Attachment 4
Ngauranga to Airport Steering Group
AGENDA updated with MINUTES
Meeting information
Time:
10am – 12pm
Date:
Wednesday 17 June 2015
Location:
Greater Wellington Council Chamber, Shed 39, 2 Fryatt Quay
Members:
Wayne Hastie (GWRC)
Lyndon Hammond (NZTA) (Acting Chair)
Deb Hume (GWRC)
Amy Kearse (Secretariat)
Luke Troy (GWRC)
Geoff Swainson (WCC)
Anthony Wilson
Selwyn Blackmore (NZTA)
Other
Jim Bentley (N2A Programme Manager)
Attendees
ACT
Chrissie Little (BRT Project Manager)
Member
-
Apologies:
Reading:
-
Agenda
Item Description
Activity
Time
1
Welcome
10.00-10.10
2
Approve 16 April minutes and review action register
Approve/review 10.10-10.15
3
Update on N2A programme
Discuss
10.15-11.15
INFORMATION
4
Update on BRT project
Discuss
11.15-11.30
5
Preparation for Governance Group meeting 23 June
Discuss
11.30-11.45
6
General Business
Discuss
11.45-12.00
• Confirm actions
• Next meeting July TBC
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
N2A Steering Group 17 June 2015
Page 1 of 3
MINUTES
Item Description
Actions
1
Welcome
-
LH introduced Aideen Larkin (Senior Project Manager, NZTA)
who is supporting JB on N2A programme management.
2
Approve 16 April minutes and review action register
16 April minutes
approved.
Action register reviewed and amendments made.
Under discussion of action 13, WH noted for the importance of
transparency amongst the partners that GWRC is intending to
submit on the Town Belt Bill (as relevant for BRT).
Speaking to action 18, CL noted that the BRT approval pathway
is a living document.
4
BRT project
JB recapped on N2A workshop on 28 May, noting he came
away encouraged that conversations were open, and based on
discussion there and follow-up discussions, a draft N2A
ACT
programme has been developed. Before taking the BRT
business case forward and committing funding, JB noted a
need to first check for alignment with what we have signed up to
THE
in N2A, and on BRT, which will enable the group to move
forward with certainty or invest more time to figure this out.
The group discussed the need for clarify on the type of BRT, the
potential length of the implementation period, development
potential, and the importance of protecting the corridor. The
group agreed there was a need for concurrent consideration
(and design) of active modes and public transport, and that the
Urban Cycleways Fund (UCF) has heightened this.
UNDER
The group discussed whether there was shared understanding
at the governance and steering levels of the scope of BRT, that
the business case helps provide clarity on this through its
articulation of the options, one of which is based on a WCC-
INFORMATION
developed option.
The group discussed the wording in the N2A corridor strategy
noting this is consistent with wording around developing the
spine, subject to business casing. The group discussed the
trade-offs inherent with road space allocation amongst different
modes, that the business case is likely to land in a pragmatic
space where a BRT solution can be achieved without significant
dis-benefits to other modes.
RELEASED
The group further discussed the importance of being clear on
what is meant by BRT, noting that some options are likely to be
OFFICIAL
lower than what has been promoted. The group discussed the
potential for examining phasing between options, particularly
during the next business case phase, and being clear on what
the long term aspiration is, and how BRT interacts with delivery
of the roading improvements and the PT transformation
programme. The group spoke of the potential to communicate
consistently regarding the Wellington solution, which includes
new timetable, new routes, intersection improvements, bus stop
rationalisation and a philosophy of continuous improvement.
The group agreed that when it reports to the GG, BRT should
be presented as a component of the total solution, so we are
showing the integration and alignment, explaining the parts.
The group discussed its role in reviewing the business case. It
noted the potential for the business case to articulate the
N2A Steering Group 17 June 2015
Page 2 of 3
opportunity to move from one option to another over time, and
keeping the options open for consideration.
The group discussed the need for a cover report from the SG to
the GG, which should highlight particular issues around parking
(type, locality and what is prioritised), integration of BRT with
the other N2A activities, and being clear about what will be
covered during the next business case phase. The group
discussed the importance of managing expectations both of the
end product and also where we are in the process, as they do
want to see the answer, and explanation of where you will get
detailed answers in next phase, and importantly,
communicating that there is a case worthy of further investment
(ie, BCRs are looking good, well over 1 and that costs are more
reasonable than PTSS costs had indicated).
The group discussed whether BRT was ready to go to the GG
next week. WCC noted that next week is KL’s last for 6 weeks.
5
Preparation for Governance Group meeting 23 June
JB noted that he will provide an update on the programme, and
CL to send out Business
in terms of BRT wanted to take some time to do this discussion
Case report to SG.
of options together, and now have enough that we can continue
AK to arrange for SG
ACT
on BRT.
workshop invitation from
CL noted that the BRT project has a product that the group can
9.45-11.15am on Tuesday
review next week, send out well in advance and have a session
23 June.
THE
after the governance group.
LT to arrange meeting
LT summarised the key points to convey to the GG as follows:
room at GWRC for SG
high level proof of concept for BRT, some of detail not there yet,
workshop.
so may need to elaborate on these later. The steering group
CL to invite PWC to SG
has the business case, and has programmed a session to look
workshop.
through it. Our first sense is that there are worthwhile options to
pursue, and that’s good, and at a high level the costs are better
LH and JB put a draft
than what we have identified previously.
governance group agenda
UNDER
and paper together with
The group agreed it was preferable for the GG to meet from
slots for workstream leads
8.30-9.30 and for the SG to have a session on the business
to fill.
case with the SG for an hour following that.
Subject to confirmed
JB to speak to N2A. CL to speak to BRT. LH and JB put a draft
INFORMATION
agenda, AK to arrange for
governance group agenda and paper together with slots for
GG meeting time to be
workstream leads to fill.
altered to 8.30-9.30am.
3
Update on N2A programme
JB advised that an input to the programme was the N2A
workshop, since formed working group. AL has put together
AL to email draft
programme plan. AL explained programme, noting key
programme plan to SG
RELEASED
dependencies, including Basin best and worst case. The group
members.
discussed minor changes and AL agreed to email the draft
programme plan to allow SG members an opportunity to
OFFICIAL
provide further comment. The group confirmed the format was
SG members to provide
good but it would be useful to add more dependencies.
feedback on draft
The action arising from 28 April GG meeting to report back on
programme plan by Friday
the programme plan was raised and it was agreed that this
19 June.
should be presented to the GG as a ‘starter’ programme plan.
6
General Business
DH suggested JB as future chair to free LH to represent P&I
view more fully. LH responded that the intent was for the Chair
position to be rotating and that he is filling initially, but will give
the suggestion some thought.
LH concluded meeting at 11.50am (finishing 10 minutes early).
N2A Steering Group 17 June 2015
Page 3 of 3
Document Outline
