Attachment 3
Ngauranga to Airport Steering Group
AGENDA updated with MINUTES
Meeting information
Time:
4pm – 5pm
Date:
28 May 2015
Location:
NZTA Wellington Regional Office, Co-operative Building (PSIS House)
20 Ballance St - Board Room
Members:
Wayne Hastie (GWRC)
Lyndon Hammond (NZTA) (Acting Chair)
Luke Troy (GWRC)
Amy Kearse (Secretariat)
Geoff Swainson (WCC)
Anthony Wilson
Selwyn Blackmore (NZTA)
Other
Jim Bentley (N2A Programme Manager)
Chris Money (PwC) from 4.30pm
Attendees
(via telephone)
ACT
Chrissie Little (BRT Project Manager)
Member
Anthony Wilson
Apologies:
Reading:
• Minutes of 16 April 2015 meeting
• Steering Group action register
• BRT IBC Assurance Plan
• IBC approval roles and
responsibilities
• BRT approval pathway (diagram)
• BRT Project status report
• State highway status report
• Urban transformation and local
roads status report INFORMATION
Agenda
Item Description
Activity
Time
1
Welcome
4.00-4.05
2
Approve 16 April minutes and review action register
Approve/review 4.05-4.10
RELEASED UNDER THE
3
Governance Group debrief
Discuss
4.10-4.15
4
BRT Project Assurance
Approve
4.15-4.20
OFFICIAL
6
BRT IBC approval process
Discuss
4.20-4.30
7
BRT options update (PwC)
Discuss
4.30-4.50
8
Status report discussion
Accept reports
4.50-4.55
9
General Business
Discussion
4.55-5.00
• Confirm actions
• Systems map workshop 29 May
• Next Steering Group meeting 17 June
N2A Steering Group 28 May 2015
Page 1 of 4
MINUTES
Item Description
Actions
1
Welcome
GS noted apologies from AW and that Steve Spence is likely to
AK to forward SG meeting
replace AW on the Steering Group meetings.
invites to Steve Spence.
2
Approve 16 April minutes and review action register
Approved minutes of 16 April 2015.
AK spoke to action register receiving updates on several
actions (refer updated action register).
3
Governance Group debrief
LH noted minutes of the N2A Governance Group meeting had
been circulated to SG members. LH commented that there had
been some discussion about the Town Belt Management Bill,
but that once the Bill is introduced to the House there is an
opportunity to submit on the draft Bill via the Select Committee
process. LH reflected that the GG had discussed the risks as
per the SG’s report and that it seemed comfortable with the
progress being made. The GG discussion had also focused on
ACT
the 2017 date, but LH noted that the upcoming systems
mapping workshop will be useful to explore the constraints
around the 2017 date further. The GG had also raised
THE
marketing of BRT as a key opportunity.
JB raised a point around an assumption that the IBC has to be
approved because we had taken this decision, and what we are
still to agree; noting that clarity on approvals and future
decisions will be important to get good governance going
forward.
4
BRT Project Assurance
UNDER
CL noted that during the development of an IBC, a project is
required to do an Independent Quality Assurance (IQA) or peer
review, and that the BRT project has selected Beca to carry out
the IQA. CL noted that an additional review will be carried out
INFORMATION
by Tony Brennand as part of his NZTA (HNO) assurance role
for state highway activities/business cases.
SB reflected on a recent internal NZTA meeting and discussion
on costs and how to approach contingencies and
accompanying justification. CM from PwC clarified that
appropriate contingencies will be included in business case;
that these will be based off PTSS costs; that this work is still in
progress, so that it is not possible to be definitive about this at
RELEASED
present, but that it will be an area of discussion with Beca.
LT queried the appointment of Beca as peer reviewer/IQA. CL
OFFICIAL
advised that the BRT project had used the NZTA preferred
supplier panel in selecting Beca. CL had requested a Statement
of Work from Beca, and confirmed the total price for this work is
$33k. LT queried whether the SG should have approved the
commissioning of this work. CL advised that this was within the
scope of approvals for the BRT project and within budget; if it
were to have required more budget, then this would have been
brought to the SG for approval.
Clarification was also sought on TB’s role. CL clarified that it is
not unusual for joint projects to have additional quality
assurance projects; and that TB is providing advice to SB for his
consideration, rather than to BRT project per se.
LH noted that if WCC and GWRC have internal processes/steps
that need to be taken as part of the business case review
N2A Steering Group 28 May 2015
Page 2 of 4
and/or approval, then these should also be considered,
documented, and the relevant people engaged.
LT commented that if there are areas such as undertaking more
modelling that TB recommends (noting that GWRC disagrees
with this), then such matters should be brought to the SG for
consideration.
CL further clarified that Beca’s IQA is for the BRT project and
SG members’ consideration whilst TB’s review is for a HNO
VAC requirement however this would be shared once
concluded. CL reiterated that if there are additional steps
required by any agency these can be included as part of the
approval process.
JB noted that the assurance framework does not specify a role
CL to make adjustments to
for the programme manager. CL clarified that this was an error
the IQA documents to
on the BRT project’s part as this was created when JB was not
reflect JB’s role as
yet onboard, and that the framework will be amended to include
programme manager, and
JB. It was noted that both Figure 1 and the roles and
to replace JD with LT and
responsibilities chart require amendment. It was also noted that
distribute final version to
reference to JD needs to be replaced with reference to LT.
SG.
BRT Project Assurance Framework was approved subject to
ACT
changes discussed. CL to distribute final version.
6
BRT IBC approval process
THE
CL noted that the approval process for the BRT IBC had been
worked through with reps from the partner organisations. CL
noted the two stages of review and approval and asked for SG
feedback on aspects of the process that may need adjustment.
GS noted that the WCC committee is called ‘Transport and
Urban Development’ and its role is not to
inform but
recommend to Council.
WH suggested splitting the decision-making paths of each
UNDER
organisation so as not to confuse the sequencing. CL also
clarified that stakeholder engagement is not proposed during
this process and the box referring to this would be removed.
The SG discussed options for sequencing, noting that some
INFORMATION
steps may need to be conditional on others, and that it will be
important to get a good steer from the GG on their preferences.
GWRC clarified that their Council’s function would be to
‘support conclusions’ and agree to retain current provision in the
LTP for the next stage.
GS noted that the question should be put to KL about WCC
decisions. CL noted that RB is keen to get the GG’s thoughts
and that the SG meeting on 17 June will be an opportunity for
RELEASED
RB, KL and GC to discuss prior to the GG on 23 June.
CL noted that an action to tidy up diagram based on feedback,
CL to amend BRT approval
OFFICIAL
test with SG again, WCC and GWRC officers to discuss with
pathway diagram.
CEs, and then the SG to finalise at its next meeting.
GS and WH/LT to discuss
WH queried whether the IBC will make a recommendation on a
BRT approval pathway with
preferred option. CL clarified that in general, if the outcome of
CEs prior to next SG
analysis is clear, there is no need for a recommendation. If
meeting.
outcome is not clear, then there is a question about how much
flex is needed to make a decision.
CL to add an item to BRT
WH noted the need for a joint report that sits on top of the
project schedule for
business case, and sets out the recommendations for
preparation of a joint report
progressing BRT and actions required by partners. General
to accompany the business
support was expressed for this idea.
case.
SB queried whether there is an expectation that the other
workstreams would be discussed. JB advised that this flows
from the roles and responsibilities chart, and that it needs to be
N2A Steering Group 28 May 2015
Page 3 of 4
explicitly understood that anything that goes up has been
considered across the programme, and that the pathways have
to be compatible.
6
BRT options update (PwC)
CM outlined the purpose of his update was to provide an
overview of the options being considered in the BRT IBC, and
that he would cover: do minimum; scope of options; materiality
of trade-offs between options; and the evaluation approach.
CM noted that the strategic case is currently out for feedback.
Do-Minimum – CM advised that the Basin and associated
projects are included as is higher capacity buses. CM noted that
he was happy to take feedback on board.
LH commented about the inclusion of higher capacity buses
within the Do-Minimum and how that fits with building the BRT
brand. CM noted that this activity is common to all options, that
it does make a difference having this included as it is a big part
of the BCR and delivers many benefits (eg, reduction in
operating costs), however it is unfair to count the benefits as is
going to happen regardless of BRT.
ACT
LH noted that despite this there remains an opportunity to
explain how higher capacity buses are part of the BRT solution.
CM noted that the team is doing a reconciliation back to the
THE
PTSS numbers and will be able to track evolution of
costs/benefits.
Options – CM noted that timing and sequencing variants were
workshopped by the BRT working group. He noted
segregation/dedication drives costs and conversely that
intersections drive benefits. CM noted that the team is
continuing to have discussion around modelling and differences
across the options from a network perspective. There was
UNDER
further discussion about the cost range and achieving
confidence in costs and range; and the impact or relativity
between options to impact on their viability and ultimately which
option/s are taken forward to the next stage.
INFORMATION
The SG also discussed practicality and do-ability; and whether
the issues for each option will be highlighted and go or no-go
points identified; and whether it was possible to understand the
impact on the network without micro-simulation modelling. It
was agreed that Paramics modelling was better suited to the
next stage.
7
Status report discussion
RELEASED
The SG accepted the status reports.
8
General business
OFFICIAL
LH noted that most would be attending the following day’s N2A
systems mapping workshop led by JB.
N2A Steering Group 28 May 2015
Page 4 of 4
Document Outline
