Ken Ng
From:
Strand Optimisation
Sent:
Monday, 10 February 2025 1:22 pm
To:
Karamveer Talwar
Subject:
FW: Monday 29, April 2024 - Stakeholder meeting notes
The Strand optimisation project -
engagement with PBA, Forma,
Refined Living , Cuchi, Palazzo
Kitchens, Cult + Property owners
ACT 1982
Date
Monday, 29 April 2024
Time | Venue
Forma 51-53 The Strand, Parnell, Auckland 1010, 9:30am – 11:00am
Attendees
section 9(2)(a)
INFORMATION
Howard Marshall (NZTA Waka Kotahi) [email address]
In attendance
Karamveer Talwar (NZTA Waka Kotahi) [email address]
Ritiksha Narayan (NZTA Waka Kotahi) [email address]
Chris Martin (Auckland Transport) [email address]
Apologies
section 9(2)(a)
Karamveer Talwar (NZTA), Howard Marshall (NZTA) presented on The Strand project, with Ritiksha Narayan (NZTA) and Chris
Martin (AT) in support.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Meeting opened by section 9(2)(a) who explained that they would like to know how the plan affects property owners and
businesses, the approaches been taken by NZTA and mentioned that they are not confident the proposal meets needs of
businesses.
Wants to hear process NZTA have undertaken to come up with design, the drivers and hopeful for an agreement.
Issues:
Property Owners do not wish to surrender accessways for parking
1
Do not want change in enforcement of parking on footpath which is a historical parking space for the businesses for
the past 16 years
Business owners believe there is a right to park on large footpath as long as they leave 2 meters closest to building's for
pedestrians
Believe it is safer for people to park on footpath and would seem logical to paint lines on footpath to separate footpath
and parking
o Cheaper to paint lines
o Allows deliveries
o Businesses say they manage and ensure cars are not blocking footpath diligently (Forma did not agree that all
do this)
Do not believe pedestrian crossing is needed and not practical with historic use of the footpath for parking and
receiving truck deliveries as the crossing interferes with access for trucks onto footpath.
Do not believe there are any pedestrians who would use new proposed crossing and no demand for a crossing here so
is not solving any problem and therefore not required
1982
section 9(2)(a)
questions:
How have NZTA identified location of pedestrian crossing and was the location considered with the appreciation of
ACT
parking and accessway issues?
Understands overall objective for crossing requirements but does not feel it is well justified in terms of optimisation
project.
Loading and safety not shown in the consideration of the location from the information provided.
Addressed:
Design map shared showing existing accessways, store fronts and current businesses (51 - 73 The Strand), proposed
crossing, new SVL and SUP, bus relocation location, removed and remaining parking
We are not removing or closing vehicle accessways, simply asked the question based on business owner request as we
must investigate all options. Property Owners satisfied with this.
Footpath width is wide but just because there is a historic use of parking here, does not make it legal and is not
INFORMATION
condoned. We will not be painting it to mark where pedestrians can walk as this is not safe and they have a right to
walk on whole footpath and we will not be compromising safety for anything.
No enforcement currently exists on timed parking locations along The Strand but we are working on reinstating
delegation to AT so that parking is enforced and therefore more parking opportunities exist on limited parking that
remains.
There will also be enforcement of footpath parking where it is a nuisance and blight as it continues to be illegal and
complaints have been received in the past by other road users (picture shown to all where vans and cars were blocking
OFFICIAL
footpath completely) - All were in agreeance that this is a nuisance and not ok
We are leaving the space as status quo and AT do have the right to enforce illegal behaviour as they do everywhere in
Auckland. If one business ruins it for all and a complaint is made or nuisance is seen, that does mean it is likely all will
be ticketed.
THE
We do not support the historic parking situation as it is still unsafe and we cannot allow business/property owner to
paint on the footpath as this is NZTA land.
Timing of SVL operation was advised and made clear that outside of these times the SVL will be for all general traffic
Reasons for pedestrian crossing identified:
o Halfway between existing two crossings at Augustus Terrace and Parnell Rise
o Usage at existing crossing n
UNDER ear Augustus Terrace is 1-2mins so we can see there is demand
o The crossing provides access to the trains station and relocated bus stop location
o Severance of crossing a 4 lane highway is addressed for vulnerable road users
o Crossing provides a safe connection to the proposed Shared User Path (SUP) on the northern side
o Horizontal curvature of the road and forward visibility have been carefully considered in the identification of
location
o Noted all other proposed crossings have been removed as they had too much impact on traffic
Explained strategic intent of The Strand. Major arterial route and purpose of project is efficiency of freight and high
occupancy vehicle movement, safety and resilience. AKL city centre road network is a public asset and is not designated
RELEASED
to prioritise parking. Being a major arterial highway, efficient use of space must be considered and parking is a lower
priority use of kerbside space on the Strategic Transport Network where we are delivering to a strategic modal priority
which in this case, is a special vehicle lane. We therefore will be repurposing parking on the Northern side to enable
that more beneficial use and a SUP to accommodate other road users too because we must consider all our road users.
AT's room to move strategy is doing this across the city in Auckland and will see more parking repurposed to address
congestion and space for priorities of the road moving forward.
Other:
2
section 9(2)(a)
advised
pay
section 9(2)(a)
s for parking on footpath near Snap Rentals accessway - NZTA explained not
legal and
sho
section 9(2)(a)
uld not be paying anyone for this..
Property and Business Owners asked why the pedestrian crossing cannot be located near Ngaoho Place - NZTA
explained it cannot be near curvature of the road and too close to Parnell Rise crossing.
section 9(2)(a)
asked why a pedestrian overbridge could not be considered - Others did not agree with this and
NZTA advised there is not land space or provision of this. Outside the budget and none of the businesses or property
owners want this outside their space.
ACTIONS:
Omara Property and DM Consulting to provide list of points with regards to pedestrian crossing location and why they
do not see any benefit in it
NZTA agreed next steps are to consider points and provide decision in writing - hopefully by end of week
Summary:
1982
Southern side being left as status quo..
NZTA and AT do not condone parking on footpath.
Accessways not being removed.
ACT
Pedestrian Crossing to be further investigated and decision pending.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
3
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
4
