NZUP Northern Pathway
Tim Adriaansen made this Official Information request to New Zealand Transport Agency
The request was successful.
From: Tim Adriaansen
Dear New Zealand Transport Agency,
In previously lodged OIA 8518 on 23 July 2021, I asked for information relating to Northern Pathway decision making, specifically:
"Document bri-2174 (northern pathway options summary) dated 11 May 2021, paragraph 27 notes in relation to lane reallocation of the harbour bridge that "Converting a single lane was also considered, however this is not considered safe given the resultant width and speed differential between users.
- Please provide the engineers/consultants report or other documentation on which this conclusion was based, including lane-width assessments and layout designs upon which the assessment was made."
In response, I was referred to Appendix 1 of BRI-2118 Northern Pathway Project Update.
This, unfortunately is self-referential - it is simply another document stating a similar conclusion.
This document includes the following paragraph:
"The forecasted volumes, speed differential of different users and gradients of the bridge do not meet the required standards and would carry significant safety risks. There would also be implications to the operation and performance of the existing users of the bridge, including public transport and freight."
Please provide any engineering, consultancy or other professional reports or documentation which inform this design and decision. To help clarify this request; in particular I am seeking engineering reports which describe why a 3.5m wide lane, with additional shoulders, is considered necessary for motor vehicle traffic in this location.
Furthermore, Minister of Transport Michael Wood has directed Waka Kotahi to investigate options for trialing active transport mode access to the Auckland Harbour Bridge in the near future.
Please provide documentation of the options presented to the minister and any accompanying briefings or discussion papers giving advice as to the suitability, cost, timeframe and safety of these options.
Yours faithfully,
Tim Adriaansen
From: Official Correspondence
New Zealand Transport Agency
Dear Tim,
This email acknowledges your below request for information made under the
Official Information Act 1982.
Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate section of Waka Kotahi
NZ Transport Agency for response. They will contact you if they require
clarification of your request, more time to respond, or if your request
has been transferred to another organisation to respond to. Unless more
time is required, Waka Kotahi will send a response to you within 20
working days of receiving your request – in this instance on or before
23^rd September 2021.
The information you have requested may contain the names and contact
details of our staff. Please let us know whether you require these names
and contact details. We may need to consult our staff before deciding
whether we can release this information, and this may take a bit more
time. If we do not hear from you we will assume that you do not require
staff names and contact details.
If you would like to discuss your request with Waka Kotahi, please contact
us by email at [1][email address].
Regards
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kôtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[2]twitter | [3]youtube | [4]facebook
[5][IMG]
show quoted sections
From: Official Correspondence
New Zealand Transport Agency
Dear Tim,
Please find attached the response to your request of 26^th August 2021 for
information under the Official Information Act 1982.
Regards
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook
[4][IMG]
show quoted sections
From: Tim Adriaansen
Dear Official Correspondence,
Thank you for your mahi.
Following an official announcement from the minister on Saturday 2nd October, I would like to ask for the following documents described in your previous response:
• BRI-2265: Auckland Harbour Bridge shared path – Interim findings presentation (6 August 2021)
• AHB Shared Path Options Interim Findings
Yours sincerely,
Tim Adriaansen
From: Official Correspondence
New Zealand Transport Agency
Dear Tim,
This email acknowledges your below request for information made under the
Official Information Act 1982.
Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate section of Waka Kotahi
NZ Transport Agency for response. They will contact you if they require
clarification of your request, more time to respond, or if your request
has been transferred to another organisation to respond to. Unless more
time is required, Waka Kotahi will send a response to you within 20
working days of receiving your request – in this instance on or before
4^th November 2021.
The information you have requested may contain the names and contact
details of our staff. Please let us know whether you require these names
and contact details. We may need to consult our staff before deciding
whether we can release this information, and this may take a bit more
time. If we do not hear from you we will assume that you do not require
staff names and contact details.
If you would like to discuss your request with Waka Kotahi, please contact
us by email at [1][email address].
Regards
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kôtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[2]twitter | [3]youtube | [4]facebook
[5][IMG]
show quoted sections
From: Official Correspondence
New Zealand Transport Agency
image001.png
12K
Download
OIA 8884 response.pdf
30K
Download
View as HTML
BRI 2265 Attachment AHB shared path interim findings presentation.pdf
2.5M
Download
View as HTML
BRI 2265 AHB shared path interim findings Redacted.pdf
663K
Download
View as HTML
Dear Tim
Please find attached the response to your request of 6 October 2021 for
information under the Official Information Act 1982.
Regards
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kôtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook
[4][IMG]
show quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Minister of Transport & 30 May Incident on Auckland Harbour Bridge
To Michael Wood by Matthew Hooton
Richard Young left an annotation ()
Tim - you seem to have secured some very insightful documents relating to the internal thought process of Waka Kotahi around enabling active modes to also use the Auckland Harbour Bridge. I'm a highway engineer and spend numerous years at the (then) NZTA and elsewhere and have read the material with interest. There are some items that immediately spring out as needing some follow up OIA questions to be addressed - are you able to do this?
1) A key one relates to the Resolve presentation which refers to 'Current' volumes. Traffic volumes vary significantly by weekday and time of year and have also been dramatically affected by COVID and the recovery from lockdowns. My understanding is that traffic volumes are currently at least 10% lower than pre-COVID and even prior to the August 2021 Lockdown volumes had not returned to 2019 levels. Can you ask to WK provide the source of their 'Current' traffic volumes and also daily classified (by vehicle type) counts in each direction (split into hours if available) over the last three years.
2) In media interviews Brett Gliddon has publicly stated that capacity on the bridge is not the governing factor, but the constraints are the approaches. Why is this not referenced in any material?
3) There is only consideration given to the use of concrete barriers to separate the 1 lane conversion. Why have recently WK approved free-standing continuous steel barriers in Lane 2 not been included. These barriers would offer significantly faster procurement and not affect the structural loading.
4) Why is the width and gradient continually flagged as an issue? Waka Kotahi have just part funded a straight, longer, steeper and narrower shared use path near Wellington on Wainuiomata Hill. There appears to be a disconnection here.
4) The 1-lane 2,500 cyclist a day option (Demand Management Medium - Slide 16) appears to have minimal impacts on the wider network. 2,500 cyclists a day (along with predicted transfer to PT) is well within the range of users that the NW cycleway already has. Any predicted traffic delays appear to me within the variability of the current network; in view of this why does the briefing note not convey this to the Minister?
There are several other items in the released material that could be followed up on but I think these are the most urgent.
Link to this