Caitlin McInnarney
From:
Kathryn King
Sent:
Monday, 11 July 2022 8:55 AM
To:
Jurgita Klein; Graham O'Connell
Cc:
Kevan Fleckney; s 9(2)(a)
(ASM)
Subject:
RE: URGENT advice required please: OIA-10263 - follow up from a previous OIA
response
Kia ora Jurgita,
Apologies for the slow response, it took some time for me to remember who was involved in the November paper.
The first version of the paper was drafted by Rosie Doherty in Neil Walker’s team and then I took it and added in all
the event information.
She worked with Neil on the Resolve commission.
Out of Scope
but I understand Graham has been in contact with Resolve to get clarification.
From: Jurgita Klein <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 1 July 2022 1:45 pm
To: Graham O'Connel <[email address]>
Cc: Kathryn King <[email address]>; Kevan Fleckney <[email address]>; s 9(2)(a)
@asm.nzta.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: URGENT advice required please: OIA-10263 - follow up from a previous OIA response
I was thinking that the person who prepared the I&D paper and used the number would know where it came from?
Jurgita
From: Graham O'Connell <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 1 July 2022 1:29 PM
To: Jurgita Klein <[email address]>
Cc: Kathryn King <[email address]>; Kevan Fleckney <[email address]>; s 9(2)(a)
@asm.nzta.govt.nz>
under the Official Information Act 1982
Subject: RE: URGENT advice required please: OIA-10263 - follow up from a previous OIA response
Hi Jurgita,
I agree this seems to be about how the traffic modelling system creates an output.
However if ASM is not aware of where the 17,000 number has come from I am not clear how we can respond.
I will speak to few people, but the ASM I would have thought was the origin of the number…?
Released
From: Jurgita Klein <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 1 July 2022 10:39 am
To: Graham O'Connel <[email address]>
1
Cc: Kathryn King <[email address]>; Kevan Fleckney <[email address]>; s 9(2)(a)
@asm.nzta.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: URGENT advice required please: OIA-10263 - follow up from a previous OIA response
Hi Graham
I think his question is about how we arrived at 17,000 vehicles figure. Is this based on some sort of traffic demand
number and whatever calculations formula the modelling uses? I think it is a bit clearer in the Phase 2 Traffic Impact
Assessment of June 2022 (slide 52 specifically mentions 17,000 vehicles), but we referred him to the Assessment of
June 2021, which doesn’t have the same detail. Because the 17,000 vehicles and 10% reduction was mentioned in
the I&D paper in Nov 2021, it must have come from somewhere
I was hoping that ASM would be able to clarify this as they have produced the Traffic Impact Assessment report of
1982
June 2021, but s 9(2)(a)
advised that he doesn’t know where the figure of 17,000 quoted in the I&D paper came
from. I attach both Assessments FYI.
I can go back as clarify with s 9(2)(a)what he means exactly but it is too late to restart the clock. Also, if he doesn’t get
Act
back before the OIA is due we need to go with our own interpretation. Please let me know if you still need me to go
back to s 9(2)(a)
Thank you
Jurgita
Information
From: Graham O'Connell <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 1 July 2022 9:38 AM
To: Jurgita Klein <[email address]>
Cc: Kathryn King <[email address]>; Kevan Fleckney <[email address]>; s 9(2)(a)
@asm.nzta.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: URGENT advice required please: OIA-10263 - follow up from a previous OIA response
Official
Hi Jurgita,
the
Please provide the basis for the calculation of these figures: "greater than 17,000 vehicles per day or a 10%
reduction” per page 2 of the Investment and Delivery “Auckland Harbour Bridge walking and cycling event” dated
22 November 2021.
under
I think we are getting a question looking for something specific while phased in an open ended manner, having read
this statement a number of times this could be interpreted in a number of ways.
Can you go back to the customer and establish what exactly is meant by “basis for the calculation of these figures”.
If we can remove all ambiguity we can hopefully save on fol ow up requests.
Would a clarification request stop the clock on the OIA timeline?
Happy to discuss
Released
Regards
Graham
2
From: Kathryn King <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 1 July 2022 8:36 am
To: Graham O'Connel <[email address]>; Kevan Fleckney <[email address]>; s 9(2)(a)
@asm.nzta.govt.nz>
Subject: FW: URGENT advice required please: OIA-10263 - follow up from a previous OIA response
Is anyone able to help me answer the question below?
From: Jurgita Klein <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2022 8:00 pm
To: Kathryn King <[email address]>
Cc: Lydia Haigh <[email address]>
1982
Subject: URGENT advice required please: OIA-10263 - follow up from a previous OIA response
Hi Kathryn
Act
A while ago we responded to s 9(2)(a) OIA-9647. His question was:
Please provide the basis for the calculation of these figures: "greater than 17,000 vehicles per day or a 10%
reduction” per page 2 of the Investment and Delivery “Auckland Harbour Bridge walking and cycling event” dated
22 November 2021.
The relevant snapshot is below.
Information
You advised that this modelling is from the Resolve report (which is based on the Traffic Impact Assessment dated
June 2021) - s 9(2)(a)already has both, but he couldn’t find the details that would provide a basis for the calculation.
Are you able to advise which exact modelling you have used when writing the I&D paper? Do you have a copy of
these calculations?
Official
I’ve contacted ASM who have produced that Assessment but they were not sure where the calculation in the I&D
paper came from. Since then, ASM produced two additional (Phase 1 and Phase 2) Traffic Impact Assessment
reports. They say that Phase 2 report seems to contain some assessment that arrives at similar values, but this is not
the
in the original report to which we referred s 9(2)(a)
The questions we are trying to answer are in yellow below. If we referred s 9(2)(a) to the June 2021 Traffic Impact
Assessment incorrectly, then we need to fix it.
under
I would really appreciate your advice on this please. The relevant documents are attached.
Please give me a call if it is easier. Thank you.
Jurgita
Released
From:s 9(2)(a)
Sent: Saturday, 4 June 2022 3:10 pm
To: Official Correspondence <[email address]>
Subject: Re: OIA-9647 RESPONSE
Importance: High
3
CAUTION: The sender of this email is from outside Waka Kotahi. Do not click links, attachments, or reply unless you recognise the
sender’s email address and know the content is safe.
Kia ora, thank for the response to OIA-9647.
1) Unfortunately, the response to Question 2 (provide the basis for the calculation of these figures: "greater than
17,000 vehicles per day or a 10% reduction” per page 2 of the Investment and Delivery paper “Auckland Harbour
Bridge walking and cycling event” dated 22 November 2021) is inadequate.
Please specifically advise (on what page and actual content) of the reports provide the basis for the figures: "greater
than 17,000 vehicles per day or a 10% reduction” (per the Investment and Delivery paper “Auckland Harbour Bridge
walking and cycling event” dated 22 November 2021).
1982
2) Furthermore, please advise to which pathway option, and under which level of traffic demand reduction scenario,
does the "greater than 17,000 vehicles per day or a 10% reduction” apply to?
Act
3) We note this accompanying Board paper presented at the 19 August 2021 Board meeting states: "We have
therefore advised the Minister that we would wait for his feedback on the interim options before a decision is
sought from the Board.” Please provide a copy of the MInister’s feedback.
Best,
s 9(2)(a)
Transport Planner
Information
Official
the
under
Released
4
