urban design and
transport principles
Considerable time
spent reaching
agreement on
“foundation” issues
•
Test different ways to
address the issues
“Intervention packages”
“Scenarios”
Use of different tools
to evaluate and
refine interventions
•
Wellington specific
transport model
•
•
Underlying assumptions on rate and location of future
growth, potential impact of technology etc
Criteria and key performance indicators
Problem definition and issues for particular focus
Existing strategic
transport model
ATAP Process: DIFFERENCES
Activity
ATAP
LGWM
Small number of key
objectives agreed
Decided by Auckland
Principles were the result
Council and central
of public engagement
government, limited public
engagement
Scale of area covered
Region
Sub regional / city
Level of analysis
Sub region
Street / corridor
Public participation
Some stakeholder input
Extensive public
consultation
ATAP / LGWM: some other observations
• ATAP spent much time up-front agreeing on
“foundation” issues: assumptions, KPIs and problem
definition
• LGWM has spent time up-front engaging the public
on issues and desired outcomes
• Both ATAP and LGWM involve multi-agency
collaboration
• Reconciling vehicle-movement and place-making has
been challenging for ATAP
ATAP Deliverables
Foundation Report
An overviw of the
context (e.g. impact
of technology),
problem definition,
desired outcomes
and measures
(released in
February)
Interim Report
Initial advice
reporting on the
testing and
evaluation of the
broad intervention
packages, seeking
feedback to inform
the next deliverable
(released 21 June)
Final Report
A final report
detailing the best
performing
intervention
packages, a
preferred strategic
approach and
recommendations
including necessary
changes to achieve
implementation
(due September)
Interim report: emerging strategic approach
• Adding new infrastructure is necessary but not sufficient
• To make a real difference, we need to also take advantage of new
demand-side opportunities
• The emerging strategic approach involves an integrated combination of
three types of intervention
Influence Travel
Demand
Patterns
Make Better
Use of
Existing
Networks
Provide New
Infrastructure
and Services
QUESTIONS?
[email protected]
Generating Criteria from Principles
7 September 2016
Considerations
• Principles have been the result of wide engagement
• Principles must be visible in the criteria
• Principles and criteria will be used for the life of the programme and
beyond
• A number of criteria and indicators are already used by the partners,
WCC, GWRC and NZ Transport Agency and these will be included
where it makes sense
• Criteria will help develop and assess scenarios
Principles
in summary
Travel
choice
Better
public
transport
Compact
city
Demand
& supply
Accessible
healthy
safe
Growth
Generating Criteria from Principles
Past,
present &
future
Predictable
travel
times
Clean &
green
Wider
View
Set in
nature
Future
Proof &
resilient
Principles form
criteria and
indicators
Indicators
Focus
areas
Catchment
Patronage
Transport Choice
Optimise use of existing
transport system
Planned growth in CBD
Capacity
No. of vehicles in CBD
Reclaiming urban space
Efficiency of travel
Journey experience
Priority for right mode at
the right time
People friendly streets
Urban growth &
intensification (CBD focus)
Personal Safety
City productivity
Road Safety
Regional economy growth
Access to CBD & Ports
Urban amenity values
Journey time predictability
Cultural & heritage values
Reliability
Access to key CBD &
regional facilities / places
Carbon footprint
Network resilience
Connected green corridors
Environment & amenity
Connection to waterfront
Delivery & Strategy
Flexible, adaptable &
responsive to futures
Natural hazard & climate
change resilience
Dynamic central city – by
fostering the central city as a hub
of creative enterprise, we can lead
the region to the next level in
economic transformation. With
universities, research
organisations and creative
businesses all clustered in or near
the central city, Wellington can
grow, taking the wider region to the
next step in prosperity and quality
jobs.
Criteria: Economic Development ED1
to ED7
Connected city – with
improved physical and virtual
connections, we can unleash
the potential of Wellington’s
people and businesses.
Technology reduces the city’s
physical distance from the
world and markets, and the
city’s compactness allows for
relationships to form with ease
Eco-city – we will build on our
current environmental strengths
to transition to a low carbon
future. As an eco-city Wellington
will achieve high standards of
environmental performance,
coupled with outstanding quality
of life and an economy
increasingly based on smart
innovation
People-centred city – cities
compete more for people in
particular the highly skilled,
educated people who already
make up a large proportion of
Wellington’s population. It will
become increasingly
important to draw on these
strengths, to ensure the city is
open, welcoming, vibrant and
embraces diversity
Criteria: Urban Development UD1
to UD9
Criteria: Environment E2, E8 and E12
Criteria: Cultural Wellbeing CW3
Criteria: Transport T1 to T9
Strong Economy A
thriving and diverse
economy supported by
high quality
infrastructure that
retains and grows
businesses and
employment
Connected
Community
People are able to
move around the
region efficiently and
communications
networks are effective
and accessible
Resilient Community
A regional community
that plans for the
future, adapts to
climate change and is
prepared for
emergencies
Healthy Environment
An environment with
clean air, fresh water,
healthy soils and
diverse ecosystems
that supports
community needs
Engaged Community
People participate in
shaping the regions'
future, take pride in the
region, value the
region’s urban and rural
landscapes, and enjoy
the region’s amenities
Criteria: Prosperous
Community PC001,
PC003, PC007
Criteria: Connected
CC001 to CC007
Criteria:RLTP IRTN 01,
02, 03
Criteria: HE001, HE002,
HE004, HE014 to HE016
Criteria: Healthy HC003,
HC004
Criteria: RLTP EOTSEnv
01 to 04
RLTP Safer 01 to 03
Criteria: Sense of Place
SP001, SP003 to SP005
Quality Lifestyle QL008,
QL011
Criteria: Strong & Tolerant
ST008
Criteria: Regional
Foundations RF003,
RF004
RLTP WPCITN 01 to 07
Network performance
& capability
Cost
Safety
Health
Criteria: Throughput
Criteria: Financial cost of
using transport
Criteria: Reduce DSI
Criteria: Pollution
Criteria: Infrastructure
safety
Criteria: Noise
Criteria: Reliability
Criteria: Travel time
Criteria: Availability & access
Criteria: customer experience
Criteria: Pricing efficiency
16
Map principles
to indicator sets
already
developed
by partners
Criteria: Prosperous
Community PC001,
PC003, PC007
Bringing
the two sets
together
Criteria: Prosperous
Community PC001,
PC003, PC007
Bringing
the two sets
together
Catchment
Patronage
Transport Choice
Optimise use of existing
transport system
Planned growth in CBD
Capacity
No. of vehicles in CBD
Reclaiming urban space
Efficiency of travel
Journey experience
Priority for right mode at
the right time
People friendly streets
Urban growth &
intensification (CBD focus)
Personal Safety
City productivity
Road Safety
Regional economy growth
Access to CBD & Ports
Urban amenity values
Journey time predictability
Cultural & heritage values
Reliability
Access to key CBD &
regional facilities / places
Carbon footprint
Network resilience
Connected green corridors
Environment & amenity
Connection to waterfront
Delivery & Strategy
Flexible, adaptable &
responsive to futures
Natural hazard & climate
change resilience
Development process
Criteria
PRINCIPLE
Growth
Growth
words
Focus
words
Areas
Indicators already
developed by partners
Criteria
Indicators already
developed by partners
Criteria
Indicators already
developed by partners
Scenario analysis
• ‘Qualitative’ judgement focus applicable when
several scenarios / options to choose between
• Multi-criteria analysis commonly used in
assessments of scenarios / options for major
infrastructure
• MCA is just one of the inputs to select the
preferred scenario
Next steps
Using a number of mechanisms and participants:
• Finalise criteria
• Communicate the criteria to the community
• Continuing developing scenarios
• Test scenarios against criteria
• Share results of scenario testing publically in New Year
CONTACT
[email protected]
Organisation chart