transport committee agenda (2/2) feb 13

7/29/2019 Transport Committee Agenda (2/2) Feb 13

1/173

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policyunless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contactthe relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Transport Committee will be held on:

Date:Time:Meeting Room:Venue:

Wednesday, 13 February 20132.00 pmReception LoungeAuckland Town Hall301-305 Queen StreetAuckland

Transport CommitteeOPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson Cr Mike LeeDeputy Chairperson Cr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO

Mr James BrownCr Dr Cathy CaseyCr Sandra Coney, QSO

Cr Des MorrisonCr Richard Northey, ONZMCr Dick QuaxCr Sharon Stewart, QSMCr Wayne WalkerCr Penny WebsterMr Glenn WilcoxCr George Wood, CNZM

Ex-Officio His Worship the Mayor, Len Brown, JPDeputy Mayor, Penny Hulse

Independent MaoriStatutory Board Alternate

Chairperson, Independent Maori StatutoryBoard, Mr David Taipari

(Quorum 7 members)

Desiree TukutamaDemocracy Advisor

8 February 2013

Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7576Email: [email protected]: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


2/173

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Transport Committee will have responsibility for:

Input into the Auckland Plan in relation to transport issues and aspirations; Advocating on behalf of Auckland to develop and enhance transport and connectivity for

the region; and Prepare and recommend Regional Land Transport Strategy to the Governing Body and

provide input on behalf of the Governing Body to the Auckland Regional TransportProgramme.

Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:

Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009;Resource Management Act 1991;Land Transport Act 1998; andLand Transport Management Act 2003.


3/173

Transport Committee

13 February 2013

Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

1 Apologies 5

2 Declaration of Interest 5

3 Confirmation of Minutes 5

4 Petitions 5

5 Public Input 5

5.1 Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway 5

5.2 Heart of the City - Wider Liveability Benefits the Pathway Steering

Group Project Delivers 6

6 Local Board Input 6

7 Extraordinary Business 6

8 Notices of Motion 7

9 Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update 9

10 Transport Update 87

11 Resolutions from 4th October 2012 Orakei Local Board: Auckland

Transport Update Orakei Local Board: October 2012 175

12 Correspondence 185

13 Consideration of Extraordinary Items


4/173


5/173

Transport Committee

13 February 2013

Page 5

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision makingwhen a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other externalinterest they might have.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of the Transport Committee held on Wednesday, 5 December 2012, beconfirmed as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests for petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to theCommittee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meetingand must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion todecline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. Amaximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5)minutes speaking time for each speaker.

5.1 Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to give an update to the Transport Committee onthe Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project.

Executive Summary

2. Mr Bevan Woodward, Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust, will give apresentation to the Transport Committee on the Auckland Harbour BridgePathway project.

Recommendations

That the Transport Committee:

a) Receives the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway presentation.

b) Thanks Mr Bevan Woodward, Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust for hispresentation.


6/173

Transport Committee

13 February 2013

Page 6

5.2 Heart of the City - Wider Liveability Benefits the Pathway Steering GroupProject Delivers

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to present to the Transport Committee, the widerliveability benefits that the Pathway Steering Group project delivers.

Executive Summary

2. Mr Alex Swney, Heart of the City, will speak to the Transport Committee onthe wider liveability benefits that the Pathway Steering Group projectdelivers.

Recommendations

That the Transport Committee:

a) Receives the Heart of the City Wider Liveability Benefits the PathwaySteering Group Project Delivers, deputation.

b) Thanks Mr Alex Swney, Heart of the City, for his deputation.

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of thatChairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. TheChairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical,give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has thediscretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of StandingOrders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on theagenda.

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

7 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (asamended) states:

An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if -

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to thepublic, -

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until asubsequent meeting.


7/173

Transport Committee

13 February 2013

Page 7

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (asamended) states:

Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting, -

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if -

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the localauthority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a timewhen it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting;but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that itemexcept to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for furtherdiscussion.

8 Notices of Motion

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.


8/173


9/173

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update Page 9

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update

File No.: CP2012/24488

Purpose1. The purpose of this report is to update the Transport Committee on the Auckland Harbour

Bridge Pathway project (SkyPath) and provide guidance for consideration by the Strategyand Finance Committee.

Executive Summary2. The SkyPath has been previously reported to the Transport Committee. The following

progress has been made on the project since the last update in August 2011:

The AHB Pathway Trust (the Trust) has developed a lighter structure by using aluminiumin the central span;

Auckland Transport (AT) has undertaken a review of the SkyPaths business case andreferred it back to the Council to consider funding sources;

A range of capital costs for the project has been identified between $28 and $41 million.There is still uncertainty about the capital costs, however for the purpose of the financialanalysis in this report a cost of $31 million has been assumed (as outlined in paragraphk) in Attachment A);

Update of information in the Trusts business case and public private partnership (PPP)proposal;

Comparison of the SkyPath to the rest of the transport and cycling and walkingprogramme;

Quantification of the Councils contribution to the SkyPath; and

Initial identification of project risks (outlined below in paragraph 20).

3. This report is seeking the Transport Committees consideration of the following items:

Support for provision of a walk and cycle way across the Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB)in the short term or wait for provision once an Additional Waitemat Harbour Crossing(AWHC) is in place;

Referral for consideration by the Strategy and Finance Committee of Councilscontribution (in the form of part underwrite and assuming obligations at the end of thePPP period) to the proposed PPP arrangement;

Recognition of the relative priority of a Council contribution to this project, compared tothe rest of the transport programme; and

Recognition of the relative priority of this project, in terms of timing and sequencing ofother walking and cycling projects.

4. This report proposes that the Transport Committee refers the SkyPath to the Strategy andFinance Committee for consideration of the financial and procurement aspects of the project.

RecommendationsThat the Transport Committee:

a) Receives this report on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Update.

b) Supports in principle the provision of a shared walk and cycle way across the HarbourBridge rather than wait for provision once an Additional Waitemat Harbour Crossing is inplace subject to financial feasibility analysis.


10/173

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013


c) Acknowledges the significant transport benefits (as well as recreational and tourismbenefits) the SkyPath would bring to the Auckland region in terms of completing a missinglink in the Auckland Cycle Network and walking network, which would be further enhancedby the completion of the Northern Linkage/Shoal Bay.

d) Acknowledges the timing of the SkyPath, in the short term, would take advantage ofWaterfront Aucklands planned waterfront cycleway and walkway from Westhaven Marina

to Daldy Street, and planned improvements by Auckland Transport to the local streets inNorthcote as part of its Safe Schools Programme.

e) Requests the New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Transport to consider theShoal Bay proposal as part of the investigation of the Northern Link between Northcote andAkoranga to provide improved walking and cycling connections to the northern end of theproposed SkyPath.

f) Recommends that a report should be prepared with further information for the Strategy andFinance Committee to consider funding sources and the Councils contributions (in the formof part underwrite and assumption of obligations at the end of the public private partnershipperiod) to the SkyPath. This further information would include:

- Procurement arrangements: fully contested or the proposed negotiated public privatepartnership;

- Detailed risk assessment;

- Comparison of a public private partnership arrangement with traditional procurementprocess to determine best value for money; and

- Assessment of the project against the Councils Significance and Public PrivatePartnership Policies.

g) Recognises that while the benefits of the SkyPath are significant, any Council contributionto the project should come from the Councils transport funding allocation to AucklandTransport, rather than disrupt Auckland Transports ability to deliver the walking and cycling

programme which obtains New Zealand Transport Agency subsidies.

DiscussionBackground

5. The Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) does not currently have any walking and cyclingaccess over it. This missing connection is a critical gap in Aucklands Cycling Network(ACN). Past investigations have considered how to provide walking and cycling access overthe AHB but no plans have been progressed.

6. The AHB clip-on lanes were strengthened by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)in 2010. This work has considerably extended the life span of the clip-on lanes and

consequently the NZTA expects the AHB and clip-on lanes to have an indefinite service life(e.g. the next 100 years) providing heavy freight movements are transferred to a newcrossing at a certain load trigger point. However, not all of the strengthening necessary for apathway to be attached to the AHB occurred at this time.

7. For a number of years, the Trust (a team of private individuals with professional skills) hasbeen championing for a pathway across the AHB. The Trust has developed the SkyPathto complete the missing link for walking and cycling access across the AHB which isproposed through a private funding scenario.

8. The Trust has previously made deputations to the Transport Committee on this project on3 May 2011 and 15 August 2011. At the 15 August 2011 meeting, the Transport Committeeresolved:


11/173

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013


b) That the Transport Committee recognises that providing walking and cycling on

the Auckland Harbour Bridge as a strategically important project.

d) That the Transport Committee requests Auckland Transport to:

i. identify appropriate resourcing and budget for a financial contribution for

further investigation to an Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project, for

consideration in the half-yearly review and the next Long Term Plan;ii. conduct more detailed investigations with New Zealand Transport Agency into

design, procurement and financial arrangements, including an assessment of

risks, in relation to the proposed Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway;

iii. write to the Board of New Zealand Transport Agency to consider funding

support to continue investigations into an Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway;

iv. write to the Board of New Zealand Transport Agency to consider funding

support for an Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project from the state

highway fund, to reflect New Zealand Transport Agencys responsibilities to

provide for walking and cycling alongside state highways; and

v. ensure costings are subject to a competitive price process.e) That Auckland Transports further investigations into the Auckland Harbour

Bridge Pathway be reported back to the appropriate Council Committee for

consideration as part of the draft Long Term Plan process.

f) That the Transport Committee support Councils ongoing role in coordinating the

Auckland Harbour Bridge Technical Steering Group, as well as involvement in

investigating financing aspects of the AHB Pathway.

The Project

9. Such a connection over the AHB could provide significant benefits, including opportunities

for active travel and recreation, as well as being a draw-card for tourists. However, thisproject has faced a number of challenges, including funding and structural engineering.Under conventional funding arrangements, using public money, it is unlikely that this projectcould be achieved within the next 20 years or until an Additional Waitemat HarbourCrossing (AWHC) frees up space on the existing AHB.

10. The NZTA is custodian of the AHB. Uncertainties around timing and funding of an AWHChave led NZTA to put plans for an alternative walking and cycling facility as part of the nextharbour crossing on hold in favour of SkyPath. Through the evaluation of the Trustsconcept design, the NZTA has found that the SkyPath is considered to be a feasibleengineering solution. However, NZTA has advised that it is not in a position to fund theSkyPath due to budget constraints and its cycling and walking forward programme already

being in place. NZTAs internal processes require a fully contested public privatepartnership (PPP), joint Ministerial approval and compliance with the Better Business Caseprocess. The NZTA have advised that the costs involved with this would likely be prohibitivefor a project of this small scale.

11. If the Council were funding all or part of this project in a conventional way, it would affectexisting budgets (potentially the AT walking and cycling budget which attracts a NZTAsubsidy) and existing programmes which have strong community expectation that they willproceed. Therefore, the use of an alternative funding option is being considered and this isconsistent with the Auckland Plan requirement to investigate alternative funding options fortransport projects. The PPP proposal depends on a toll being paid directly by cycling andwalking users.


12/173

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013


Walk and Cycle Connections

12. The SkyPath would easily connect into the existing cycling and walking network and futureproposals. At the southern end, the SkyPath would connect into Waterfront Aucklandswaterfront cycleway and walkway from Westhaven to Daldy Street. The initial phase of thiscycleway and walkway will be constructed in later 2013. The SkyPath may also connectwith Platform 2 of the Westhaven Marina Village at a later date. Waterfront Auckland has

indicated that it is willing to work together to achieve a seamless integration. At the northernend, the SkyPath would connect onto the local street network in Northcote which isconsidered safe for cyclists. The Auckland Cycle Network (ACN) identifies these routes ascycle connectors (blue) or cycle feeders (green) as shown the map below. In addition,AT plans to undertake improvements to some of these roads in the near future as part of itsSafe Schools Programme. The two most direct routes to central Takapuna from theSkyPath entrance are 6 to 6.8km away.

Costs, Revenue and Funding

13. Attachment A provides detailed information about costs and revenue.

14. AT contracted Ernst & Young to undertake a review of the SkyPaths business case. This

has clarified capital costs and likely revenue. This report (dated 2 November 2012) and theassociated AT Board Paper are in Attachment B. The AT Board resolved to refer the projectback to the Council to consider funding sources.


13/173

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013


15. The Ernst & Young report included a Northern Linkage within their estimate of the projectscapital costs. This refers to the development of a cycleway and walkway alongside theNorthern Motorway between Northcote and Akoranga. Council staff advise that the NorthernLinkage is a separate project which should not be included in the costings for the SkyPath.The Northern Link is included in the NZTAs National Land Transport Programme 2012-2015as probable and shown as a Cycle Highway in the ACN. However, based on current

budgets, it is unlikely to be funded in that period. While it is not necessary for the NorthernLink to proceed in order for the SkyPath to be constructed, it would increase patronagenumbers and provide a more direct connection to Akoranga (and consequently Takapuna).The NZTA has indicated that if the SkyPath were to go ahead, then there is a strongerlikelihood that the Northern Link project would proceed. The recent proposal from theKaipatiki and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards and Reset Urban Design for RetrievingShoal Bay Waterfront would also influence the location/design of any link in this area. Werethe SkyPath to go ahead, the NZTA and AT would investigate a preferred alignment for animproved walking and cycling connection between the northern end of the SkyPath andAkoranga.

16. There is a range of capital costs for the project (between $28 and $41 million) depending onthe inclusion of various items (as detailed under paragraph k) in Attachment A), and how theproject proceeds as a PPP. The analysis undertaken by Council staff, in discussion with ATand stakeholders, has determined that some of the additional costs identified in the Ernst &Young report may drop away based on the updated PPP proposal. Council staff advise thatthat the capital costs will be somewhere in between these figures and have assumed a costof $31 million subject to further financial analysis.

17. The Trust has obtained an initial proposal to fund the construction of the SkyPath from thePIP Fund as equity partner to the Trust. This proposal is detailed below and in AttachmentC. In summary, under this proposal, the PIP Fund would cover the construction cost, theoperating and maintenance costs, and underwrite the most risky 25% of the revenue. Theless risky 75% of revenue would be underwritten by the Council (and others, e.g. communitytrusts), who in return would share in the revenue upside and the Council would own the

SkyPath after the PPP period ends. The proposed revenue sharing diagram is included asFigure 5 in Attachment A. It is important to note, that the Council underwrite is only triggeredwhen the expected revenue does not meet the breakeven point.

18. It is considered that a traditional PPP (i.e. fully contested, such as used for Wiri Mens Prisonor for Hobsonville Schools) is not appropriate for a project of this small scale. The fees setout in Figure 4 in Attachment A reflect a negotiated PPP, particularly given the expression ofinterest by the PIP Fund. A negotiated PPP is expected to significantly reduce thetransaction costs for both parties by reducing the contestability element, which is where thelarge transaction costs lie. One risk with a negotiated PPP is that the process can becomenon-transparent. However, this could be managed by using an independent third party toassist in making the process transparent (KPMG have offered their assistance in this

capacity), and running contestable tender processes to secure contractors to build theSkyPath and complete service elements (i.e. maintenance or cleaning). The differencebetween a fully contested PPP and a negotiated PPP is discussed in more detail underparagraph q) in Attachment A, however it important to note that the Transport Committee isbeing asked for a recommendation to refer this project onto the Strategy and FinanceCommittee and is not being asked to make a decision on the preferred method ofprocurement. As part of the further work for the Strategy and Finance Committee, Councilstaff will investigate the different procurement models, as well as alternative funding options.

Risks

19. There are a number of potential risks associated with the project. A number of these arediscussed above and/or in Attachment A, such as the use of a transparent negotiated PPP

arrangement and the Council underwriting some of the risk. Due diligence and professionaladvice would be required to evaluate and negotiate a PPP arrangement. The PIP Fundbelieves the project is worthy of its investment and is of moderate risk.


14/173

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013


20. The Councils Risk Assurance team have undertaken an initial review of the project and arisk register is being developed. A risk assessment workshop with key stakeholders isscheduled to refine the draft risk register and develop contingency planning in order tomanage potential effects. Key risks include:

Funding for operation costs;

Funding for construction costs; Additional costs (note: contingency has been included in the business case to cover

unexpected costs);

Structural;

Not obtaining, or delays in obtaining, resource consent for the SkyPath;

Not all parties agreeing to the MoU or terms of agreement (including withdrawal of equitypartner);

Withdrawal of the equity partner during the PPP period;

Operational costs when ownership of SkyPath reverts to the Council;

Procurement arrangements delivery value for money;

Political risk;

Legal authority for Council entering into a PPP arrangement; and

Public acceptability of the toll.

21. When determining the relatively of this project in terms of the transport programme, theTransport Committee should also recognise that the SkyPath would have importantrecreation and tourism benefits. The benefits of completing the missing cycling and walkinglink across the Waitemat Harbour are significant and would offer wide ranging benefits toAucklanders and tourists alike, which is a key differential of this project when compared withother projects included within the cycling and walking programme. Recreation and touristusers could amount to just over half of the expected total patronage. In considering sourcesof Council funding, consideration could be given to the extent funds are allocated from thetransport budget or other budgets.

22. In conclusion, this agenda report seeks support from the Transport Committee to proceedwith a report to the Strategy and Finance Committee to consider funding sources and theCouncils contributions to this project for the following reasons:

The SkyPath would complete a critical gap in the ACN and the walking network;

The SkyPath is the only realistic solution available to provide walking and cycling overthe AHB and if this opportunity is not taken now, a walk and cycle connection across theWaitemat Harbour may not happen for a number of decades. Given the current funding

difficulties, it is uncertain whether the AWHC will be built within the next 20 years. If theproposed PPP is in place by 2015, the business case indicates there would be sufficienttime to enable the tolls to pay off the capital investment over 20 years;

The SkyPath would be well supported by the Waterfront Auckland waterfront cyclewayand walkway to the south, and by safe routes using the local street network to the north;

The SkyPath would provide for commuter travel, as well as recreational and tourism use;and

There is an expression of interest from the PIP Fund to provide a capital investmentupfront, which would mean no Council contribution to the capital costs of the project.This is significant because a public facility of this nature would normally require a 47%capital contribution from the Council. The contributions sought from Council relates to

underwriting part of the revenue risk, assumption of operational costs at the end of thePPP, and staff time and professional advice to undertake further evaluation andnegotiation of a PPP arrangement.


15/173

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013


Consideration

Local Board Views

23. The Trust has presented to or met with the relevant Local Boards including Waitemat,Kaipatiki, and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards, which are supportive of this project.

24. Representatives from the Trust presented to the Waitemat

Local Board meeting in April2011. The Local Board passed the following resolutions (number WTM/2011/49):

a) That Kirsten Shouler, Alex Swney and Barry Copeland, Auckland HarbourBridge Pathway members be thanked for their presentation to the Board

regarding the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project.

b) That the Waitemata Local Board strongly supports the Governing Bodys

directive to Auckland Transport for investigation on how best to progress

work on a walking and cycling link across the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

c) That the Waitemata Local Board seek from the Governing Body to commit

budget to formally play a role in a partnership with the pathways steering

group to promote the project to the NZTA.

d) That the Transport West Portfolio holders report back to the earliest

practical Board meeting how the Board can best progress the Auckland

Harbour Bridge Pathways project proposals.

Additionally, this Local Board included the AHB Pathway in its Local Board Plan 2012.

25. Representatives from the Trust briefed the Kaipatiki Local Board members at a workshop inAugust 2011, as well as the Local Board passing the following resolutions (numberKT/2011/117) in May 2011:

a) That the report and resolutions from the Transport Committee, regardingAuckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group Report, be

received.

b) That the Kaipatiki Local Board strongly endorses and supports the concept

of enabling walking and cycling access between the city and the North Shore

via the Harbour Bridge.

c) That the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Technical Steering Group

consults with the Kaipatiki Local Board for input during the preparation of

the proposal.

26. Representatives from the Trust presented to the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board in August2011 and passed resolution DT/2011/262 in support. This Local Board included the AHBPathway in its Local Board Plan 2012 by stating we believe developing a pathway acrossthe harbour bridge is an essential piece of infrastructure and will advocate on the

communitys behalf to create a harbour bridge walkway and cycleway".

27. These three Local Boards were updated on the project by staff via email on 17 January 2013and the Trust has updated interested Local Board members on 22 January 2013.

Maori Impact Statement

28. The impact of the SkyPath on significant sites to iwi is still to be understood. The Trustcontacted (via letter) each known iwi organisation with ties to the area outlining the proposalin 2011 and asked them to contact the Trust if they had any concerns. No response wasreceived. The Trust plans to undertake consultation with iwi as part of the resource consentphase of the project. In particular, it is understood there are sites of significance to NgatiWhatua o Orkei within Stokes Point Reserve near the Northcote exit. Further investigation

and liaison with Ngati Whatua o Orkei will occur regarding this as part of the resourceconsent phase.


16/173

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013


29. The SkyPath would be of benefit to Maori and provide for greater active transport use withinthe Auckland region, however it is noted that there is a low proportion of Maori living in theNorth Shore. The toll for commuters and local users would be small and equates to a similarfee if using public transport to cross the AHB.

General

30. The project has been discussed with the relevant Council (including the Mayors Office), AT,Waterfront Auckland, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development and NZTAstaff members, along with representatives from key stakeholder groups such as Heart of theCity, Cycle Action Auckland and Walk Auckland. This most recently occurred at a multi-agency meeting on 18 December 2012. This report, and its recommendations, has beenprepared in response to the agreement reached at this meeting. These parties haveprovided input or been given the opportunity to review this report prior to it being finalised.AT staff have commented that the $31 million cost assumption may be understated andthere are some elements still to be resolved, and that care should be taken when makingdecisions based on costs that may change during the process.

31. The SkyPath would be of benefit to all Aucklanders, however under conventional funding

arrangements it is unlikely this project could be funded in the next 20 years or before anAWHC was in place. Therefore, the use of an alternative funding option needs to beconsidered, in line with the Auckland Plan requirement to investigate alternative fundingoptions for transport projects.

32. The SkyPath is considered to be consistent with Section 10(2) of the Local Government Act2002, in relation to this stage of the investigation of the project.

Implementation Issues33. Establishment of a PPP requires a commitment of resources to undertake negotiation and

finalisation of a Memorandum of Understanding and legal agreements to form a joint venturearrangement (or similar) with the relevant parties, and on-going monitoring of the agreement.

The timeframe for getting these agreements in place could run in parallel with work by theTrust to obtain the required approvals. The transfer of the SkyPath to the Council at the endof the PPP period would be subject to conditions about payment or condition of the asset,and this would form part of the legal agreement.

34. The financial and resourcing implications of the SkyPath are:

Due diligence and evaluation of the project;

Staff time to coordinate the Memorandum of Understanding and legal arrangements, andlegal authority to enter into a PPP;

Underwrite of part of the toll revenue (refer to paragraph n) in Appendix A for the financialimplications to Council); and

Assuming responsibility for the SkyPath at the end of the PPP period (refer to paragraphp) in Appendix A for the financial implications to Council).

35. The project needs to comply with the Councils Significance and PPP Policies. The purposeof these policies is to set out the Councils approach to determining the significance ofmatters on which they are making decisions (i.e. where a decision meets certain criteria, itwill automatically trigger a requirement to undertaken public consultation) and to set out thegeneral criteria the Council would use when determining if a PPP is an appropriateprocurement tool. The application of these policies to the SkyPath would be provided in areport to the Strategy and Finance Committee.

36. Were the SkyPath to proceed, facilitation of progress of the project (until the project is

formally established or given go ahead) could be undertaken by the Harbour EdgeDevelopment Steering Group. However, any governance or management decisions are yetto be made.


17/173

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013


AttachmentsNo. Title Page

A Detail About The Project 19

B Auckland Transport Board Paper and Ernst & Young Report 25

C PIP Fund Proposal Letter 85

Signatories

Authors Marguerite Pearson - Transport Planner

Kevin Wright - Manager: Transport Strategy

Authorisers Ree Anderson - Manager: Regional Strategy, Community & Cultural Policy

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer


18/173


19/173

AttachmentA

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



20/173

AttachmentA

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



21/173

AttachmentA

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



22/173

AttachmentA

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



23/173

AttachmentA

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



24/173

AttachmentA

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



25/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



26/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



27/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



28/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



29/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



30/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



31/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



32/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



33/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



34/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



35/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



36/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



37/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



38/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



39/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



40/173


41/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



42/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



43/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



44/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



45/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



46/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



47/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



48/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



49/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



50/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



51/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



52/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



53/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



54/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



55/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



56/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



57/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



58/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



59/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



60/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



61/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



62/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



63/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



64/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



65/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



66/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



67/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



68/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



69/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



70/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



71/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



72/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



73/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



74/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



75/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



76/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



77/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



78/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



79/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



80/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



81/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



82/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



83/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



84/173

AttachmentB

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



85/173

AttachmentC

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



86/173

AttachmentC

Item9

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



87/173

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013

Transport Update Page 87

Transport Update

File No.: CP2012/24703

Purpose1. The purpose of this report is to update the Committee with key matters considered at the

18 December 2012 Auckland Transport Board meeting.

Executive Summary2. At its meeting on 18 December 2012, the Auckland Transport Board considered in its open

agenda on a range of reports including:

Business report on the activities for December; A report on public transport and cycling statistics for November 2012; A report by KiwiRail on the National Train Control Centre;

A request for funding of double-tracking the north-facing connection to the Manukau railspur;

Proposed bylaws about election signs and public safety and nuisance; and The Independent Technical Ports Study (this was presented to the 6 December 2012

meeting of the Councils Regional Development and Operations Committee)

3. In addition, the Auckland Transport Board considered the following items in its closedagenda:

Property reports on compulsory land acquisitions and accommodation seismicassessment;

Capital development reports on City Rail Link, Parnell Station and AMETI land use

integration; and Operations reports about Auckland Integrated Fare System (AIFS), Rail Fare Evasion

and Aotea Road seal extension (review of funding process).

4. All open board papers are available on the Auckland Transport website at:http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/about-us/board-members/Board-Meetings-Minutes/Pages/default.aspx

RecommendationThat the Transport Committee:

a) Requests that Auckland Transport respond to any feedback provided by the Committee inrelation to the December 2012 Board reports.

DiscussionBusiness Report on activities

5. Key highlights from the report on Operations include:

The AT HOP card was launched on ferries on November 30. There are nowapproximately 43,000 AT HOP cards that have been sold, with 60% of those cards beingused at least once (as at November 30, 2012);

Managing the transport impact of the installation of ducting for Transpowers NorthAuckland and Northland project, including the requirement to close westbound lanes of

the Pakuranga Highway bridge between Waipuna Road and Ti Rakau Drive over theholiday period;

A series of initiatives are being investigated to boost public transport patronage growthand redress the patronage tracking beneath Statement of Intent targets;


88/173

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013


A reconfiguration of the downtown ferry terminal has commenced to create an improvedcustomer environment and to open up a larger area to non-ferry users; and

The new City Centre Parking Zone scheme has not been implemented and accompaniedby a marketing campaign. All signs and new restrictions were implemented prior toChristmas.

6. Key highlights from the report on Infrastructure include: Monthly expenditure for November 2012 was $18.3 million, slightly below forecast. The

current forecast year end spend it $253 million, around $10 million above the fiscalenvelope. However Auckland Transport expects the capital portfolio will be managed tothe fiscal envelope;

Construction of works associated with Panmure Station, Ellerslie Panmure Highwaybridges and excavation to enable construction of the AMETI Link road have continued asparts of the AMETI project. Consent applications for the next stages of AMETI have beenprocessed and issues are being addressed to minimise the risk of appeals;

The preferred scheme for Dominion Road was discussed at well attended public opendays in November. Funding applications for detailed design will be submitted to NZTA in

early 2013; Papakura Station reconfiguration works are advancing and completion of the station is

programmed for April 2013. The contract for the upgrade of Mt Albert station has beenawarded and works were carried out over the holiday rail shutdown period;

Public consultation on the Federal Street shared space proposal noted that there is asignificant majority of respondents who support the proposals;

Open days on the Mill Road upgrade project have been completed and feedback is nowbeing analysed;

Construction of an upgrade to the Glenbrook-Kingseat intersection was planned to beginin January 2013; and

Stage three of the Fort Street upgrade is underway, with sub-surface works complete andpaving having commenced.

7. Key highlights from the report on Strategy and Planning include:

Submissions on the draft Regional Public Transport Plan have now closed with 696submissions received and 146 submitters noting a desire to present to the Hearing Panel.The Plan is scheduled to be adopted at the March 2013 Board meeting and will permitimplementing of the proposed public transport network; and

Funding approval from NZTA for the first year financing payments for the EMU trains anddepot (approximately $19 million).

8. Key highlights from the report on Special Projects include:

Final design of the Electric Multiple Unit trains (EMUs) is progressing well withapproximately 90% of the design documents now submitted; Production of the first EMU vehicles is proceeding steadily with underframes and vehicle

body sides under construction and on programme. Assembly of the first unit wasprogrammed to begin in January 2013;

The City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS) was released on December 14. Thefindings of the CCFAS were presented to the Governing Body by Auckland Transport inDecember 2012; and

City Rail Link project optimisation, value engineering and work responding to Councilrequests for further information (as part of the route protection process) all continuedthroughout November and the notice of requirement was notified on January 25, 2013.


89/173

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013


9. Extracts from the December business report are included as Attachment A to this report.

Statistics Report for November 2012

10. The Statistics Report focuses on public transport patronage, service performance andinitiatives throughout November 2012 as well as cycling monitoring. Key highlights include:

Annual public transport boardings for the 12 months to November 2012 were 69,873,178.

This is 1.1% higher than the 12 months to November 2011 but tracking below the2012/13 Statement of Intent target of 74,580,000 for the 12 months to June 2013. Asnoted in the business report, a series of initiatives are being investigated to boost publictransport patronage growth;

Patronage during November 2012 was 5.2% lower than November 2011, with much ofthe decrease due to a 17.2% reduction in rail patronage. Northern Express bus patronagegrew by 1.2% but other bus patronage fell by 3.4% and ferry patronage fell by 1.3%.Auckland Transport considers that the introduction of the HOP Card on the rail systemhas contributed to the decline in rail patronage as trips are now recorded at the time theyare made rather than at the time tickets are sold. This effect will disappear from January2013 onwards;

Train performance was measured at 84.1% punctuality and 97.9% service delivery.Trains are measured as punctual if they arrive at their destination within 5 minutes oftheir scheduled time. The Onehunga Line was the best performing line, with 95.1% ofservices being punctual, while the Southern Line performed the poorest, with 78.9% ofservices being punctual;

Bus and ferry service performance are measured differently, with punctuality measured atthe beginning rather than the end of the trip. Performance statistics are also self-reported.All bus operators and most ferry operators reported extremely high punctuality (forexample Birkenhead Transport reported 99.95%) and reliability (whether the serviceoperated or not) results; and

Cycling monitoring showed a 5.1% growth in cyclist movements in November 2012 whencompared to November 2011. Morning peak movements increased by 33.1% whencompared to November 2011.

11. The Auckland Transport Statistics Report for October 2012 is included as Attachment B tothis report.

KiwiRail report on National Train Control Centre

12. This report is a response to an Auckland Transport request to identify and practical andaffordable path to give confidence that if the National Train Control Centre (NTCC)experiences a disruption, there is sufficient infrastructure in place to enable continuedoperation of the rail network. This issue was highlighted by a power outage in April 2012 atthe Wellington-based NTCC which caused significant disruption to the Auckland rail network.

13. The report highlights the advantages of a centralised control model (particularly the depth ofstaff expertise) but notes that additional back-up facilities should be provided at anotherlocation in Wellington to ensure ongoing operations in the event of a site-specific event as

well as an unstaffed facility in the Auckland area that can be used for national controlservices in the event of a catastrophic event in Wellington.

14. Optimal sites and funding arrangements will be explored by KiwiRail, Auckland Transportand other interested parties throughout 2013.

15. The KiwiRail report on National Train Control Centre is included as Attachment C to thisreport.

Manukau Rail Spur Connection Funding

16. This report is a request to the Auckland Transport Board for $3.6 million in funding to enablethe double-tracking of the connection between the Manukau Rail Line (which itself is double-tracked) and the North Island Main Trunk line. $2.6 million is available from the EMU depot

contingency budget while the remaining $1.0 million will need to be included in the 2013/14capital works budget.


90/173

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013


17. Network modelling has shown that that the double track connection from the Manukau RailLine to the mainline at Wiri is essential for the delivery of reliable 10 minute peak services.KiwiRail is currently undertaking track works in the Manukau Rail Line and Wiri Junctionarea to provide access from the main line to the new EMU depot. While double tracking theconnection is not needed until August 2014, significant cost savings can be achievedthrough alignment to KiwiRails existing construction programme with construction

commencing in March 2013.18. Auckland Transport will seek a subsidy from NZTA for the connection, as a project

necessary for delivery of a rail network capable of delivering robust and reliable 10 minutepeak services. The report states that Council approval will be required required to reallocatefunding within the 2012/13 capital programme and for inclusion in the 2013/14 programme.

19. The report relates to the north-facing connections of the Manukau Rail Line.

20. The report on Manukau Rail Spur Connection Funding is included as Attachment D to thisreport.

Election Signs Bylaw

21. This report seeks the Auckland Transport Boards approval to undertake public consultation

on a proposed bylaw to regulate the display of election signs across Auckland. The bylawproposes to provide a consistent set of controls for elections signs and an integrated systemof determining appropriate locations for election signs for parliamentary and local authorityelections.

22. The controls in the proposed bylaw are largely similar to what is in the variety of legacybylaws. Initial consultation was undertaken with Local Board cluster workshops and aworking party of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee of Council during October 2012.Members of the Councils Policies and Bylaws team have also assisted with thedevelopment of the proposed bylaw.

23. The report on the Proposed Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 Consultation isavailable on the Auckland Transport website.

Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw

24. This report seeks the Auckland Transport Boards approval to undertake public consultationon a proposed bylaw for public safety and nuisance. The proposed bylaw will regulateactivities which can be carried out on roads and in other public places in an endeavour toreduce risks to public safety and to avoid nuisance. The proposed bylaw is complementaryto a similar bylaw being prepared by Auckland Council for areas outside the transportsystem.

25. Drafting of the proposed bylaw has been led by Council staff with input from AucklandTransport in areas with particular transport impact. Council and Auckland Transport haveundertaken initial consultation with political, internal and major stakeholders including the

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee Working Party, all Local Boards, the Disability StrategicAdvisory Group, Council departments and a wide range of industry stakeholders.

26. The report on the Proposed Auckland Transport Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 isavailable on the Auckland Transport website.

Consideration

Local Board Views

27. Local Boards are involved in Auckland Transports consultation on major transport projectsand planning processes.

28. Local Boards were consulted in the preparation of the two proposed bylaws.


91/173

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013


Maori Impact Statement

29. Active iwi engagement is taking place in relation to infrastructure projects such as theSouthwest Multi-Modal Airport Rapid Transit (SMART) study and AMETI. The updatedcapital works programme on Auckland Transports website provides indicative timings whenconsultation is occurring which enables the public and Maori to plan for upcomingconsultations.

30. The Key Relationships Unit section of the Business Report outlines in more detail AucklandTransports Maori Engagement programme.

General

31. As this is an information item, no consultation has been done in the preparation of thisreport. This update refers to communications with stakeholders on major projects.

32. Auckland Transport is responsible for taking legal advice in relation to its operations.

Implementation Issues33. Auckland Transport is responsible for implementation of transport and the information in this

report provides highlights of how Auckland Transport is dealing with current issues.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Extracts from December 2012 Business Report 93

B November 2012 Statistics Report 133

C KiwiRail report on National Train Control Centre 157

D Manukau Rail Line Connection Report 171

Signatories

Authors Joshua Arbury - Principal Transport Planner

Authorisers Ree Anderson - Manager Regional Strategy, Community & Cultural Policy

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer


92/173


93/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



94/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



95/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



96/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



97/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



98/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



99/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



100/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



101/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



102/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



103/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



104/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



105/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



106/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



107/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



108/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



109/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



110/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



111/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



112/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



113/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



114/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



115/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



116/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



117/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



118/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



119/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



120/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



121/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



122/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



123/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



124/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



125/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



126/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



127/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



128/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



129/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



130/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



131/173

AttachmentA

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



132/173

AttachmentA

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



133/173

AttachmentB

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



134/173

AttachmentB

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



135/173

AttachmentB

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



136/173

AttachmentB

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



137/173

AttachmentB

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



138/173

AttachmentB

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



139/173

AttachmentB

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



140/173

AttachmentB

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



141/173

AttachmentB

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



142/173

AttachmentB

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



143/173

AttachmentB

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



144/173

AttachmentB

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



145/173

AttachmentB

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



146/173

AttachmentB

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



147/173

AttachmentB

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



148/173

AttachmentB

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



149/173

AttachmentB

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



150/173

AttachmentB

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



151/173

AttachmentB

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



152/173

AttachmentB

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



153/173

AttachmentB

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



154/173

AttachmentB

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



155/173

AttachmentB

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



156/173


157/173

AttachmentC

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



158/173

AttachmentC

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



159/173

AttachmentC

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



160/173

AttachmentC

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



161/173

AttachmentC

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



162/173

AttachmentC

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



163/173

AttachmentC

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



164/173

AttachmentC

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



165/173

AttachmentC

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



166/173

AttachmentC

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



167/173

AttachmentC

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



168/173

AttachmentC

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



169/173

AttachmentC

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



170/173


171/173

AttachmentD

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



172/173

AttachmentD

Item10

Transport Committee

13 February 2013



173/173

AttachmentD

Item1

0

Transport Committee

13 February 2013

transport committee agenda (2/2) feb 13

Documents