RECORD OF THE POINT OF ENTRY
Context
Initiative name
Wharf Street Safety Improvements
Author
Laura Goodman and Les Dowdle (on behalf of DCC)
Lead organisation or
business group
Dunedin City Council
Problem owner
Hjarne Poulsen (DCC)
Transport Agency point of
contact
Chad Barker
File reference
12513123
Date
14 April 2020
Background
Wharf Street is a key corridor in central Dunedin, classified both as a priority freight route and an important cycle link to Southern
Dunedin. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) estimates for Wharf Street are estimated at 15,000 vehicles per day (vpd) northbound and
13,200 vpd southbound, making it one of Dunedin’s busiest roads (MobileRoad, 2019). With growth occurring in Dunedin and a
goal to increase cycling across the city, the efficiency and safety of this route cannot be understated.
The three intersections on Wharf Street with Roberts Street, Birch Street and Kitchener Street are not considered by Dunedin
City Council (DCC) to be fit for purpose due to:
• poor level of service for vulnerable users
• access to the harbourside industrial area being impacted by traffic volumes on Wharf Street
• historic safety issues from the proximity of the Jetty Street overbridge resulting in late lane changes and complex
turning movements across two lanes
• wide carriageways widths resulting in high traffic speeds unconducive to vulnerable users.
Concept designs for improving the safety and accessibility of the corridor have been previously developed but were put on hold
due to uncertainty regarding the future of rail lines across the eastern side of Wharf Street. With the removal of the railway lines
there is now scope to improve the road corridor.
In addition to the removal of the rail tracks which were the initial obstacle, the Wharf Street corridor is planned for pavement
rehabilitation during the 2020/21 construction season. The intention is to undertake any safety improvement alterations
concurrently with this pavement rehabilitation. The concept design produced wil reduce the extents of pavement renewal
required by narrowing the corridor. This wil significantly reduce the spend required from the pavement renewal project hence the
need to confirm design prior to the rehabilitation.
Setting out the problem or opportunity
Problem or opportunity
Identified Problems:
description
• Safety:
o Wharf Street has become traffic dominated with high traffic volumes, speeds
and noise which reduces the appeal of the shared path as a safe transport
choice
o The current lane layout requires drivers to make complex movements and
often results in late lane changes which places a high demand on al road
users
o Side roads are wide intersections with sweeping kerb alignment encourages
high vehicle turning speeds through the intersection and crossing point. This
also results in long crossing distances for vulnerable users at intersection
throats
o Wharf Street is identified by MegaMaps as a Top 10% DSi Saving Network
Section
• Accessibility (for al travel modes):
o Delays for vehicles turning onto Wharf Street from the industrial area and
conflict of turning movements, along with visibility issues, can result in
vehicles overhanging into the through lanes of Wharf Street
o Narrow shared paths widths present conflicts between users and are
insufficient to cater to future demands
• Network efficiency:
o Wharf Street has become traffic dominated with high traffic volumes, speeds
and noise as it is an essential corridor for movement of goods through
Dunedin
o The challenge is to maintain an efficient network whilst improving
connectivity, user experience and safety, particularly for vulnerable road
users
Identified Opportunities:
• Encourage greater uptake of active travel modes in Dunedin
• Reduce urban severance by better connecting the Harbour and the Central City
• Effectively utilise investment by undertaking this project in paral el with the scheduled
pavement rehabilitation project
Outcomes sought
The main identified outcomes sought are:
• Safety improvements
o Upgrading cyclist and pedestrian facilities and amenity
o Reducing driver decisions and weaving of traffic on a high volume traffic
route by rationalising movements along the corridor
o Wharf Street’s design to be better differentiated to align with its function and
accommodate multimodal forms of transport
• Access improvements
o Create better links to the harbourside industrial area
o Improved active travel linkages along Wharf Street to align with wider
transport planning considerations including the development of Dunedin’s
waterfront, and increased active travel movement between the CBD and the
waterfront
• Efficient traffic movement along the freight corridor to support the economic growth of
the District
• Value for money
Ensuring alignment with strategy (see Note 6)
Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021/22-30/31 (draft)
This project wil contribute to the following strategic directions as outlined in the GPS:
Describe how the
investment aligns with
•
Safety: the project wil improve comfort and accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists
strategy
using Wharf Street and make crossing movements safer for all road users
•
Better Travel Options: making Wharf Street safer for vulnerable users wil give
people better travel options, reducing the urban severance
•
Improving Freight Connections: the access improvements to Dunedin’s industrial
area wil improve convenience of the freight route
NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
RECORD OF THE POINT OF ENTRY // 2
•
Climate Change: the continued promotion of safe and efficient cycling and walking
networks wil encourage mode shift from vehicles
Dunedin City Integrated Transport Strategy 2013
The following are the key focus points identified in the Transport Strategy that this project wil
contribute towards:
•
Safety: prioritising safety improvements according to risk
•
Travel choices: prioritising investment and space to improve the provision of active
modes and public transport
•
Connectivity of centres: improving connections within and between centres and the
central city for public transport and active modes
•
Freight: efficiently and effectively moving freight
•
Resilient network: integrating land use and transport to reduce demand for vehicle
travel and increasing the resilience of the transport network
Importantly, Wharf Street forms part of the South Dunedin Cycle network where DCC aims to
create safe, user-friendly cycling links between centres, and from centres to the central city.
Improvements to cycle facilities on Wharf Street wil help DCC towards their Transport
Objective 2 Goal and better connect the central city to the waterfront:
• The percentage of Dunedin census respondents who cycle, walk or take a bus to
work increases from 16% at the 2006 census to 40% by 2024
Dunedin City Council 10 Year Plan 2018-2028
Listed under major projects and key decisions includes a focus on urban cycle ways with
respect to road safety and encouraging cycle uptake as wel as improving level of service for
vulnerable users. This must be achieved in combination with delivering a city that enables a
prosperous and diverse economy, which relies on the efficient movement of freight along
freight corridors like Wharf Street.
Level of risk, uncertainty and complexity (see Note 7)
Stakeholders: Members of the local business
Key risks
community have been upset previously (2014)
Overall risk
when upgrades to Wharf Street were planned
level:
Low
and may slow the project.
GPS: Project aligns to GPS and is anticipated
to be funded, however, 2020 is an election
year which may see a change in
Government/strategy. Project is expected to be
completed in this financial year.
Key uncertainties
Overall
Development: Dunedin Hospital and
uncertainty level: Low
Waterfront redevelopments wil see changes to
traffic movements through Dunedin. This
project presents an opportunity to improve
active travel links to align with the progression
of development.
Extent: Stand-alone project with a clearly
defined scope with only a few options that wil
require evaluation but wil require alignment
Level of complexity
with the Dunedin Liveability PBC/SSBC
Overall
outcomes. DCC and NZTA have considered
complexity level: Low
the interaction of the two projects and do not
consider there to be any conflicts.
NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
RECORD OF THE POINT OF ENTRY // 3
Programme: Physical works able to be
completed without requiring intensive bespoke
solutions.
Previous and related work (see Note 8)
Summarise previous work
For this project there has been a considerable amount of previous work:
• The intersections of Birch Street / Wharf Street and Roberts Street / Wharf Street
have previously been investigated and various iterations of consultation undertaken
• In 2014, GHD were engaged by DCC to investigate options for a proposed cycle link
from Portsmouth Drive to the Jetty Street Overbridge. This included options for
intersection alterations to Birch and Roberts Intersections to achieve cycle safety
improvements at these locations. GHD also helped facilitate workshops with the local
business community to work through the potential intersection alterations and in
particular the proposed vehicle movement restrictions
• In 2016, TDG were engaged by DCC to produce consultation plans for the Wharf
Street intersections, including signalisation of Kitchener Street
• Further progress on Birch Street and Roberts Street intersections had been deferred
until 2019 due to the unknown future of the Wharf Street rail lines
• In 2019, GHD were engaged by DCC to re-visit and produce concept designs for
safety improvements at Birch Street and Roberts Street intersections including
investigations for alterations of the adjacent Wharf Street corridor and crossing points
for cyclists and pedestrians
Summarise related work
Wharf Street is part of the ‘Eastern Bypass’ freight route which provides a bypass of the
Dunedin Central City for Port traffic, connecting SH1 and SH88. A project to improve this route
has been identified, named the Eastern Bypass Freight Route Upgrade:
• The ‘Eastern Bypass’ freight route consists of Strathallan Street – Portsmouth Drive –
Wharf Street – Thomas Burns Street – St Andrew Street to Anzac Avenue
• The project to improve this strategic freight corridor is considered a high priority for
DCC, the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) and Otago Regional Council (ORC)
• The purpose of this project is to reduce conflict between vulnerable users and freight
movement, whilst reducing the number of freight vehicles using the one-way system
in the Central City
Planning the next stage (see Note 9)
Recommended next phase
Due to the low risk, low cost and low complexity of this project (i.e. right-sizing the business
case approach), as well as the previous work done to date which establishes the strategic
context for the project, a Lite Single Stage Business Case is recommended.
• Birch and Roberts Street investigations and concept designs have already been
produced (2019) and wil be evaluated in the Lite SSBC
• Previous work for Kitchener Street (2016) requires review and updating based on
latest information including traffic modelling and cost estimates
Scope of next phase
The next phase is to complete a Lite SSBC which will start on NZTA endorsement of PoE:
• Reconfirm the strategic context and need for investment
• Multi-criteria analysis of options to confirm preferred option delivers value for money,
is the best way to respond to the problems and takes advantage of any available
opportunities
NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
RECORD OF THE POINT OF ENTRY // 4
• Risks, benefits and costs of preferred option to be detailed with financial, commercial
and management aspects of the project described
Target completion date
April 2020
Budget requirements
Proposed funding for the Lite SSBC is $19,200 which includes traffic modelling and economic
evaluation of the scheme. The Lite SSBC wil follow the example released by NZTA
(Happyvale City Council, Big Tunnel – Business Case for Resilience).
Proposed implementation funding is to be shared between DCC and the Transport Agency.
DCC have identified the upgrade of Wharf Street with the Transport Agency as an important
project and planned for their share of the implementation funding required for this project.
Business case pathway (see Note 10)
The Lite SSBC wil recommend a preferred package of upgrades to Wharf Street. It is anticipated, that following development of
the SSBC, the recommended solution would be able to apply for implementation funding. It is unlikely that there wil be a need
for a pre-implementation phase due to the low risk/complexity of the project.
The Council can use the existing work together with the PoE and SSBC to support their funding application. Following receipt of
approval for funding from NZ Transport Agency, an implementation plan would be developed and designs prepared for
Tender/Construction in order for a timely physical works procurement process to be undertaken.
Decision/next steps (to be completed by Lead Organisation – Problem owner)
Decision
Recommended / Not recommended (circle as applicable)
(signature required)
Name: The person who is accountable for addressing the problem (see Note
2).
Role:
Date:
Decision/next steps (to be completed by NZ Transport Agency - Senior Manager, System
Planning)
Decision
Endorsed / Not endorsed (circle as applicable)
(signature required)
Name: The person who holds the delegation for PoE Endorsement.
Date:
Conditions and/or
Set out any conditions or agreements that the decision is contingent upon.
agreements required
NZTA Assessment for Endorsement (Completed by NZTA Staff only)
Additional relevant
Context/Background
Confirmation of Strategic
Context
IAF Results Alignment
Assessment (if Applicable)
NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
RECORD OF THE POINT OF ENTRY // 5
Timing/Urgency
Funding Position
Recommendation
Reasons for
Recommendation
NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
RECORD OF THE POINT OF ENTRY // 6
GUIDANCE NOTES FOR RECORDING THE POINT OF ENTRY
FINDINGS
The Point of Entry is where we consider whether to begin the development (or not) of a business case for
investment, and if so, how that should start.
The Point of Entry phase is designed to al ow meaningful discussion and the use of critical thinking.
Completion of this Record of Point of Entry is an important step and about much more than form-fil ing or
compliance. It is important that effort and attention is given to completing the PoE phase well, rather than
rushing to complete it to get started. Often the reason business cases don’t progress, or have significant
problems, is because the PoE didn’t identify the scope the work properly.
Carrying out a Point of Entry should precede the initiation of
any business case. However, for the Transport
Agency to
endorse a PoE, certain information is needed: that information is set out in this form. In part this is
because endorsement of a PoE signals that the Transport Agency believes the proposed investment is both
needed and aligned with current priorities for NLTP investment.
The Transport Agency expects that its advice and input wil be sought at an early stage in completing the PoE
phase (not just this record), and that endorsement of the Point of Entry phase wil be needed
before work
commences on any future stages. Failure to do so means that the lead organisation continues work at their
own risk and carries a high likelihood that rework wil be needed or that funding wil not be available.
The level of detail that is captured should be consistent with the recommended starting point. If a strategic
case needs to be done before the scope of work can be fully understood, the information wil be a best-
estimate, based on what is currently known. It should be possible to provide more detail for the development
pathway if there is information from earlier phases.
Guidance on completing a Point of Entry and recording the results
Notes:
1. Provide the name of the organisation that wil be accountable for the investment and wil lead
development of the business case. This wil be either:
a. An Approved Organisation, or;
b. The relevant business group within the Transport Agency.
2. Identifying who wil be accountable for the business case is an important early step, as this person needs
to sign the PoE to confirm they agree with the findings and recommendations. Forms that are not signed
by an accountable person wil not be accepted for endorsement. The name provided must be an
individual, not a business group or organisation. A problem owner may want to consider a RASCI matrix
for their proposed investment (Responsibility, Accountability, Supporting, Consultation, Information). This
wil help to identify the accountable person, and who else needs to be involved.
3. Provide the name of the primary Transport Agency contact for the business case, including PoE and
subsequent phases.
4. When describing the problem (or problems) for the purposes of PoE, it is expected that the PoE phase
wil include discussions to better understand the problem. The description provided should be based on
the best initial understanding of the problem and should be phrased simply and clearly. Avoid long and
detailed explanations – clarity is more important. Also avoid statements that point to a specific solution or
response, for example ‘we need to increase bus services’. If in doubt, consult a representative of the
Transport Agency, who can help guide you through this step.
5. Similarly, in describing anticipated outcomes or benefits it is not necessary to have completed a detailed
benefit definition exercise. The PoE phase should focus on understanding the overarching outcomes, and
whether they wil deliver a significant or minor contribution.
6. The proposed investment must be wel -aligned with strategy to justify developing a business case. If the
PoE is being completed by a Transport Agency staff member seeking internal funding, be clear about the
alignment to the Transport Agency’s strategic directions.
7. Understanding the levels of risk, uncertainty and complexity are key factors when determining the level of
effort required for any business case. Risks and uncertainties are treated differently for the purposes of
investment. Whole-of-life costs are typically unknown at the PoE phase and cannot be estimated with any
confidence. The degree of complexity is often used instead, to help in determining the likely level of effort
required.
Guidance on the risk-based approach
8. Provide a summary of relevant pre-existing work. This might include strategic cases, programme
business cases or reports. Include any references made to the problem or opportunity in regional land
transport programmes (RLTPs) or the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP). Does the pre-existing
work help to respond to any of the 16 investment questions? Would it pass an assessment by the
Agency? Are there existing documents that relate to this investment, and do they address some or all of
the requirements for any phases of business case development?
16 investment questions for the business case approach
9. The starting point wil either be a strategic case or some later phase. If it is a strategic case the
information can be relatively brief, but wil need to answer these questions as a minimum:
• How wil problem and benefit definition be carried out?
• If Investment Logic Mapping (ILM) workshops are to be used, what level of facilitation wil be
needed?
• Who wil need to be involved – including stakeholders, the people who hold the most knowledge
about the problem, and any Transport Agency staff?.
• Who wil write the strategic case, and wil they need any specific support from other parts of the
organisation?
• What approvals wil be needed?
10. If the start point is beyond a strategic case the information provided needs to demonstrate how the
requirements of a strategic case have been met. The scope of the next stage should also include details
of how any gaps in previous work wil be addressed and be able to justify the value of any NLTP funding
application needed for the phase to proceed. If available, a project plan can be attached to this PoE
record.
Information about the indicative pathway for completion of the business case is required at the PoE
development stage. This includes the expected pathway for the business case process and investment
decision(s), ensuring all stakeholders have visibility of the phases of development likely to be necessary
to complete development of the business case and the decision-making process.
Guidance on how to plan for and describe the anticipated pathway
NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
RECORD OF THE POINT OF ENTRY // 8
Document Outline
