Addendum Agenda of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

27 July 2021

Innovating Streets Eastview Project Retention Decision Report

File No.: CP2021/10738

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to assist the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s decision-making regarding retention of the Eastview section of the board’s Innovating Streets pilot project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board needs to decide if it will investigate making the Eastview low traffic neighbourhood permanent. A permanent solution requires the board to use its Local Board Transport Capital Fund, which will require the board to investigate and reconsider its current plan.

3. The board may also decide not to make the Eastview low traffic neighbourhood permanent. Auckland Transport will remove the current temporary low traffic neighbourhood.

4. The project team’s recommendation is to investigate Option Two - spending approximately $350,000 of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to close the northern intersection of Eastview Road and Apirana Ave, and associated narrowing at the southern intersection of Eastview Road and Apirana Ave.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) supports investigation of Option Two, spending up to $350,000 of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to close the northern intersection of Eastview Road and Apirana Ave, and associated narrowing at the southern intersection of Eastview Road and Apirana Ave;

b) request that Auckland Transport maintain the current temporary low traffic neighbourhood in Eastview until either:

i) A permanent solution is built; or

ii) The local board completes investigation and decides not to build a permanent solution.

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.

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-Tāmaki 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 Tāmaki sub-division near Eastview Drive, both integrated with a similar project being delivered by the Tāmaki 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-Tāmaki Local Board Area has Auckland’s fifth highest per capita exposure rate to serious injuries and 48% 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. Innovating Streets projects use a range of easily installed, modified and moved traffic calming measures like boxes, lane dividers, planters and paint to create new road layouts that are safer or more pedestrian friendly. See some examples in the photo below. The overall aim is to use temporary measures to inexpensively, test and adjust road layouts ‘on the ground’ before committing large amounts of capital expenditure.

Figure 1 – Eastview Temporary Traffic Calming Measures

9. Innovating Streets projects are monitored in detail to measure their impact on communities and on vehicle behaviour. A variety of ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ methods are used to collect data:

a) Qualitative measurements can include:

i. Interviews with people in the area.

ii. Internet or paper-based surveys.

iii. Focus groups or community meetings.

b) Quantitative measurements can include:

i. Speed measurements on local roads.

ii. Traffic counts to measure changes in traffic volume.

iii. Pedestrian counts that monitor changes in patterns of foot traffic.

10. Between these measurements it is possible to understand the impacts of a project, both positive and negative. The aim being that negative impacts can be easily and quickly minimised, while positive impacts are accentuated in an iterative process. After testing a design using temporary measures it can be replaced with a permanent solution.

11. The local board established its first low traffic neighbourhood in Onehunga (centred on Arthur Street) early in March 2021. It was removed in June 2021.

12. This report is concerned with the second low traffic neighbourhood that is currently operating in the vicinity of Eastview Road, Glen Innes. See map below.

Figure 1 – Map of the Eastview Low Traffic Neighbourhood

13. The Eastview project was installed in the week of 7June 2021. After community feedback was reviewed and the original installation safety audited, the first iteration including a range of modifications was made to the design from 19 July 2021.

14. Throughout the Eastview project the local board received both community feedback and results of quantitative data. It is now considering its options for the future of the project.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. This section of the report summarises the information produced from analysis of data received to date, about the Eastview low traffic neighbourhood.

16. Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board is considering whether (or not) it supports keeping the modifications tested in Eastview and making them into permanent features of the local streets. Key considerations for the local board are:

a) Funding sources especially the transfer from operational expenditure to the use of capital expenditure.

b) Qualitative information. Do local people like the project?

c) Quantitative information. Does the project meet its road safety objectives?

Funding sources

17. Innovating Streets projects are temporary so are funded from operational budgets. Waka Kotahi – New Zealand Transport Agencies financial commitment to the budget was operational expenditure. Auckland Transport’s commitment is from operational budgets.

18. At this point the agencies that support the project, do not have operational budget, that can be committed to this project. This fact means that any decision to maintain the measures being tested must use capital budgets, a constraint of which is that capital budgets must only be used to deliver permanent structures.

19. This consideration means that the time for experimentation using operational budgets must finish and the project’s traffic control measures must either be removed or replaced by permanent ones.

Qualitative information

20. Qualitative information was gathered from a variety of sources:

a) the ‘Akl Have Your Say’ website. To date there are 37 responses;

b) an ‘Inhabit Place’ audit, to survey the sense of place for users was conducted and 46 people provided feedback;

c) community events were held at Glen Innes Primary on 13 December 2020, a bike day community event on 21 March 2021 and forum at Te Oro on 25 May 2021;

d) mini workshops (drop-in sessions) for community at the Glen Innes Library on 16 June, 19 June and 20 July 2021;

e) a Mana Whenua hui was held on 9 December 2020 where the general themes of the project were presented, and later feedback was provided during the project;

f) emails to the project page and reviews of social media.

21. Full details of the way that qualitative information was gathered and of what people said is included in Attachment B. Community response is mixed, the majority of respondents to the ‘Akl Have Your Say’ survey are negative, however there was generally more support from people interviewed in the street for the ‘Inhabit Place’ audit.

Quantitative information

22. Quantitative information was gathered from a variety of sources:

a) pedestrian surveys were conducted using cameras both before and after installing the project. Post-installation, pedestrian desire lines do appear to have changed, particularly along Eastview Road where pedestrian crossing distance has been decreased at the Eastview Road and Castledine Crescent intersection. An increase in pedestrians is also observed on Eastview Road at the closed intersection with Apirana Ave;

b) speed data was collected across the project area before and after installation of the low traffic neighbourhood. The later survey showed marginal difference in speeds in Eastview Rd, Castledine Crescent (at the Eastview Road end) and Radcliffe Rd. The greatest reductions are on Merfield Street in which a 5km/h reduction is indicated and on Castledine Cres in which and 6km/h reduction is indicated at the Apirana Ave end. A notable exception is the increase in speeds on Miniver Street from 34km/h to 40km/h;

c) traffic volume data was collected across the project area and data shows an overall reduction in traffic volumes within the Eastview low traffic neighbourhood, with the exception of Merfield Street and Miniver Street. Monitoring shows a net reduction of 105 vehicles from project area during a typical day. This is 1.5% of total vehicle volume in the area and within daily fluctuation limits.

23. Full details of the quantitative research are contained in Attachment B.

24. The conclusions that can be drawn from the quantitative data are that, in general, the project slows traffic in the area.

25. Technically, the most significant impact is closure of the northern end of Eastview Road at Apirana Ave, and the associated narrowing of the southern end of Eastview Road. This modification demonstrably improves the pedestrian environment and reduces speeds of vehicles on Apirana Ave approaching the closure.

Options

26. The project team has considered the options and advises the Maungakiekie – Tamaki Local Board consider the following options:

a) Option One – Do not make the project permanent. This option involves finishing the trial then removing the temporary measures. The cost of this option would be met by Auckland Transport.

b) Option Two – Close the northern end of Eastview Road near Apirana Ave, and narrow the associated southern end of Eastview Road – Cost is approximately $350,000. The available evidence demonstrates that this change is already having positive effects on pedestrian behavior. Technical advice confirms that this option increases local road safety by slowing traffic approaching on Apirana Ave.

c) Option Three – Deliver Option Two and retain the road narrowing near Castledine Crescent’s intersections with Eastview Road and Merfield Street – Cost is approximately $ 400,000. This option retains the benefits of Option Two and reinforces the increased safety and pedestrian use of the area around this intersection.

d) Option Four – Deliver Option Three and retain the gateway treatments on local roads – Cost is approximately $550,000. This option retains the benefits of Option Three and reinforces the increased sense of safety and place provided by local gateway treatments that help reduce volume and speeds in residential streets.

Discussion of options

27. A decision about whether this project proceeds to permanence needs to be made, following which a capital budget needs to be identified. Identification of a budget cannot be completed immediately because the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board is reviewing its Local Board Transport Capital after confirmation of the Regional Land Transport Plan in June. The board needs to review a number of existing projects and decide if they wish to fund this project.

28. At this stage Auckland Transport is requesting direction from the local board about whether the Members wish to consider a permanent solution and what the scale of that solution is likely to be; or whether at the end of the trial period the temporary traffic control devices are removed and not replaced.

29. If the board would like to investigate using its Local Board Transport Capital Fund to deliver one of the options presented in this report Auckland Transport will:

a) Maintain the current layout until it is replaced including replacing the traffic control devices with more easily maintained structures.

b) Start investigations to confirm delivery costs supporting the board with accurate estimates of cost.

c) Deliver the project. The estimated date of delivery is the second half of 2022.

30. If the local board decides that it does not wish to make any of the options presented permanent, then Auckland Transport will remove the temporary traffic control devices at its cost when the monitoring period ends.

31. The project team recommends Option Two. This is based on technical advice.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

32. 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.

33. This project contributes directly to Outcome 5 of the 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

34. 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

35. As previously noted, this project has not generated significant feedback from the community. The relatively small number of responses makes it hard to judge community sentiment.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. Although, study of the options indicates that none involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, iwi consultation did take place and their views were considered in planning.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37. The financial implications of this decision will be carried by Auckland Transport and the Maungakiekie –Tamaki Local Board.

38. If the board decides to investigate using Local Board Transport Capital Funds to make the project permanent it will have a significant impact. The options range from $ 350 -550,000 and could require the board to re-consider other projects that have previously been prioritised. Some examples of projects that may be impacted are the Jubilee Bridge or Taniwha Street projects. Auckland Transport would also be required to spend approximately $50-70,000 to maintain the temporary traffic control device until the permanent solution is delivered in late 2022.

39. A decision not to make the low traffic neighbourhood permanent limits the cost on Auckland Transport and means that the board does not have to reprioritise Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. If the local board decides not to proceed then project risk is minimal. When the study period finishes Auckland Transport will remove the temporary measures.

41. If the local board decides to investigate an option, aside from financial implications the most significant risk is communicating the plan for the area to the community. If the plan is not well understood, then the community might react negatively to the temporary traffic control devices remaining in location until mid-2022. This risk would be managed by Auckland Transport.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. After this decision is made the project team will action the local board’s decision. If the decision made is to remove the temporary traffic control devices, then Auckland Transport will remove them on completion of the study period.

43. If the local board wishes to develop a permanent solution the project will be maintained by Auckland Transport while the permanent option is designed, consulted on and delivered.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Innovating Streets for People Pilot Fund Application - Maungakiekie Tamaki Low Traffiv Neighbourhoods	13
b ⇩	Summary of Qualitative and Quantitative Data	37