I hereby give notice that an extraordinary meeting of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 11 May 2021

6.00pm

Onehunga Community Centre

83 Church Street, Onehunga

 

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Maria Meredith

 

Deputy Chairperson

Chris Makoare

 

Members

Don Allan

 

 

Debbie Burrows

 

 

Nerissa Henry

 

 

Peter McGlashan

 

 

Tony Woodcock

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Tracey Freeman

Democracy Advisor

 

6 May 2021

 

Contact Telephone: 021 537 862

Email: Tracey.Freeman@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

11 May 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

4.1     Petition - Arthur Grey Low Traffic Neighbourhood Project                            5

5          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

6          Innovating Streets Project Decision Report                                                               7

 


1          Welcome

 

2          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4          Petitions

 

4.1       Petition - Arthur Grey Low Traffic Neighbourhood Project

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       The Onehunga Kotahi community team members presented a petition at the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Community Forum on Tuesday, 27 April 2021, regarding the Arthur Grey Low Traffic Neighbourhood Project in Onehunga.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The prayer of the petition is that the local residents of Onehunga are calling for an immediate halt to the current LTN pilot with all installed blockages removed, and that a proper and transparent consultation takes place before any other similar or replacement trial is approached for the area.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      receive the petition regarding the Arthur Grey Low Traffic Neighbourhood Project and thank the Onehunga Kotahi community team members for their attendance.

 

Attachments

a          The Onehunga Kotahi Community Team Members Petition......................... 91

 

 

5          Public Forum

 

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

11 May 2021

 

 

Innovating Streets Project Decision Report

File No.: CP2021/05683

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek direction from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on the continuation of the Innovating Streets pilot project. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board received approximately $522,000 from Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency’s Innovating Streets for People pilot fund to deliver two low traffic neighbourhood projects, one in Onehunga and one in Glen Innes, using temporary markings and structures to test ideas. 

3.       Stage One of the first project centered on Arthur Street, Onehunga is installed. Data from this early stage of the project shows that while technically achieving its intended results, members of the community who have been adversely impacted have expressed their concerns formally and informally so this extraordinary meeting has been scheduled. This report will provide information to support the local board’s decision-making about the project.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      endorse Option Three (B), a significant modification of the Arthur Street low traffic neighborhood’s layout to address community concerns allowing the project to continue including delivery of the Eastview low traffic neighbourhood;

b)      request an additional $300,000 from Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency’s Innovating Streets for People pilot fund to deliver the Eastview low traffic neighborhood as shown in Attachment G of this report.

 

Horopaki

Context

4.       Established by Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency in 2020, the Innovating Streets for People pilot fund is designed to help councils create more people-friendly spaces in towns and cities.  The pilot fund provides $29 million to councils and funds 90% of the cost of a project.

5.       The fund specifically supports ‘tactical urbanism’ projects that involve the use of temporary, innovative interventions in the road corridor such as planter boxes, painted layouts, pop-ups and hit sticks to test ideas before permanent changes are made.  The objective of the fund is to provide financial support so that local councils can test new ideas in communities.

6.       In mid-2020, Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board applied successfully to Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency for support to fund two low traffic neighbourhoods, one in Onehunga and one in Glen Innes.  The full application is included as Attachment A.

7.       The local board’s objectives (Para 2.1 of Attachment A), can be summarised as follows:

a)         create two low traffic neighbourhoods, one in the Maungakiekie sub-division centred on Arthur St and one in the Tamaki sub-division near Eastview Drive, both integrated with a similar project being delivered by the Tamaki Regeneration Corporation and designed to work together to test different low traffic neighbourhood models;

b)         improve safety in the area by mitigating the effects of commuter ‘rat running’. The application noted Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Area has Auckland’s fifth highest per capita exposure rate to serious injuries and 48 per cent of Deaths and Serious Injuries involving pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists. It also noted that in the application areas there were 113 crashes recorded in the previous five years;

c)         put local residents first, particularly vulnerable people such as children and the elderly, by discouraging commuter and commercial traffic through the areas, creating nicer local streets for the people that live in them;

d)         create local street environments that have less traffic encouraging people to walk, cycle or use public transport more often.

8.       Auckland’s governance is unique and although the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board leads this project, it is required to work with Auckland Transport to deliver the project. This relationship is formalised in a governance agreement (Attachment B) that was agreed by resolution of the local board in November 2020 (Resolution MT/2020/144).

9.       The Arthur Street low traffic neighbourhood was installed between 8 March 2021 and 18 March 2021, and information is being collected about its impact.

10.     The Eastview low traffic neighbourhood is designed but is not yet delivered. The Eastview low traffic neighbourhood design is included as Attachment G.

11.     The project’s original budget was $580,000 (10% provided by the local board) and expenditure to date is approximately $421,000 (this includes planning for both low traffic neighbourhoods and the physical infrastructure currently in use in Onehunga).

12.     The project currently does not have sufficient funding to deliver the Eastview low traffic neighbourhood and Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency is considering an application for an additional $300,000.  The memorandum is included as Attachment C.

13.     The local board has been receiving community feedback and data provided by Auckland Transport as the Arthur Street project has progressed. Through this report the local board will consider its options for the future of the project. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Principles

14.     The project team and its technical advisors took the following approach in analysing the data and developing advice for the local board.  The principles used were:

a)         Principle One – Provide evidential analysis: any recommendations will be based on analysis of the data as it relates to the project’s stated objectives;

b)         Principle Two – A holistic approach: analysis, advice and recommendations will take into account both low traffic neighbourhoods and any wider considerations relating to them, providing members with all of the potential implications of each option;

c)         Principal Three – Expert opinion is independent: a number of subject matter experts have provided analysis and advice to help convert the data collected into information to support decision-making. However the recommendations in this report are solely the project team’s.

 

Quantitative Information

15.     The following quantitative information is collected and analysed by Auckland Transport as per Para 1 (b) of the governance agreement. 

16.     The data was collected from the following mechanical sources. More information along with detailed locations of collection devices is included as Attachment D:

a)         tubes counts in 20 different locations inside the low traffic neighborhood and on main routes nearby such as Mount Smart Road and Arthur Street. The counts were conducted before and after installation of the low traffic neighborhood and provide data about numbers of vehicles crossing them and the speed of vehicles;

b)         data from traffic cameras mounted on local signalised intersections. This data includes numbers of vehicles moving through an intersection, how long an intersection takes to clear, and real-time observations of congestion on main routes;

c)         data collected using the GPS and cellphone locations that provides information about travel times.  

17.     Information collected from these sources shows that:

a)         five out of seven local streets within the low traffic neighborhood demonstrated lower speeds. See the table below (the columns in red are roads outside the low traffic neighborhood).

18.     A similar trend was noted for traffic volumes with five roads within the low traffic neighborhood experiencing lower traffic volumes. In general, traffic volumes have reduced within the low traffic neighborhood. See the table below (the columns in red are roads outside the low traffic neighborhood).

19.     Grey Street recorded the highest reduction of traffic within the low traffic neighborhood from 2794 to 1607 vehicles per day between Victoria Street and Spring Street, a decrease of 42 per cent.

20.     On the section between Cameron Street and Cardwell Street volumes have decreased from 3651 to 1332 vehicles per day, a 64 per cent reduction compared to pre-installation scenario. Volumes have also fallen on Cardwell, Cameron, spring, and Victoria Streets.

21.     A notable exception is Colonel Nixon Street which has seen an increase of approximately 500 vehicles per day from 137 to 604 vehicles per day, a three-fold increase.

22.     Jordan St has also seen a 33 per cent increase in traffic to 565 vehicles per day. These increases are within the capacity of local roads. 

23.     Travel time data from phones and GPS demonstrated that generally people’s travel times have not increased significantly. Travel time data gathered for key routes show that in the scenarios tested (post-installation in April 2021, pre-installation in November 2020, and a pre-COVID baseline period of November 2019), travel times have remained largely consistent. The largest variance has been recorded on two routes:

a)      To State Highway 1 from the center of the low traffic neighborhood via Church St (approximately 4.4km): Travel time has increased by approximately 5 minutes between the November 2020 and April 2021 scenario. However, compared to the pre-COVID baseline period, the increase is approximately 3 minutes.

b)      Mount Smart Rd westbound from Church St to the Royal Oak roundabout (approximately 2.6km) compared to the pre-COVID baseline period, the increase is approximately 3 minutes.   

24.     Increased volumes have been recorded on Mount Smart Rd, going from 17901 to 19307 vehicles per day (8 per cent).

25.     In general however, results from analysis of all quantitative data and site observations through drive-through indicate that travel time along the routes surveyed remains consistent with what has been localised congestion may be observed on Mount Smart Rd and Church St. However, the level of congestion is largely consistent with that which has occurred prior to the installation of the LTN, and is not considered significant.

26.     In summary the quantitative data shows effects on traffic flow that would be expected of an intervention of this nature. The objective of the project was to make travel through the Arthur Street low traffic neighborhood less attractive by either blocking routes or making movement slower, and encouraging commuters to use local arterials rather than residential roads. Therefore, from a technical perspective the project has achieved its goal. Furthermore, less traffic, moving at slower speeds is highly likely to contribute to the project’s safety objectives

Qualitative Information

27.     The Arthur Street Low Traffic Neighbourhood project was designed to be delivered in two stages over three-and-a-half months. The second stage was planned to start in early May 2021, with design changes responding to Auckland Transport traffic data and community feedback. 

28.     The local board and the Low Traffic Neighbourhood project team have received substantial community feedback on the Stage One design from a range of sources. These include:

·        A Have Your Say on-line survey

·        Stand at Onehunga Festival on 27 February 2021

·        Street interviews conducted at three different sites within the Low Traffic Neighbourhood

·        Emails to local board members and a project email address

·        A community forum held in Onehunga on 27 April 2021

29.     In addition, the community have been active on social media and have forwarded to the local board a petition with calling for the trial to be halted and all temporary road interventions to be removed.

 

Have Your Say Survey

30.     Community feedback for the Stage One design phase was collected through a public workshop on 12 December 2020 with approximately 60 local residents in attendance.

31.     An on-line Have Your Say survey was also available from early December 2020 for people to provide information about what they liked and didn’t like about their local streets and how they could be improved. 145 people contributed their thoughts on-line before the Stage 1 implementation, which also fed into the design process.

32.     Following installation of the Low Traffic Neighbourhood interventions, the Have Your Say survey was adjusted to ask people for their thoughts on the Stage one design. The information below summarises feedback from March 9 to May 3.

33.     A total of 1574 people responded to the on-line survey during this period. Of these, 74.5% (1171) did not support the trial, 21% (332) supported it and 4.5% (71) were either neutral, didn’t know or didn’t express an opinion. Early responses to the survey (over the first 3 weeks from March 9) were heavily weighted against the project (8:1 against), but over the past month have dropped to around 3:1 against.

34.     Just over half of responses were received in the first 4 weeks of the Have Your Say survey, which is continuing to gather feedback.

35.     Key themes emerging from the feedback for those that don’t support the trial are:

Key themes

Sub-themes

Congestion

·        Pushing traffic onto already busy roads (Church, Mays, Mt Smart)

·        Neighbouring streets have become busier

·        Busier around schools

·        Poor driving behaviour (from impatience, aggression, increased speed, u-turns)

·        Driving is less safe in and outside LTN

Longer travel times

·        Poor driving behaviour (from impatience, aggression, increased speed, u-turns)

·        Having to re-route travel to skirt the low traffic neighbourhood or exit from it

·        Longer trips (distance)

·        Significantly longer commute times

·        Less direct routes

·        Increasing emissions and petrol use

Inconvenience and disruption

·        Shops, schools, early childhood centres are harder to access

·        More difficult to get to Onehunga Mall

·        Disconnected from others in the LTN area

·        Now easier to shop elsewhere

·        Lack of viable, reliable, alternative public transport

·        Not always possible/convenient for people to walk or cycle, even short distances

Confusion

·        There was a lack of or poor communication/engagement

·        Low awareness of the project

·        Poor signage

·        Leading to anger and frustration

Other significant mentions

·        Don’t like the design (boxes are an eyesore, parklets)

·        Benefits only a few

·        Already a safe area

·        Alternative solutions to closing off streets

 

36.       For those that support the low traffic neighbourhood, key themes are:

Key themes

Sub-themes

Improved safety

·        Reduced traffic and slower speeds

·        Walking and cycling feels safer with fewer vehicles

·        Streets being used more for walking, running and cycling

·        Children are now moving about independently, including walking to school

More sense of community

·        More connected with neighbours

·        Getting to know people in the neighbourhood

Quieter streets

·        Neighbourhood is quieter

·        Traffic noise and loud music from cars at all hours reduced

Would like to see it made permanent and extended

·        Benefits outweigh any inconvenience

 

Street Interviews

37.     It is unclear from the Have Your Say data how many of the respondents resided within the Low Traffic Neighbourhood.

38.     However, street interviews were conducted with 109 people as they were passing through three different locations inside the area, to canvass the views of those using the spaces. The interviews took place between 7am – 11am and 2pm – 6pm on 13 April 2021 and 15 April 2021. A summary of these interviews and full comments is attached as Attachment F.

39.     Generally, people who supported the changes referred to improved safety and quieter streets, two of the key outcomes the project seeks. Many liked some elements of the project but felt improvements could be made.

40.     Highlighting that a question asking do you like or dislike the trial is too simplistic and doesn’t acknowledge the range of feelings such a trial may generate and the complication that people may like some parts of a project or its objectives without liking all of it.

41.     These nuanced concerns could be accommodated in stage two implementation or developed as part of a more permanent installation, if it is decided for this project to be progressed.

42.     Many comments reflect those of the Have Your Say survey, but also a more positive sentiment towards the project. Several residents commented that they appreciated giving feedback this way in person due to barriers for them completing online feedback, suggesting online feedback may not be truly representative of the wider community due to accessibility challenges, and highlights the need for using a range of consultation, engagement and feedback tools.

Eastview Low Traffic Neighbouhood

43.     At this time a decision needs to be made about the proposed Eastview project. 

44.     The Arthur Street project has absorbed a large proportion of the original budget and the Eastview project cannot be delivered without $300,000 of further funding from Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency.

45.     If the local board decides to stop the Arthur Street project, it needs to consider if it still wants to deliver the Eastview project. 

46.     This project (including both Eastview and Arthur Street low traffic neighborhoods) is predominantly funded by Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency.  This means that any decision related to the projects must consider their position that can be summarized as follows:

Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency is in partnership with the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board committing to fund two low traffic neighborhoods that are integrated with other projects. (See Attachment A, para 2.2) 

a)      Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency is in partnership with the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board committing to fund two low traffic neighborhoods that are integrated with other projects. (See Attachment A, para 2.2)

b)      Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency states that if the Arthur Street low traffic neighbourhood is removed without achieving its desired effect and with a strong technical argument the Eastview low traffic neighborhood would not be funded.

Options

47.    The project team has identified and considered three options that are listed below:

a)         Option One - Stop the Innovating Streets Project. This option involves immediately stopping the project. Arthur Street interventions would be removed immediately, additional funding of $300,000 from Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency for the Eastview project would not be sought and the project would be completely stopped.

b)         Option Two - Stop Arthur Street continue with Eastveiw. This option involves immediately stopping the Arthur Street project and continuing with the Eastview low traffic neighborhood. Based on advice from Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency this option requires the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board to invest approximately $300,000 of its own budget.

c)         Option Three – Continue with the Arthur Street low traffic neighborhood in a modified form. This option involves continuing with Arthur Street and making modifications for Stage Two based on community feedback.  The modifications would be significant and respond to community concerns. These are outlined in detail in Attachment E.  Additional funding of $300,000 from Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency for the Eastview low traffic neighbourhood would be requested.

Discussion of Options

48.     The project is an important project because it provides information about traffic management in the Onehunga area and more broadly about the implementation of low traffic neighborhoods. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board was one of only four local boards to receive Innovating Streets funding. 

49.     The project team considered the options in response to the data and the feedback received. In summary, the low traffic neighborhood is doing what it was designed to do - limiting traffic volume and speed and improving safety within the residential roads in the Arthur Street low traffic neighborhood. However, the project team appreciates that members of the community have been significantly impacted and attempted to address these concerns in developing options for the local board to consider.

50.     The impact of Option One removes the opportunity to deliver the Eastview low traffic neighborhood. Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency and the local board do not maximize return on investment from the funding that was provided.  The benefit of this option is that the local board demonstrates that it is listening to its community and would avoid any similar negative response if the Eastview low traffic neighborhood is delivered. By taking Option One the local board guarantees that it will not be managing a similar situation in Eastview.

51.     Option Two should be considered in light of historical evidence, stopping Arthur Street will appease the people that are concerned about the project in that area. However, the expert advice is clear that there is likely to be a similar negative initial response from the Eastview community.  Further the local board would need to identify approximately $300,000 of funding from within its budget to deliver the Eastview low traffic neighborhood. 

52.     Option Three provides a response to the community and included as Attachment E are detailed diagrams of the options considered. The options are summarized below:

a)        Option Three (A) - Move the Modal Filters: This option involves moving the modal filters that block car traffic around to improve traffic circulation. See map below. This is the option that best meets the project objectives of safer, quieter streets with lower traffic volumes and speeds. It is also the one that responds least to the concerns raised by the community. 

Map One: Option Three (A) Move Modal Filters

b)        Option Three (B) Open Grey Street. This option involves removing all barriers on Grey Street and allowing traffic to use this street to access the area. See map below.  It creates two small low traffic areas on either side of Grey Street and would address most of the concerns raised in community feedback.  It is also an option that Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency would accept and allow for delivery of Eastview low traffic neighborhood.

Map Two: Option Three (B) Opening Grey Street

c)        Option Three (C) Open Grey Street and Arthur Street. This option involves opening both Grey and Arthur Streets to through traffic. The area would no longer be a low traffic neighborhood due to shortcuts and majority of traffic returning using the streets as they did before the trial. This option not acceptable to Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency because it is no longer compliant with the objectives of the funding or providing insights on a low traffic neighborhoods model, therefore jeopardizing viability of Eastview low traffic neighborhood.

53.     Option Three (B) ‘Open Grey Street’ addresses many of the concerns raised in dialogue with the community. Although this option may not appease the most strident opponents of the low traffic neighborhood it would demonstrate that the project is about testing and adjusting ‘on the ground’. Option Three (B) ‘Open Grey Street’ allows for delivery of Eastview and application of learnings in Onehunga that should reduce negative feedback in that low traffic neighbourhood.

54.     In the project team’s assessment the key consideration is whether or not the local board is still committed to the Eastview project.  However, the advice provided is that this project is likely to be responded to in a similar manner so the local board must be prepared for that prospect. If the local board still wants to deliver Eastview then Option One can immediately be discounted.  Likewise, if the local board does not wish to deliver the Eastview project then Option One is a strong option.

55.     Option Two, is not recommended because finding approximately $300,000 with a Council budget is difficult and would require cuts elsewhere.  The current Regional Land Transport Plan does provide a small amount of capital budget for local boards to distribute but using this to deliver Eastview would require existing plans to be shelved.

56.     Option Three (B) is a compromise option allowing the local board to respond to community concerns and to deliver both projects maximizing Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency’s return on investment. The project team worked through the options outlined in Attachment E and the information provided in the qualitative studies to respond to local concerns changing the layout of the low traffic neighborhood as requested in feedback.

57.     Further it would allow delivery of the Eastview project and a map of the proposed project is included as Attachment G for the local board’s endorsement

58.     Therefore, the project team recommends Option Three (B) to the local board. 

Tamaki whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

59.     Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board is committed to reducing carbon emissions. A key aspect of this commitment is providing opportunities to make walking and cycling safer so that people can reduce their car use.

60.     This project contributes directly to Outcome 5 of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Plan that specifically discusses creating public infrastructure that is resilient to climate change.  Low traffic neighborhoods are designed to allow people to walk or cycle safely and in a pleasant environment.  This project tests options for developing future infrastructure that contributes to this local board outcome.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

61.     At this stage no impacts on other Council group members have been identified.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

62.     As previously noted this project has generated significant feedback from the Onehunga community, the majority of it from people who do not support the project.   The local board have noted this and expressed their wish to lessen or eliminate the negative impact being felt within the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

63.     Study of the options indicates that none involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, so iwi consultation is not required at this time. Projects that continue will be reviewed again and if required iwi will be consulted and any concerns or suggestions considered in planning.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

64.     The financial implications of this decision relate to the funds provided by Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency.  If the local board stops the Arthur Street low traffic neighbourhood it will not receive funding of approximately $300,000 for the Eastview low traffic neighbourhood.

65.     If the local board wishes to stop the Arthur Street low traffic neighbourhood and still deliver the Eastview low traffic neighbourhood then it will need to identify approximately $300,000 and fund this via local board budgets.

 

 

 

 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

66.     Aside from the financial implication the most significant risk related to this decision is communication with the community. The Arthur Street low traffic neighbourhood has generated significant negative sentiment in the Onehunga community. However, if the project is cancelled there will be people in both Onehunga and Eastview who will be disappointed. Any decision involves a risk of community backlash and must be mitigated.

67.     The only way to mitigate this risk is to develop a significant communications plan and to make sure that all decisions are made in as public and transparent a manner as possible. This is why the extra-ordinary meeting is scheduled in Onehunga and the following steps taken to inform the community:

a)         Auckland Council website has been updated with the additional meeting

b)         Adverts were put in the local newspaper on Wednesday 5 May and Thursday 6 May 2021.

c)         A bulk email was sent on Thursday 6 May 2021 to all the constituents who registered for the community forum last week

d)         Maungakiekie-Tāmaki social media is advertising the meeting.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

68.     After this decision is made the project team will action the local board’s decision including informing Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agency.

69.     If the local board votes to stop the project, then a debrief report will be written and provided to the local board.

70.     If the decision made is to continue in a modified form, then the project team will continue to provide a monthly update report to the local board until the project is finished at which point debrief and close out report will be provided.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Innovating Streets for People Pilot Fund Application – Maungakiekie-Tamaki Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

21

b

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki – Auckland Transport Governance Agreement

45

c

Application to Waka Kotahi for additional funding for Eastview Low Traffic Neighbourhood

49

d

Quantitative Data

63

e

Options Information

79

f

Street interviews summary

83

g

Proposed layout of the Eastview Low Traffic Neighbourhood

87

      

 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Mal Ahmu - Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

11 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

11 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

11 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

11 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

11 May 2021

 

 




Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

11 May 2021

 

 





Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

11 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

11 May 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 4.1      Attachment a    The Onehunga Kotahi Community Team Members Petition                                                             Page 91


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

11 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator