From:
Karamveer Talwar
To:
Ritiksha Narayan; Strand Optimisation
Subject:
FW: AT / NZTA / Parnell BA / Waitemate Local Board The Strand - meeting notes V4
Date:
Friday, 9 August 2024 11:15:33 am
Attachments:
The Strand Optimization meeting 15.07.2024 minutes v4.docx
From: Alex Elton-Farr (AT)
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 5:05 PM
To: Karamveer Talwar ; Jubin Gautam (AT) ; Richard Northey (Waitemata Local Board) ;
Genevieve Sage (Waitemata Local Board) ; Howard Marshall ; s 9(2)(a)
; Alok Vashista
(AT) ; Ali Keiller ; Chris Martin (ATOC)
Subject: RE: AT / NZTA / Parnell BA / Waitemate Local Board The Strand - meeting notes V4
Hi all, please find attached a revised set of minutes to reflect the issues raised by Genevieve and
1982
the AT response to some of issues raised around project scope and drainage issues.
Best wishes,
Act
Alex
Alex Elton-Farr | Elected Member Relationship Partner
Stakeholder and Communications
Auckland Transport
Level 2
20 Viaduct Harbour, Auckland 1010
Private Bag 92250, Auckland 1142
Information
[email address] | www.at.govt.nz
M: s 9(2)(a)
Important notice: The contents of this email and any attachments may be confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you have
received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments; any use,
disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email may be those of the individual
Official
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Auckland Transport.
the
under
Released
The Strand Prioritization - Meeting Minutes Date: July 15, 2024
Attendees:
• Alex Elton-Farr (AT)
• Karamveer Talwar (NZTA)
• Jubin Gautam (AT)
• Richard Northey (Waitemata Local Board)
• Genevieve Sage (Waitemata Local Board)
• Howard Marshall (NZTA)
1982
• s 9(2)(a)
• Alok Vashista (AT)
Act
• Ali Keiller Auckland Council
• Chris Martin (AT)
Key Topics:
1. Strand Project Overview
2. Parking and Road Changes
3. Col aboration with Other Agencies
Information
4. Business Feedback on Parking Removal
5. Questions and Concerns
6. Community Feedback
7. Project Timeline and Next Steps
Official
8. Action Items
9. Drainage and Watercare
the
1. Strand Project Overview
Jubin Gautam provided an in-depth o
under verview of the Strand Project, which aligns with the city
center master plan. The project aims to create a multi-modal corridor that wil support the
efficient movement of both people and goods. The objectives include enhancing the capacity to
handle high volumes of freight and general traffic, improving safety and efficiency for all road
users, supporting high-occupancy vehicles, and considering environmental benefits by reducing
congestion and promoting sustainable transportation modes.
Released
Karamveer Talwar detailed the project's development stages, including the concept design,
detailed design, and the emphasis on efficient freight movement.
2. Parking and Road Changes
Parking Removal and Retention:
•
Removed: 32 on-street car parks (31 for the special vehicle lane, 1 on Sudbury Terrace).
•
Retained: 10 spaces in total (7 on the Strand, 3 on Shipwright Lane).
•
Formalization: 14 parking spaces on Shipwright Lane wil be formalized.
Pedestrian Crossings:
• New crossings proposed at Nichols Lane and Gladstone Road to enhance pedestrian
safety and connectivity.
• Minor changes planned for crossings at Stanley Street and the Strand.
• A crossing at the railway station entrance has been designed but is not yet constructed.
1982
Genevieve Sage
• Concerned about the crossing on Alten Road. – The response to this concern was that traffic will
Act
have to stop some way up the hil to al ow for the upgraded crossing.
• Concerns putting a crossing across Beach Road and that the trucks entering and leaving the weigh
station wil likely cause traffic flow problems.
Loading and Servicing:
• Current arrangements wil remain unchanged to avoid disrupting existing business
Information
operations.
• Feedback indicated the need for more structured and reliable loading zones, but practical
limitations prevent immediate changes.
3. Collaboration with Other Agencies
Official
Integration with Other Projects: the
• Weigh Station Project: While the Strand Project is separate from the weigh station project,
there is ongoing communication and coordination to ensure cohesive planning.
Stakeholder Involvement:
under
• AT (Auckland Transport): Ensuring the project's alignment with broader transport
strategies.
• Local Board Members: Engagement with Richard Northey and Genevieve Sage to
incorporate community perspectives.
• Port Authorities: Coordination to manage the impact on freight traffic and port operations.
Released
4. Business Feedback on Parking Removal
Business Concerns:
• Loss of parking: Local businesses expressed significant concerns about the removal of 32
on-street parking spaces, highlighting the impact on customer accessibility and business
operations.
• Loading zones: Businesses stressed the need for reliable loading zones.
Feedback Summary:
• Accessibility and operational impact were major concerns, with businesses requesting
alternative solutions or compensatory measures.
Response to Feedback:
• Ongoing efforts to balance project goals and business needs, with monitoring and
addressing complaints about il egal parking.
1982
5. Questions and Concerns
Genevieve Sage:
Act
• Pedestrian crossings: Questioned the impact of new pedestrian crossings on traffic flow,
especially concerning truck traffic from the port.
• Port trucks need to come off the inner city roads and that it is inappropriate to have large
heavy traffic going through central down town along Beach Road and Tangihua Street and
that there are Stakeholders in the area who also want the Port Traffic to be rerouted to ALL
travel along the Strand to and from the Port.
Information
Howard Marshall:
• Project coordination: Sought clarification on the relationship between the Strand Project
and the weigh station project.
Official
s 9(2)(a)
• Loading and servicing: Raised conce
the rns about the informal nature of loading and servicing
arrangements.
6. Drainage and Watercare
under
Discussion Points:
s 9(2)(a)
:
• Raised concerns about the inadequate drains, emphasizing that the current drainage
system is insufficient to handle heavy rainfal and the increased weight put on the drains
by heavy traffic.
Released
s 9(2)(a) noted the frequent flooding in the area and highlighted the need for a robust
drainage system to prevent waterlogging and associated issues.
o Howard Marshall responded by discussing the involvement of ASM and their deep
lift works. He explained that ASM has increased the maintenance cycle in the area.
The ASM Stormwater Asset Manager has confirmed that this has significantly
helped alleviate the issue during a heavy rainfal .
o Howard also clarified the maintenance responsibilities, indicating that while ASM
is responsible for the initial works, ongoing maintenance would fall under the
jurisdiction of the local council and Healthy Waters.
Genevieve Sage
• concerns about the flooding mitigation on the Strand and recommended that NZTA, AT,
Watercare and Healthy waters work closely together.
1982
• Asked if there was scope for Watercare/ Healthy Waters to be involved in the construction
and improve the flow of water through the pipes as wel as above ground –
Act
• Asked to ensure the catch pits were cleaned regularly – and highlighted my concerns
about the project needing to address the serious flooding issues in the area.
Response from Alex Elton-Farr on date 5 August 8, 2024.
I have now had discussions with Howard Marshall from NZTA and Peter Michel , ASM’s drainage
manager, which wil allow me to include some additional detail to the minutes. Unfortunately,
Information
some of your concerns can not be addressed through the scope of this project and are unable to
do so. The cost and time implications of improving the stormwater works fall outside the scope of
traffic optimization. While it would be efficient to include an upgrade to all components of
infrastructure at this location with a dig once approach – the two projects (the Strand
Optimization) and a stormwater upgrade are vastly different in terms of size and complexity with
Official
a stormwater upgrade requiring many months, if not years of disruption.
the
Auckland Transport are unable to influence the contract between ASM and the NZTA who own the
contract to clean the drainage. However, ASM have increased the frequency of the drain cleaning
in this area to ensure that the current system is working as efficiently as the current infrastructure
allows. This alteration to the scheduling of works has been done after consultation with s 9(2)(a)
under
Watercare are not involved in this project, as they do not govern the operations or maintenance of
the stormwater network. Healthy Waters who do manage this issue do not have any plans in this
location to upgrade the stormwater network in their forward works plans, while the need for
network optimization is a pressing issue that needs to be expedited due to its constraining effect
on the network.
Released
Other concerns discussed
• Concerns about flooding and the potential impact on the project were raised.
• The possibility of combined works with Watercare to address both the transportation
project and drainage improvements simultaneously was considered.
• Col aboration with Healthy Waters was emphasized to ensure that drainage
improvements align with the Strand Project to prevent future flooding issues.
Additional information – Alex Elton-Farr (Auckland Transport) has contacted Healthy Waters for
a response to the feedback from Parnell BID and The Waitematā concerning future floodwater
works at this location.
7. Community Feedback
Engagement:
1982
• Continued discussions with community members and distribution of surveys to gather
feedback.
Act
Feedback Themes:
• Safety, traffic flow, and environmental impact were key themes.
Response to Feedback:
• Plans to be modified based on feedback to minimize disruptions and enhance safety.
8. Project Timeline and Next Steps
Information
Detailed Design Completion: Expected by late 2024
Construction Start: Scheduled for late 2024 or early 2025
Duration: Estimated construction period of five months
Key Milestones:
Official
• Design Finalization: Late 2024
• Construction Commencement: Earl
the y 2025
• Project Completion: Mid-2025
9. Action Items
under
Stakeholder Engagement:
•
Continued Dialogue: Maintain regular meetings with stakeholders to address ongoing
concerns and gather feedback.
•
Feedback Incorporation: Ensure that community and business feedback is considered in
the final project plans.
Released
Plan Adjustments:
•
Modifications Based on Feedback: Make necessary adjustments to project plans to
minimize disruptions and enhance project outcomes.
•
Safety and Compliance: Ensure all legal and safety standards are met during
implementation.
Communication Strategy:
•
Updates and Information: Provide regular updates to the community and stakeholders
about project progress and any potential impacts.
•
Complaint Handling: Establish a clear process for handling complaints and concerns
from businesses and residents.
Adjournment: The meeting concluded with a commitment to addressing all concerns raised, ensuring minimal
disruption to businesses and residents, and maintaining open communication throughout the
project. Attendees expressed appreciation for the opportunity to provide input and emphasized
1982
the importance of continued col aboration.
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
