Dear New Zealand Transport Agency,

I am interested in getting a better, in-depth understanding of the Lets Get Wellington Moving Golden Mile Project. One of the project documents is the Golden Mile Alternatives and Options Report (Multi Criteria Analysis Report) June 2021 which, selected of Option 3 as the preferred option. I had understood, based on a promise at the presentation by LGWM, that much of this information would be proactively released but it has not been released which is the reason for this request.

I request a number of items that have been used to support the analysis outlined in the Golden Mile Alternatives and Options Report (Multi Criteria Analysis Report):
1) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table 1: Short List Report’s indicative benefits / disbenefits for the short-listed options (over a 40-year evaluation period) on page 20?
2) Can I please have a copy of the agenda, meeting minutes and all presentations to the MCA workshop would be held on Monday 30 November 2020 referred to on page 31?
3) Can I please have a copy of the names of those who took part in the MCA Workshop for the Golden Mile held on Monday 30 November 2020 referred to on page 31?
4) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the “Cost, benefit, and value for money ranges” table on page 35?
5) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the “Individual benefit components” table on page 35?
6) Can I please have a copy of the “journey-time model was developed to evaluate bus journeys along the corridor” referred to on page 36 and in Appendix D?
7) Can I please have a copy of the journey-time model bus travel times for the Do-Minimum Scenario and each of the three options referred to on page 36?
8) Can I please have a copy of the journey-time model bus reliability figures for the Do-Minimum Scenario and each of the three options referred to on page 36?
9) Can I please have a copy of the bus stop model referred to on page 37 and in Appendix D?
10) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table 44: Cost estimate ranges on page 61?
11) Can I please have a copy of the “MRCagney’s runtime model” used to assess Public transport benefits referred to on page 62?
12) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table 45: Updated net present value of the short-listed options on page 62?
13) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table 46: Indicative BCR ranges on page 63?
14) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table 47: Evaluation of the weighted scenarios and unweighted (i.e. raw) rankings on page 65?
15) Can I please have a copy of the “Correspondence with Alex Campbell – 2 October 2020” listed on page 2 of Appendix B Project Assumption and Do-Minimum Briefing Note
16) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in Figure 2 - Forecast Increase in Public Transport Passengers to the CBD on page 8 of Appendix B Project Assumption and Do-Minimum Briefing Note
17) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in Figure 2 - Forecast Increase in Public Transport Passengers to the CBD on page 8 of Appendix B Project Assumption and Do-Minimum Briefing Note
18) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table 3 - Summary of Golden Mile Section Relationships on page 7 of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
19) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Figure 2 - Lambton Quay AM Peak Northbound and Southbound on page 8 of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
20) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Figure 3 - Lambton Quay PM Peak Northbound and Southbound on page 8 of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
21) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Figure 4 -Willis Street AM Peak Northbound and Southbound on page 9 of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
22) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Figure 5 - Willis Street PM peak Northbound and Southbound on page 9 of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
23) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Figure 6 - Manners Street AM Peak Northbound and Southbound on page 10 of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
24) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Figure 7 - Manners Street PM Peak Northbound and Southbound on page 10 of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
25) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Figure 8 - Courtenay Place AM Peak Northbound and Southbound on page 11 of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
26) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Figure 9 - Courtenay Place PM Peak Northbound and Southbound on page 11 of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
27) Can I please have a copy of the modelled normal bus dwell time and the double decker buses dwell time referred to on page 13 of of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
28) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Figure 10 - Lambton Quay Stop Assessment (PM Peak) on page 14 of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
29) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Figure 11 - Willis Street Stop Assessment (Pm Peak) on page 15 of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
30) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Figure 12 - Courtenay Place Stop Assessment on page 16 of Appendix D Bus Travel Time, Reliability, Comfort and Convenience Report?
31) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table 1: Present value of economic costs and benefits on page 6 of Appendix O Economics Report?
32) Can I please have a copy of MRCagney’s runtime model referred to on pages 13 and 14 of Appendix O Economics Report?
33) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table 5: Range of median to upper limit travel times in the PM peak on page 16 of Appendix O Economics Report?
34) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Figure 1: Public transport travel time estimates along Golden Mile on page 17 of Appendix O Economics Report?
35) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table 6: Annual public transport benefit, 2025 on page 17 of Appendix O Economics Report?
36) Can I please have a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table 7: Present value of public transport benefits on page 17 of Appendix O Economics Report?
37) Can I please have a copy of the report that provided the existing dwell times at stops along the Golden Mile as provided to MRCagney referred to page 32 of Appendix O Economics Report?

If the information held is in electronic form, I would prefer it was provided in its complete and original electronic format. I also prefer that information held within documents and spreadsheets that LGWM may believe is not in scope for this information request is not redacted as I wish to obtain a copies of complete documents.

Yours faithfully,

Tony Randle

Dear Official Correspondence,

Thank you for your substantive response of 20 September 2021. Unfortunately, much of the requested information was not provided. I have outlined in “Follow-up Reply” by feedback on whether the information released satisfies the original information requested.

1) LGWM Response: This information is in Appendix O to the MCA report. I am refusing this request under section 18(d) of the Act as the information is publicly available

Follow-up Reply:
Appendix O is a report that “… describes the methodology and initial results of the economic assessment of each of the short list options for the Golden Mile.”
It is not a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table 1. For the sake of clarity, I seek the actual calculation spreadsheets that contain “the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table”

I would further note my request also states:
“If the information held is in electronic form, I would prefer it was provided in its complete and original electronic format.”

Can LGWM please provide the complete calculation spreadsheet requested as item 1 in my request of 9 August 2021?
----------

2) LGWM Response: As this was a workshop, all meeting notes and discussion points were captured in MCA scoring and summary. Please refer to documents 2-23.

Follow-up Reply: As no further information was provided, can LGWM please confirm that this workshop did not have any documented agenda or separate meeting minutes? If such documents are held then can a copy of these documents be provided as requested?
----------

3) LGWM Response: Please refer to document 23. Some information has been withheld from this under section 9(2)(a) of the Act, to protect the privacy of individuals

Follow-up Reply: The individuals at this MCA workshop decided on the recommended option for the Golden Mile which is a major decision affecting the future of Wellington City. Can a copy of names of these individuals that made this decision be provided in the public interests of accountability and transparency?
----------

4) and 5) LGWM Response: This information is in Appendix O to the MCA report. I am refusing this request under section 18(d) of the Act as the information is publicly available.

Follow-up Reply: Appendix O is a report that “… describes the methodology and initial results of the economic assessment of each of the short list options for the Golden Mile.”

It is not a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the “Cost, benefit, and value for money ranges” table or the “Individual benefit components” table. For the sake of clarity, I seek the actual calculation spreadsheets that contain “the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table”.

I would further note my request also states:
“If the information held is in electronic form, I would prefer it was provided in its complete and original electronic format.”

Can LGWM please provide the complete calculation spreadsheet requested as items 5 & 6 in my request of 9 August 2021?
----------

6) and 7) and 8) LGWM Response: Please refer to document 24

Follow-up Reply: Thank you for this information.
----------

9) LGWM Response: Please refer to document 25

Follow-up Reply: I note that the bus stop model provided does not have any formula or calculations. It appears the formula have been removed.

I would further note my request also states:
“If the information held is in electronic form, I would prefer it was provided in its complete and original electronic format.”

Can LGWM therefore provide a copy of the complete calculation spreadsheet or other calculation engine that generated the numbers in this spreadsheet that is requested as item 9 in my request of 9 August 2021?
----------

10) LGWM Response: This information is included in the short list options report available on the LGWM website. I am refusing your request under section 18(d) of the Act as the information is publicly available.

Follow-up Reply: Appendix O is a report that “… describes the methodology and initial results of the economic assessment of each of the short list options for the Golden Mile.”
It is not a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in Table 44: Cost estimate ranges. For the sake of clarity, I seek the actual calculation spreadsheets that contain “the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table”

I would further note my request also states:
“If the information held is in electronic form, I would prefer it was provided in its complete and original electronic format.”

Can LGWM please provide the complete calculation spreadsheet requested as item 10 in my request of 9 August 2021?
----------

11) LGWM Response: The model was developed and coded by MRCagney and is MRCagney Intellectual Property. I am withholding this information under sections 9(2)(b)(i) and 9(2)(ba)(i) of the Act.

Follow-up Reply: The amounts calculated from the MRCagney runtime model are being used to justify the recommended option and the expenditure of $72 Million dollars of public money both of which have a strong public interest. Can LGWM please reconsider providing a copy of this model as requested in the public interest of accountability and transparency?
I would note that if there are concerns of public disclosure, I would be prepared to have this information released under a non-disclosure agreement.
----------

12) and 13) LGWM Response: This information is in Appendix O to the MCA report. I am refusing this request under section 18(d) of the Act as the information is publicly available

Follow-up Reply: Appendix O is a report that “… describes the methodology and initial results of the economic assessment of each of the short list options for the Golden Mile.”
It is not a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in Table 45: Updated net present value of the short-listed option or Table 46: Indicative BCR ranges. For the sake of clarity, I seek the actual calculation spreadsheets that contain “the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table”

I would further note my request also states:
“If the information held is in electronic form, I would prefer it was provided in its complete and original electronic format.”

Can LGWM please provide the complete calculation spreadsheet requested as items 12 & 13 in my request of 9 August 2021?
----------

14) LGWM Response: Weighting summaries are provided in Appendix P of the MCA report, which is publicly available. I am refusing this document under section 18(d) of the Act as the information is publicly available. MCA assessment sheet with scores, commentary, raw scores and weighted scores are provided in documents 14 to 22.
Appendix P is a table of “Weighting Scenarios”.

Follow-up Reply: It is not a copy of the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in Table 47: Evaluation of the weighted scenarios and unweighted (i.e. raw) rankings. For the sake of clarity, I seek the actual calculation spreadsheets that contain “the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table”

I would further note my request also states:
“If the information held is in electronic form, I would prefer it was provided in its complete and original electronic format.”

Can LGWM please provide the complete calculation spreadsheet requested as item 14 in my request of 9 August 2021.
----------

15) LGWM Response: Please refer to document 26

Follow-up Reply: Thank you for the correspondence. However, it appears that the emails had some spreadsheet attachments. Can LGWM please provide copies of these attachments as separate documents?
----------

16) and 17) LGWM Response: This information is in the Let's Get Wellington Moving RPI and Indicative Package Modelling Report available on the LGWM website. I am withholding this information under section 18(d) of the Act as the information is publicly available.

Follow-up Reply: Yes the Let's Get Wellington Moving RPI and Indicative Package Modelling Report has the same chart but it does not include “the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in Figure 2 Forecast Increase in Public Transport Passengers to the CBD”. For the sake of clarity, I seek the actual calculation spreadsheets that contain “the detailed calculations used to provide the amounts outlined in the Table”

I would further note my request also states:
“If the information held is in electronic form, I would prefer it was provided in its complete and original electronic format.”

Can LGWM please provide the complete calculation spreadsheet requested as items 16 & 17 in my request of 9 August 2021?
----------

18) LGWM Response: There are no amounts specified in this table. I am therefore refusing your request for this information under section 18(e) of the Act, as the information does not exist.

Follow-up Reply: Apologies for incorrectly outlining the request for item 18. This table is unreadable in the MCA Report. Can LGWM please provide a copy of this table in which the words are legible?
----------

19) and 20) and 21) and 22) and 23) and 24) and 25) and 26) LGWM Response: Please refer to document 24

Follow-up Reply: Thank you for this information.
----------

27) and 28) and 29) and 30) LGWM Response: Please refer to document 25

Follow-up Reply: Thanks you for this information.
----------

31) LGWM Response: Please refer to Sheet 1 of document 1

Follow-up Reply: I note that Sheet 1 of document 1 provided does not have any formula or calculations. It appears the formula have been removed.
I would further note my request also states:
“If the information held is in electronic form, I would prefer it was provided in its complete and original electronic format.”
Can LGWM therefore provide a copy of the complete calculation spreadsheet or other calculation engine that generated the numbers in this spreadsheet that is requested as item 31 in my request of 9 August 2021?
----------

32) and 33) and 34) LGWM Response: The model was developed and coded by MRCagney and is MRCagney Intellectual Property. I am withholding this information under sections 9(2)(b)(I and 9(2)(ba)(i) of the Act. Document 24 provides the outputs of this model.

Follow-up Reply: Refer to my Follow-up Reply on item 11.
----------

35) LGWM Response: Please refer to sheet 2 of document 1

Follow-up Reply: I note that Sheet 2 of document 1 provided does not have any formula or calculations. It appears the formula have been removed.
I would further note my request also states:
“If the information held is in electronic form, I would prefer it was provided in its complete and original electronic format.”
Can LGWM therefore provide a copy of the complete calculation spreadsheet or other calculation engine that generated the numbers in this spreadsheet that is requested as item 35 in my request of 9 August 2021?
----------

36) LGWM Response: Please refer to sheet 3 of document 1

Follow-up Reply: I note that Sheet 3 of document 1 provided does not have any formula or calculations. It appears the formula have been removed.
I would further note my request also states:
“If the information held is in electronic form, I would prefer it was provided in its complete and original electronic format.”
Can LGWM therefore provide a copy of the complete calculation spreadsheet or other calculation engine that generated the numbers in this spreadsheet that is requested as item 36 in my request of 9 August 2021?
----------

37) LGWM Response: These dwell times were estimated from analysis of Snapper data and were not provided in a report. I am refusing this request under section 18(e) of the Act as the information requested does not exist.

Follow-up Reply: Given there is no separate report, can a copy of the Snapper Data used to estimate the dwell times be provided?
----------

Finally, apologies for the delay in providing this feedback.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Randle

Dear Official Correspondence,

Please can NZTA confirm that it understands that my 1 October 2021 feedback reply to the NZTA substantive response is NOT a new information request. I have not asked for any new or additional information? I have simply provided clarification feedback on errors in the NZTA interpretation of my earlier information items or asked that NZTA reconsider their decision to withhold information.

As NZTA has already taken an extended time-frame to fully assess and respond to the initial information request , I would not expect that NZTA would need another 20 days to reply in response to my feedback comments.

Can NZTA please confirm when it expects to provide a further response to my feedback comments?

Yours sincerely,

Tony Randle