State Highway Network Resilience National Programme ...€¦ · This State Highway Network Resilience National Programme Business Case therefore seeks funding in the 2015-18 NLTP

The copyright of this document is held by the New Zealand Transport Agency. ©No reproduction of any part of this document is permitted without written permission.

State Highway Network Resilience National Programme

Business Case

Delivering State Highway Resilience

22 August 2014

Contents

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 3

PART A – THE STRATEGIC CASE .................................................................................................. 7

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 National Strategic Case on Resilience ................................................................................ 7

2 Strategic Context ...................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Transport Agency - Organisational Overview ...................................................................... 7

2.2 One Network Road Classification (ONRC), December 2013 ............................................... 8

2.3 Joint Resilience Operating Policy (July 2013) ..................................................................... 9

2.4 Lifeline organisations .......................................................................................................... 9

3 Strategic Assessment - Outlining the Need for Investment ................................................. 10

3.1 Defining the Problem ........................................................................................................ 10

3.2 The Benefits of Investment ............................................................................................... 10

3.3 The Key Performance Indicators....................................................................................... 11

3.4 Status of the Evidence Base ............................................................................................. 12

PART B – DEVELOPING THE PROGRAMME ................................................................................ 14

4 Programme Context ............................................................................................................... 14

4.1 State Highway Network National Resilience Programme Business Case (PBC) ................ 14

4.2 Resilience Overview ......................................................................................................... 14

4.3 Approach and data gathered ............................................................................................ 16

4.4 Geographical & Environmental Context ............................................................................ 16

4.5 Social Context .................................................................................................................. 17

4.6 Economic Context ............................................................................................................ 17

5 Demonstrating the Need for Investment ................................................................................ 17

5.1 Defining the problem ........................................................................................................ 17

5.2 Issues and Constraints ..................................................................................................... 17

6 Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................... 18

6.1 Consultation and communication approach during PBC development ............................... 18

7 Alternative and Option Assessment ...................................................................................... 19

8 Programme Options Development and Assessment ............................................................ 20

8.1 Programme Development and Assessment ...................................................................... 20

8.2 Assessment of the long list programme options ................................................................ 20

8.3 Prioritisation of the corridors and assessment of corridors ................................................ 22

8.4 Do-Minimum Option ......................................................................................................... 23

9 Recommended Programme ................................................................................................... 24

9.1 Programme Overview ....................................................................................................... 24

9.2 Data Limitations and further studies required .................................................................... 25

10 Recommended Programme – Assessment....................................................................... 25

10.1 Assessment Profile........................................................................................................... 25

10.2 Alignment of PBC to Strategic Case ................................................................................. 26

11 Programme Financial Case ............................................................................................... 26

11.1 Indicative cost .................................................................................................................. 26

11.2 Funding arrangements ..................................................................................................... 26

11.3 Affordability ...................................................................................................................... 26

PART C – DELIVERING & MONITORING THE PROGRAMME ...................................................... 27

12 Management Case.............................................................................................................. 27

12.1 Programme Governance and Reporting............................................................................ 27

12.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Plan ........................................................ 29

12.3 Programme Performance and Review .............................................................................. 29

Appendix A - Investment Logic Map ....................................................................................... XXXIII

Appendix B – Benefits Map ..................................................................................................... XXXIV

Appendix C – TREIS Closure Data and State Highway Alternative Routes Analysis Map .... XXXV

Appendix D – DRAFT GIS Hazards Map ................................................................................. XXXVI

Appendix E – Enhanced Network resilience Programme ..................................................... XXXVII

Northland .............................................................................................................................. XXXVII

Auckland ............................................................................................................................... XXXVII

Waikato................................................................................................................................ XXXVIII

Bay of Plenty ........................................................................................................................ XXXVIII

Taranaki................................................................................................................................. XXXIX

Manawatu-Whanganui ........................................................................................................... XXXIX

Wellington .............................................................................................................................. XXXIX

Nelson ......................................................................................................................................... XL

Marlborough................................................................................................................................. XL

Tasman........................................................................................................................................ XL

Canterbury ................................................................................................................................... XL

West Coast ................................................................................................................................. XLI

Otago .......................................................................................................................................... XLI

Southland ................................................................................................................................... XLI

Appendix F - Programme Evaluation Spreadsheet ................................................................... XLIII

Appendix G - Corridor Prioritisation Spreadsheet and Map*................................................... XLIV

*Map based on spreadsheet ...................................................................................................... XLIV

Page 3

Executive Summary

Improved resilience of the state highway network is recognised as important by:

The National Infrastructure Plan which seeks improved resilience of all keyinfrastructure

The Draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport July 2014, which seeksimprovements at critical points of the transport network

The One Network Road Classification’s proposed customer levels of service forresilience of the transport network.

The Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act requires that the state highwaynetwork be resilient.

The Transport Agency has addressed the resilience of the state highway network to someextent, it has:

Business continuity and emergency response plans in place

identified alternative routes to state highway links

an information collection and dissemination system in place to advise customer ofevents, impacts and their options

and is continuing:

its seismic retrofit programme, bridge scour and rockfall mitigation programmes

its avalanche and weather monitoring programmes

its proactive use of CMA to reduce the frequency and impact of ice formation on roadsurfaces

to implement preventive works that reduce disruption or risk to customers and staff

to build new structures to modern standard making them more resilient.

However it is readily apparent we now expect the state highway to be more resilient than weonce did as its importance to our economy has grown and past practices are insufficient,inconsistent and unsystematic nationwide i.e.

while alternative routes are planned for each state highway these are not consistentlyrecorded nor do they all have sufficient capacity to be viable alternatives withoutupgrade

there is an inconsistent process used in different regions for assessing natural risksmaking it difficult to consistently assess, compare and prioritise service gaps andpotential responses

there has been no systematic framework for recording events, or assessing infrequentrisks so current knowledge of risk tends to be dominated by the frequently occurringevents causing a dearth of reliable systematic assessment of the scope, location orrisk of infrequent events

The approach taken in this PBC assumes that resilience is concerned with any event, natural orman-made, which could disrupt our customers travel plans. Resilience improvements seek tomake the network robust enough to withstand events; ensure that alternatives routes areavailable; ensure that we are prepared to deal with events; and that after an event, delays areminimised and the state highway network is returned to normal as soon as possible.

Page 4

The definition of resilience used in the development if this Programme Business Case (PBC) istaken from the National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) which states:

‘The concept of resilience is wider than natural disasters and covers thecapacity of public, private and civic sectors to withstand disruption, absorbdisturbance, act effectively in a crisis, adapt to changing conditions, includingclimate change, and grow over time’.

Thus a broad approach to resilience has been taken which assumes that resilience is widerthan risk management, covers both man-made events as well as natural events and both lowimpact regular events as well as low probability high impact events.

A Strategic Case for the NZ Transport Agency, Highways and Network Operations (HNO) wasdeveloped late in 2013. It identified three problem areas which would result in significantbenefit when effectively addressed.

Strategic Case : Problem Strategic Case : Benefits ofaddressing the problem

Poor highway resilience may impede criticalservices from providing disaster responseand recovery support`

Better enabled disaster responseand recovery

Unreliability of some highways impactsbusinesses and undermines economicgrowth

Better support for economicgrowth

The risky environment of some roadsincreases the possibility of harm to roadusers

Reduced risk of harm to roadusers

When developing this State Highway Network National Programme business case weconsidered, or were guided by:

the Transport Agency’s resilience framework

a Transport Agency research paper on quantifying and measuring resilience

findings from a pilot rockfall and slip study on Milford Rd by GNS

bottom up identification of seismic, flooding, rockfall and slip, and snow and ice riskfrom HNO regional offices

external research into resilience, e.g. the NZ Transport Agency Research Report 378study which quantified the risk to state highways from sea level rise predicted to occuras a result of climate change

the impact of the forward improvement programme on improved resilience

the estimated gap between the current and desired resilience service levels

possible programmes of work to address this gap.

This State Highway Network Resilience National Programme Business Case therefore seeksfunding in the 2015-18 NLTP to fill these information gaps, improve practice and to establish anational consistent prioritisation framework that will be used to build a more detailed capitalimprovement programme in the 2018-2021 NLTP.

Page 5

In addition increased funding is sought for existing preventative maintenance programmesthat have already been shown to increase resilience by reducing the risk of closures andimproving safety at high risk locations because there is considerable additional benefit to behad through treating the known critical pinch points on the state highway network.

The initial activities to fill information gaps and increase preventative maintenance were splitinto the following three types of activities:

Resilience Improvements – Priority Corridors

Resilience Improvements – Spot treatments

Resilience Management and Preparedness

The recommended programme is summarised against these types of activities in the tablebelow:

Programmecomponents

Scope / Details

ResilienceImprovements –Priority Corridors

In order to get a better understanding of resilience risks, CorridorStrategic and Programme Business cases are proposed starting withPriority 1 corridors in Auckland, Wellington, Waikato and Christchurchand working through to Priority 5 corridors if justified in the longerterm. The aim of the corridor Business Cases (BCs) is to understand ingreater detail what the resilience risks and possible treatments are.These corridor Business Cases are proposed to be undertaken in NLTPperiod 2015 – 18.

The BCs will also consider other Transport Agency goals such as safetyand efficiency at the same time as resilience.

The indicative funding allocation proposed for this work is up to amaximum of $0.6m per annum.

Value for money is ensured by the business case process, which onlyproceeds to the next stage if it can be demonstrated that addressing theproblem will result in significant benefits and at a justifiable cost.

ResilienceImprovements –Spot treatments

Resilience Improvements – Spot treatments potentially includesincreased funding for existing programmes such as Scour, BridgeSeismic Retrofit and Rockfall programmes.

This activity includes enhanced preventative maintenance.

The indicative funding allocation proposed for these activities is $20.0mper annum.

Value for money will be ensured by contesting this funding nationally.Funding will only be available to treatments that can demonstrate valuefor money, for example reduced whole of life costs, and which areprioritised using existing prioritisation processes.

Page 6

ResilienceManagement andPreparedness

This activity aims to improve emergency planning, incident planning,communications, alternative route planning and Business ContinuityPlanning.


Most of the funding or this activity will come from existingadministration budgets. International research suggests that investingin preparedness is good value for money because the investment has ahigh probability of being beneficial after many types of event, be theyhigh probability low impact or low probability high impact events.

It is also proposed to carry out a pilot of the NZ Transport Agencyresilience measurement tool in partnership with Auckland university(~$0.1M)

The following table provides a summary of how the proposed investment is aligned to theproblems and benefits identified in the Strategic Case:

Strategic Case ILM Problem Strategic CaseILM Benefit

Strategic Response proposed inthis PBC

Poor highway resilience may impedecritical services from providing disasterresponse and recovery support`

Better enableddisaster responseand recovery

Investment proposed inmanagement and preparednessincluding improved incidentplanning, Emergency responseplans and Business ContinuityPlans

Unreliability of some state highwaysimpacts businesses and undermineseconomic growth

Better support foreconomic growth

Further risk information to begathered to fill gaps. ResilienceBusiness Cases are proposed forhigh priority corridors.Preventative maintenance toimprove resilience and reducewhole of life costs

The risky environment of some roadsincreases the possibility of harm to roadusers

Reduced risk ofharm to roadusers

National risk framework to bedeveloped. Spot treatments athigh risk locations.

We intend to support and prepare for these activities over 2014/15 by:

Developing a framework for consistently assessing geologic and hydrologic risks

Developing an approach to assessment of risk and response on state highway routes,and dependent communities

Developing a standard for:

o Assessing Lifelines obligations and responses

o Assessing and recording alternative routes

o Emergency response plans, including providing emergency access to isolatedcommunities

Page 7

PART A – THE STRATEGIC CASE

1 Introduction

The approach taken in this PBC assumes that resilience is concerned with any event, natural orman-made, which could disrupt our customers travel plans. Improving resilience is aboutmaking sure that: before an event the network is robust enough to withstand the event, thatalternatives routes are available, that we are prepared to deal with the event; and that after anevent, delays are minimised and the state highway network is returned to normal as soon aspossible.

This State Highway Network National Resilience Programme Business Case (PBC) follows onfrom the Strategic Case on state highway resilience that was endorsed by the VAC in December2013. The Strategic Case provided the context and the case for change to the TransportAgency’s approach to ensuring that the state highway network is resilient and delivers on itscommitments and government expectations around network resilience.

1.1 National Strategic Case on Resilience

The National Resilience Strategic Case was endorsed by the VAC in December 2013 for takingforward to a PBC and supported by the Group Manager Planning and Investment Dave Brash(Item 3.4 NLTP Review Group meeting 24th December 2013). The Strategic Case provides thecontext for addressing resilience on the state highway network. High profile events such asthe Christchurch earthquakes and the Japanese tsunami have led to an increased emphasis, ata government level and within the Transport Agency, on resilience. The Strategic Case outlinesthe need for a clear picture of the existing resilience risks to the state highway network, andestablishes an overall vision to progressively improve the resilience of the state highwaynetwork.

2 Strategic Context

Ensuring the road network is resilient, able to withstand disruption, and that the TransportAgency can act effectively in a crisis and adapt to changing conditions is a focus for theTransport Agency and government. The Transport Agency also has legal responsibilities underthe Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, under which transport is defined as alifeline utility. This National Resilience PBC positively contributes to the Transport Agency’slegal obligations and the outcomes sought by government and its partners.

2.1 Transport Agency - Organisational Overview

The Transport Agency’s role includes state highway planning and investment activities,including building and maintaining the state highway networks. The Transport Agency has anumber of priorities in carrying out this role, including improving road safety and freightefficiency. The Transport Agency Highways and Network Operations Group is the operator ofthe state highway network.

The NZ Transport Agency recognises that wider participation and collaboration with lifelineorganisations, national government, local and regional authorities, and other partners will berequired in order to develop a comprehensive picture of resilience risks and opportunities.

The Resilience Programme Business Case is consistent with resilience aspects of the followingplans, policies, strategies and statutory documents:

Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2002 (the ‘Act’)

National Infrastructure Plan (NIP), July 2011

NZ Transport Agency 2013 – 2016 Strategy

NZ Transport Agency Statement of Intent (SOI), 2012 – 2015

Joint Resilience Operating Policy and Resilience Framework (July 2013)

Draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) 2015

Page 8

The linkages between these documents and the PBC are illustrated in the followingdiagram:

2.2 One Network Road Classification (ONRC), December 2013

The ONRC consists of an integrated framework for categorising all roads and state highwaysand provisional customer levels of service. Ensuring the resilience of the land transportnetwork is one of our enduring outcomes and a medium term objective of the ONRC andproposes three elements for this objective:

- Resilient Network: Ensuring a resilient national strategic network, in which resiliencychallenges are identified, prioritised and managed.

- Resilient Relationships: Building relationships with key stakeholders and other networkproviders to understand respective whole of network risks, roles, responsibilities andopportunities.

A third objective of the ONRC will focus on how the Transport Agency, the wider transportsector and other national network providers can identify and meet our future needs andchallenges more effectively. This will be advanced with relevant partners at a later stage.

Page 9

The ONRC categorises roads based on their main function(s), such as freight, tourism,everyday travel etc. The ONRC was developed to provide a nationally consistent framework tothe management and investment in the road network. A Level of Service (LoS) is provided foreach road classification; each classification also includes its own resilience LoS. Whilst we havedeveloped clear levels of service for our strategic network, the status of alternative routes(where they are available) is less certain in terms of levels of service and investment priority.

2.3 Joint Resilience Operating Policy (July 2013)

A key objective of the NZ Transport Agency is to grow the resilience of the state highwaynetwork. In line with this objective the NZ Transport Agency in partnership with KiwiRail andTranspower developed a Joint Resilience Operating Policy which includes a Risk Identificationand Assessment Framework, Resilience Response Framework and a Measurement Framework.In addition the policy takes a broad approach to resilience and covers the NZ TransportAgency’s assets, services, systems and relationships.

The partners acknowledge that not all resilience risks can be avoided. The policy seeks toensure that risks are consistently identified, assessed, treated, monitored and reported on in atransparent and consistent manner. It sought to build on the Transport Agency’s existing RiskManagement Framework and business continuity planning process.

The policy provides a framework for identifying risks to inform a discussion about acceptablelevels of risk and resilience investment, and sets out the following four components foridentifying and addressing risks:

1. The Resilience risk identification and assessment framework: incorporates theTransport Agency’s existing risk management framework with an extension to include theconsideration of low probability/high impact events, long range change andinterdependencies.

2. The Resilience Response framework: has been jointly developed with KiwiRail andTranspower and has been approved by the Board. This framework focuses on treatingidentified risks before an event occurs, and managing consequences during and after anevent. There has been some scenario testing using the framework and the framework isbeing used to manage known network risks

3. The Resilience Measurement Framework: measurement and monitoring have yet to bedeveloped but will include network resilience levels of service and measures moregenerally applicable to a wider range of infrastructure. Network customer levels of serviceoutcomes and Key Performance Indicators are indicated in this PBC.

4. The Resilience Investment Criteria have yet to be fully developed but an investmentissues paper has been developed to discuss the current issues around investment in statehighway resilience. Resilience investment signals for the 2015-19 National Land TransportProgramme will be developed as part of the Transport Agency’s ‘Maximising Returns’strategic direction.

We expect application of this framework will provide a heightened awareness of the risks andlead to improved and more transparent investment decisions. This PBC has been developedusing this framework and supports the outcomes sought.

For further information on the operating policy please see the following link:

http://hip.nzta.govt.nz/technical-information/resilience

2.4 Lifeline organisations

The Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2002 (the ‘Act’) provides the frameworkfor planning and dealing with natural and manmade hazards. The Act defines lifelines andspecific lifeline entities in Schedule 1, Part A of the Act. The Transport Agency is defined as alifeline in the Act.

Managing network risks to the road network and customers and being prepared for shocks isa core responsibility of the Transport Agency under both the Land Transport Management Act2003 and the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002.

Page 10

3 Strategic Assessment - Outlining the Need forInvestment

As part of the development of the Strategic Case the problems, benefits and KPIs wereestablished during two facilitated investment logic mapping workshops. The workshopsidentified that a coherent approach to identifying resilience issues and treatment options isrequired in order to ensure that the NZ Transport Agency meets its duties as a lifelineprovider, reduces possible harm to road users and also supports economic growth throughensuring that the road network is reliable.

3.1 Defining the Problem

A facilitated investment logic mapping (ILM) workshop was held on 25 July 2013 with keyTransport Agency stakeholders who included representatives from HNO, P&I and SC&P. Theaim of the workshop was to gain a better understanding of current issues and business needsand identify problems in relation to resilience. Attendees identified that there has not been aconsistent approach to statutory obligations in the past and there needs to be.

The stakeholder panel identified and agreed the following key problems:

Problem one: Poor highway resilience may impede critical services from providingdisaster response and recovery support (the ability to bounce back).

Currently our response to highway incidents is mostly reactive and does not effectively andconsistently manage the root cause and likelihood and compounding consequence of adisaster. The Transport Agency has a statutory duty as a lifeline provider to maintain itsnetwork to function at the fullest possible extent during and after an emergency. This dutyimplicitly requires a pro-active approach aimed at improving the resilience of the network sothat critical services are available to support response and recovery. Not achieving this level ofservice could lead to questions over whether NZ Transport Agency is doing its best to meet itsstatutory requirements as described in the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002and accompanying regulations.

Problem two: Unreliability of some highways impacts business and undermines economicgrowth.

Journey reliability is important for road users, particularly businesses that need to haveconfidence in the network so that their choice of transport maximises their productivity. Thereliability of some highways, real or perceived, can impact on business confidence andundermine economic growth within a region. Inconsistent network reliability reduces thechoices for locating a business, reducing inter-regional competitiveness. In terms of resilience,this will be as the result of unforeseen events such as crashes or environmental events thatclose highways.

Problem three: The risky environment of some roads increases the possibility of harm toroad users.

Events such as flooding, rock falls and slips/drop outs can cause harm to road users and havean increasing risk profile as our network carries more customers. A network increasingly freefrom such events will have a corresponding reduction in the risk of harm to road users.

The Investment Logic Map is attached as Appendix A gives weightings the benefits that wouldarise from addressing the above problems.

3.2 The Benefits of Investment

The potential benefits of successfully investing to address the problems were identified as partof a second facilitated investment logic mapping workshop held on 30 August 2013. Thestakeholder panel identified and agreed the following potential benefits for the proposal:

Page 13

NZ TransportAgency TREISData(See maps inAppendix C)

Provides data onnumber and durationof closures over thepast five years. Thishas been combinedinto heat mapsshowing resiliencehot spots.

Some of the TREISdata is of poorquality. Furtherimprovements incollecting this datashould be made overtime andconsideration givento utilising publiclyavailable satellite andBluetooth data.

TREIS data isevidence that ONRCresilience LOS are notalways achieved andthat furtherinvestment inresilience iswarranted. Howeverit is based onbackward lookingactual data that doesnot cover possiblefuture events.

Bottom up riskdata fromregions

Risk data collectedfrom the regionsprovides a good startto a national pictureof risks. Howeverthere are many gapsto be filled before acapital programmecan be prioritised

Further risk dataneeded, includingtop down informationon risks fromnational riskinformation. Moredetailed risk data willbe required in thenext stage of thebusiness case toprovide evidencebase for comparisonof risk treatmentoptions.

The large number of closures recorded in the TREIS data above and the resilience risk dataprovided by the regions clearly demonstrates the significant economic impact caused by losthours to business due to closures, and the potential for a number of people to be hurt due torock fall risk. The next stage of the business case will analyse the potential impacts andbenefits from reducing risks and costs of risk treatments in more detail at a corridor level andat specific high risk locations.

Resilience has long been considered and incorporated within the Transport Agency’s activitiesthough programmes and forums, which include:

- Rock fall Programme

- Scour programme

- Bridge seismic retrofit programme

- Preventative maintenance

- Lifeline groups

The Transport Agency’s approach to resilience however is less well developed at a nationallevel in terms of the provision of a national dataset on resilience risks and an understanding ofresilience across the organisation and activities. When compared to the mature approach anddataset used in safety it is clear that future work (beyond this PBC) will be necessary in orderto develop the Transport Agency approach to addressing resilience. For example the pilotstudy by GNS of rock fall risk on the Milford Road is to be developed into a national frameworkand rolled out across the country. It is also proposed to supplement bottom up risk datareceived from NZ Transport Agency’s regions with top down risk data available fromorganisations such as GNS and NIWA.

Page 14

PART B – DEVELOPING THE PROGRAMME

4 Programme Context

This chapter briefly sets out the geographic, environmental, social and economic context ofthis PBC. The study is at a national level which means that the programme covers geographiesand communities across New Zealand.

4.1 State Highway Network National Resilience Programme Business Case (PBC)

The need for a State Highway Network National Resilience PBC was identified in the StrategicCase. The Strategic Case identified a benefits split of 45% for disaster recovery, 45% forsupporting economic growth and 10% for reduced risk of harm to road users. The NationalResilience PBC seeks to ensure the state highway network delivers on the Transport Agency’scommitments and Government expectations on transport network resilience. This ResiliencePBC specifically identifies resilience issues on the state highway network, based on a onenetwork approach, and recommends a national programme of prioritised activities.

This PBC and the recommended national programme of prioritised activities will be submittedfor inclusion in the 2015 -18 State Highway Asset Management Plan (SHAMP), which is thebasis for activities to be considered for the National Land Transport Plan (NLTP 2015 – 18).The proposals in this PBC will be prioritised for value for money against other land transportactivities through the SHAMP assessment process, and then as part of the development of theNLTP development process. Separate Business Cases are being developed at a corridor level;resilience is a core consideration for each corridor and initiatives identified in this PBC need tobe assessed alongside other issues identified for each corridor such as safety, freight(including Higher Productivity Motor Vehicles) and local community access etc.

4.2 Resilience Overview

The section firstly provides an overview of what resilience is in the context of this PBC and asummary of the meaning of terminology used within the report.

As outlined in the ‘Measuring the resilience of transport infrastructure’ research report1 thereare a variety of definitions as different disciplines have applied resilience approaches to theirwork. The definition that is considered applicable to the New Zealand transport, outlined inthe National Infrastructure Plan, is:

‘The concept of resilience is wider than natural disasters and covers thecapacity of public, private and civic sectors to withstand disruption, absorbdisturbance, act effectively in a crisis, adapt to changing conditions, includingclimate change, and grow over time’.

The table below provides details of the definitions and terminology used in this report. Theprinciples of robustness, redundancy (or alternative route) and preparedness (orresourcefulness) have been used to define particular treatments on corridors. The tableprovides a definition of each principle.

The table also shows the resilience Level of Service (LoS) for each road type which is takenfrom the Transport Agency’s draft One Network Road Classification (ONRC). Note that theseresilience levels of service are aspirational and that affordability limits mean that they will notalways be achieved and that proposed resilience treatments must meet value for moneycriteria.

1 AECOM 2013 – Measuring the resilience of transport infrastructure

Page 16

4.3 Approach and data gathered

This PBC gathered data on the risks on the state highway network via a ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ approach.

1. Top down data

GNS Science is currently working on a pilot study into rock fall safety risks along the MilfordRoad. This study will eventually establish a national framework for assessing rock fall risksusing a quantified risk analysis.

2. Bottom-up data

Data on resilience risks have been gathered from the regional offices via a GeographicalInformation System (GIS) tool. This risk data was informed by TREIS data showing actualclosures caused by different hazard types over the past 5 years as well as GIS map ofalternative routes to state highways (See Appendix C for TREIS data and alternative routesmap).

The risks provided by the regional offices included natural and man-made and also highimpact low probability risks, which was a key focus in the Joint Resilience Operating Policy.The likelihood and consequence of a risk pre and post treatment was provided by specialistsfrom the regional offices. The regions were also asked to indicate the main2 indicativetreatment in terms of robustness, preparedness or alternative routes.

Maps showing the resilience risks identified by the regional offices are provided in AppendixD. The data provided by each regional office is indicative only and the next stage of resiliencestudies will provide greater definition and information on the risks.

This ‘bottom up’ data provided the following indicative information:

- Resilience risks on the state highway network (manmade and natural, and operational aswell as high impact low probability risks).

- A recommended ‘main’ response to the risk, e.g. whether preparedness, robustness or analternative route.

- A preferred treatment and whether the treatment is already being developed, e.g. througha Road of National Significance (RoNS) project.

- An indicative cost for implementing the treatment.

- A risk rating before and after treatment.

The list of risks from the ‘bottom up’ data collection was used as part of the assessment ofthe programme options This data provides a baseline for more detailed assessment of risksand treatments along prioritised corridors in future corridor PBCs (see chapter 9).

4.4 Geographical & Environmental Context

The scope of the national resilience programme means that multiple geographies andenvironments around New Zealand may be affected by the programme. The geographic areaswhich are more likely to be affected by the programme include:

Areas of higher population including cities and towns in New Zealand. In these areas theconsequence of a resilience issue will affect a greater number of people.

Locations with roads that have a higher state highway classification. In these locations theconsequence of a resilience issues will affect a greater number of road users and is likelyto have a higher economic impact as these corridors also tend to carry higher volumes offreight traffic.

2 The main treatment will not be the only treatment, for example while the main treatment fora corridor might be to make it robust, depending on the ONRC classification and targetresilience level of service, it will still be necessary to address corridor preparedness andalternative routes.

Page 20

8 Programme Options Development and Assessment

A long list of programme options was developed in the Alternatives and Options Workshop.The preferred programme and activities was developed based on the prioritisation ofcorridors, which addressed the existing prioritised of the Transport Agency, including freightroutes, high volume road etc. In particular, this PBC has used the One Network RoadClassification to prioritise corridors.

8.1 Programme Development and Assessment

Alternatives and Options workshop

An alternatives and options workshop took place on 27 March 2014. The workshop includedrepresentatives from Highways and Operations (HNO), Planning and Investment (P&I) andStrategy Communications and Performance (SC&P).

A total of 11 programme options were developed, which are:

- Programme 1: Do minimum (RoNS and legal minimum requirements)

- Programme 2: Do maximum (all state highways)

- Programme 3: National strategic and high volume

- Programme 4: National and regional strategic

- Programme 5: Most unreliable SHs

- Programme 6: SH most at risk from disaster

- Programme 7: Freight journeys/local HPMV

- Programme 8: National critical journeys

- Programme 9: Agreed lifelines

- Programme 10: Tourist routes

- Programme 11: National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) hot spots

8.2 Assessment of the long list programme options

Following the workshop the programme options were assessed in greater detail in terms of thebenefits, risks and costs of each of the programme. The results of the assessment areprovided in Appendix F. The aim of the assessment was to establish a consistent rankingprocess.

A key outcome of the assessment of the programme options was that no programme optionwas sufficient on its own because they all ignored important aspects of the state highwaynetwork. The assessment table below highlights the limitations of each of the programmeoptions. For example only focusing on tourist routes (programme 10) would ignore some highvolume and national strategic roads which carry greater traffic volumes than tourist routes.Similarly not improving the resilience of tourist routes3 would have safety consequences. Whileincluding national- and regional-strategic corridors in a preferred programme would address asignificant amount of the state highway network, it would be unaffordable and would still notaddress other parts of the state highway network, such as primary collector corridors.

In addition it was apparent that there resilience risk and other information gathered to datewas insufficient to prioritise a capital works programme. Further information and analysisneeds to be done before this can be completed. The PBC therefore recommends that further

3 The identification of tourist routes is yet to be determined in a separate Study, and so theprecise scope of tourist routes was not looked at in detail in this PBC.

Page 23

Resilience Management and Preparedness

The corridor prioritisation process is documented in Appendix G including a map of corridorpriorities. Corridors were prioritised from Priority 1 to 5 by quantifying the number ofprogramme options to which they contributed with Priority 1 being the highest priority. Thehigher the number of programme options contributed to, the higher the priority. Thisapproach gives the highest priority to the corridors with the highest level of service targets.The business case process then establishes whether high resilience risk problems exist onthose corridors. If the next stage of the business case does not identify sufficient problemsand potential benefits then that corridor business case will not proceed and the funding willbe cascaded down to the next priority level.

It is recognised that there are limitations to this approach. Some corridors deemed to be highpriority may not have sufficient justification and some corridors deemed not to be highpriority should be. This will be addressed in the next phase as follows:

a number of Business Cases are underway for state highwaycorridors to identify all the issues specific to each Corridor.Further work will be carried out to ensure all state highwaycorridors consider Resilience and, where applicable, the BusinessCases will be developed for prioritised activities.

resilience improvements spot treatments that can be carried outanywhere on the network particularly in areas of high personalrisk. This work may include an enhance bridge scour riskreduction programme, an enhanced rock fall risk reductionprogramme and enhanced preventative maintenance

as stated above, if it is found that a high priority corridor doesnot in fact have sufficient problems or benefits from addressingthe problems to warrant further development of a business casethen funding allocated will be cascaded down to the next prioritylevel.

8.4 Do-Minimum Option

The do minimum option for this PBC is defined as the work being carried out under existingprogrammes that improves resilience, which is extensive, and includes the following:

- Existing scour, seismic retrofit and rock fall programmes. It is important to note howeverthat the preferred programme recommends increasing funding for these programmes.

- RoNS – specifically those that contribute to resilience through providing a robust oralternative route.

- Existing safety improvement programmes that contribute to resilience by reducing roadclosures due to crashes

- Existing Intelligent Transport System (ITS) programmes that improve information to roadusers and can be used to communicate to road users after a resilience event

- Existing emergency works, including maintenance programmes.

This Do Minimum option represents the minimum level of expenditure required to maintain aminimum resilience level of service. The activities in the do minimum are largely existingprogrammes and the programme options consider work that is in addition to the Do Minimum.

Page 24

9 Recommended Programme

As noted in the previous section, the assessment of alternative programmes identified thatthere is insufficient resilience risk information available to arrive at a comprehensive nationalprioritised capital programme for the 2015-18 NLTP. The recommended programme thereforeseeks to fill the information gaps and develop a prioritised capital programme for the 2018-21NLTP.

In addition the recommended programme recommends enhancements to existingmaintenance programmes such as enhanced preventative maintenance, rock fall risktreatments and scour treatments, at locations where acceleration of the programme can bejustified, as well as activities to increase preparedness.

9.1 Programme Overview

In essence the programme option assessment found that the whole network would benefitfrom improvements in resilience, not just priority corridors. Activities such as improvingpreparedness are network wide. The recommended programme therefore includes all statehighways and proposed a three pronged approach covering business case development onhigh priority corridors, spot treatments to high risk locations and increased preparednessnetwork wide. The high priority corridors for business cases are centred on the main urbancities based on both support for economic growth as well as support for emergency responseto natural disaster.

The recommended programme is outlined in the table below.

Programmecomponents

Scope / Details

ResilienceImprovements –Priority Corridors

In order to get a better understanding of resilience risks, CorridorStrategic and Programme Business Cases are proposed starting withPriority 1 corridors in Auckland, Wellington, Waikato and Christchurchand working through to Priority 5 corridors if justified in the longerterm. The aim of the corridor Business Cases (BCs) is to understand ingreater detail what the resilience risks and possible treatments are.These corridor Business Cases are proposed to be undertaken in NLTPperiod 2015 – 18.

The BCs will also consider other Transport Agency goals such as safetyand efficiency at the same time as resilience.

The indicative funding allocation proposed for this work is up to amaximum of $0.6m per annum.

Value for money ensured by the business case process which onlyproceeds to the next stage if can be demonstrated that addressing theproblem will result in significant benefits and at a justifiable cost.

ResilienceImprovements –Spot treatments

Resilience Improvements – Spot treatments potentially includesincreased funding for existing programmes such as Scour, BridgeSeismic Retrofit and Rockfall programmes.

This activity includes enhanced preventative maintenance.

The indicative funding allocation proposed for these activities is $20.0Mper annum.

Value for money will be ensured by contesting this funding nationally.Funding will only be available to treatments that can demonstrate valuefor money, for example reduced whole of life costs and which areprioritised using existing prioritisation processes.

Page 25

ResilienceManagement andPreparedness

This activity aims to improve emergency planning, incident planning,communications, alternative route planning and Business ContinuityPlanning.


Most of the funding or this activity will come from existingadministration budgets. International research suggests that investingin preparedness is good value for money because the investment has ahigh probability of being beneficial after many types of event, be theyhigh probability low impact or low probability high impact events.

It is also proposed to carry out a pilot of the NZ Transport Agencyresilience measurement tool in partnership with Auckland university(~$0.1M)

Progress on the above approach and proposed programme focus of resilience activities hasbeen noted by the Board (refer to Board paper 14/05/0817) and they invited NZ TransportAgency HNO to broaden the scope of the resilience analysis and response to incorporate widerconcepts such as network adaptation. Board members also stressed the importance of usingscenario analysis to test various response frameworks and options. We agree these issues areimportant and will be embed them into our work in the next stage.

9.2 Data Limitations and further studies required

The risk data provided by the regions is indicative only and does not provide a completepicture of the resilience risks on the state highway network. Appendix D shows risk mapsbased on data received from the regions. National maps on risks are available in documentspublished by organisations such as GNS Science and NIWA.

A comparison of the maps in appendix D with other sources demonstrates that further work isneeded to fully understand the resilience risks across the network.

Active consideration of resilience robustness at a corridor level will help to identify wheremore detailed investigation is warranted. The indicative data provided in this PBC provides auseful baseline but should be used in conjunction with the national datasets available fromorganisations such as GNS Science and NIWA.

The pilot study of rock risk in Milford Road by GNS is intended to provide a nationalframework for rock fall and geological risk assessment. Once this national framework isavailable it is proposed to roll it out nationally on high risk sections of the network. This nextphase is needed to add to and refine the risk assessment work done to date. To this end workwill be undertaken by GNS to finalise the risk assessment and prioritisation tool. The tool willthen be rolled out across the country to gain a national picture of geotechnical risk and aprioritised programme of mitigation measures to reduce rock fall and other geotechnical risks.

10 Recommended Programme – Assessment

10.1 Assessment Profile

An assessment profile using the Transport Agency’s Investment and Revenue Strategy will notapply to this State Highway Programme Business Case because it focuses on a singledimension of the overall State Highway Activity Management Plan. Once developed, theSHAMP will be assessed against the revised Investment Assessment Framework which willreflect the direction of the new Government Policy Statement on Land Transport. The NLTPAdvisory Group will consider the Programme Business Case and signal whether it endorses theprocess and general direction taken. It is noted that all state highway corridors will beassessed for resilience and, where appropriate, the Business Case approach will be applied todevelop activities further. These activities will then be assessed against the InvestmentAssessment Framework as they are further developed.

Page 26

10.2 Alignment of PBC to Strategic Case

The following table provides a summary of how the proposed investment is aligned to theproblems and benefits identified in the Strategic Case:

Strategic Case ILMProblem

Strategic CaseILM Benefit

Strategic Responseproposed in this PBC

Poor highway resiliencemay impede criticalservices from providingdisaster response andrecovery support`

Better enableddisaster responseand recovery

Investment proposed inmanagement andpreparedness includingimproved incidentplanning, Emergencyresponse plans andBusiness Continuity Plans

Unreliability of somehighways impactsbusinesses andundermines economicgrowth


Further risk informationto be gathered to fillgaps. Resilience BusinessCases proposed, startingon high priority corridors.Preventative maintenanceto improve resilience andreduce whole of life costs

The risky environmentof some roads increasesthe possibility of harmto road users

Reduced risk ofharm to roadusers

National risk frameworkto be developed. Spottreatments at high risklocations.

11 Programme Financial Case11.1 Indicative cost

Indicative costs are given as part of the SHAMP programme in Section 9.1 above. The exacttiming of Corridor Business Case development may vary to suit other activities in the corridorsuch as safety or efficiency.

11.2 Funding arrangements

Funding will be sought through the NLTP review process in the normal way.

11.3 Affordability

See above.

Page 29

12.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Plan

Resilience is part of the SHAMP and NLTP. As such a separate stakeholder and communicationsplan is not required at this stage.

12.3 Programme Performance and Review

The programme recommends further corridor business cases and spot treatments such asenhanced preventative maintenance and scour treatment which are part of the SHAMP.Performance of the programme in delivering outcomes will be monitored and reported as partof the SHAMP against the KPI’s suggested in this PBC.

The triggers for revisiting the programme would be poor performance against theseindicators. Also high risk personal safety issues could lead to the need for urgent preventativemaintenance or other actions to ensure public safety is adequately addressed.

Appendix A - Investment Logic Map

Appendix B – Benefits Map

Appendix C – TREIS Closure Data and State HighwayAlternative Routes Analysis Map

Appendix D – DRAFT GIS Hazards Map

Waikato

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments in high risk rock fall areas andslips, such as slips along SH41 at Waihi Hill, slips along SH5, SH25 and rock fall risks at Ruahihialong SH29 and along SH30. Enhanced preventative maintenance where required. Investigateseismic retrofit and alternative routes for SH2 corridor. Investigate scour protection of bridges at risk,including Mangaorongo Stream Bridge on SH3, Mohaka Bridge on SH5 and Waihohou Rock Fall onSH1. Consider alternative routes to SH30 and SH5 due to volcanic risk from Rotorua to Taupo.Enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost in flood prone areas includingKarangahake Gorge Flooding, SH1 between Taupo and Turangi, SH29, SH25 and SH2 includingUretara Stream Bridge, Waitekohe Stream Bridge and Wairoa River Bridge. Improve preparedness toweather related events including snow and ice.

Bay of Plenty

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of rock fall risk at NorthernMangorewa Gorge along SH36 and slips at Matata Straights along SH2. Investigate risk treatmentssuch as enhanced preventative maintenance in flood prone areas along SH2, including KaikokopuStream Bridge, Nukuhou Flats, Waimana Gorge, Pekatahi Bridge and Matakerepu Area. Consideralternative routes to SH2 in flood prone areas and areas Matata Straights which is prone to slips.Improve preparedness, better planning of alternative routes, a review of emergency response plans,better Business Continuity Planning and involvement in lifelines groups. Improve preparedness forseismic events and risk of liquefaction along SH33, TEL liquefaction along \

Gisborne

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Investigate seismic retrofit of structures along SH2 and SH35.Investigate risk treatments such as enhanced preventative maintenance and better slope stabilitymonitoring in areas prone to slips and weather events including SH35 to Hicks Bay, and SH2 toWaioeka Gorge, and enhanced preventative maintenance in flood prone areas along SH35 and SH2.

Hawkes Bay

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and large

scale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Investigate seismic retrofit of Tukituki (Waipukurau) RiverBridge (SH2), Ahuriri Estuary Bridge (SH2) and Nagruroro and Tutaekuri River Bridge (SH50a).Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce the whole of life cost for flood prone areasand areas prone to slips along SH2 and SH5. Improve preparedness, including preparedness foradverse weather and snow and ice along SH2. SH5 and SH38.

Taranaki

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Enhanced preventative maintenance in flood and slip proneareas including areas along SH3. Investigate spot treatments of high risk rock fall and slips on SH3.

Manawatu-Whanganui

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: investigation of spot treatment of areas at risk to rock fall suchas SH1 between Paekakiriki and Pukerua Bay. Investigate seismic retrofit of bridges along SH2 andSH1, and other seismic risks along SH1. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reducewhole of life cost for flood prone areas, which might include SH56 from Tiakitahuna to SH57.Consider alternative routes, including SH57 as an alternative route to SH56 and an alternative routeto the Manawatu Gorge. Improve preparedness to weather related events including snow and ice.

Wellington

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of areas at risk to rock fall,including SH2. Investigate bridges that may need seismic retrofitting including Thorndon Overbridge(SH1), Southern Rail Overbridge (SH2) and Helston Road Underpass Bridge (SH1). Investigateseismic risk along SH58, SH1 and SH2. Investigate scour protection of Waihenga Bridge alongSH53. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance for areas prone to slips including SH58, SH2(Petone to Ngauranga land slip and from Pakuratahi to Featherston) and SH1 (Ngauranga Gorgeslips). Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance for flood prone areas including WaihengaBridge and flooding between Petone and Ngauranga.

Nelson

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of high risk rock fall and slipprone areas along SH6, which include Whangamoa slips and slips and rock onto Atawhai cycleway.Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood prone areasalong SH6, which include Bolton’s Road, Wakamarina and Pelorus River.

Marlborough

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Investigate seismic risks and seismic retrofit of bridges alongSH1, including Wairau Bridge and Spring Creek. Investigate scour protection of Wairau Bridge alongSH1. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood proneareas including Wairau/Tuamarina along SH1. Investigate scour protection of Wairau Bridge andother bridges that may be identified.

Tasman

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of areas at risks from rock falland slips including Rocks Road. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole oflife cost for flood prone areas along SH63 and other areas identified. Consider alternative routes toSH6 in order to avoid rock fall or slips.

Canterbury

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of rock fall risk areas alongSH8, SH79 and Rakaia Gorge on SH77. Investigate seismic retrofit of bridges on SH1, SH8, andSH77, including Rakaia Gorge Bridge, Waimakariri Bridge and Waiareka Creek Bridge. Investigatescour protection of bridges at Katiki Beach on SH88, and Waitaki Bridge and near Hundalee range on

SH1. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood proneareas along SH1, SH8, SH75, SH79 and SH82. Investigate risk treatments at the Lyttelton tunnel, atAshburton River Bridge, Elephant Creek Bridge, Rangitata River Bridge and Upper Orari River Bridge.Consider alternative routes to parts of SH1, SH77 and SH82. Improve preparedness to weatherrelated events including snow and ice.

West Coast

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of areas at risk to rock fall andslips including SH73, SH7, SH6 and SH65. Investigate seismic retrofit of Albert Town Bridge on SH6,Waimakariri Bridge at Arthur Pass on SH73 and other bridges at risk. Investigate scour protection ofbridges including Albert Town Bridge (SH6) and other state highways including SH7, SH73 and SH65.Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood prone areas,including SH6, SH7, SH67, SH73 and SH67. Improve preparedness to weather related eventsincluding snow and ice.

Otago

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of areas at risk to rock fall andslips on SH93, SH88, SH85 and SH6. Investigate seismic retrofit of bridges including KawarauBridge, Waihopai River Bridge and Eyre Creek Bridge along SH6. Other roads at risk to seismicevents include S93, SH88, SH85, SH1, SH87, SH90 and SH8. Investigate enhanced preventativemaintenance to reduce whole of life cost for flood prone areas, including SH88, SH85, SH1, SH6,SH87 and SH90. Consider alternative routes to Taieri River Bridge along SH86, Waihopai RiverBridge along SH6 and SH6 where there are risks of slips. Improve preparedness to weather relatedevents including snow and ice.

Southland

NZTA is seeking to improve the ability of the network to withstand short and long term events, providealternatives routes in the event of outages and recover quickly from short term closures and largescale disasters. A description of the type of work that could potentially be considered for funding ineach region is given below. Note this does not imply funding will be approved – a business case willneed to be developed for each activity and approval sought on a case by case basis. Potential workthat could be considered initially in this region to improve the resilience of the state highway network(subject to funding approval) includes: Investigation of spot treatments of areas at risk to rock fall,including Marian Hill Rock Fall along SH95. Investigate seismic retrofit of bridges along SH95, SH96and SH99. Investigate enhanced preventative maintenance to reduce whole of life cost for floodprone areas including SH94, SH95, SH96, SH97 and SH99. Consider improvements to alternative

routes, including alternative routes to the Cromwell Stream Bridge and snow and ice along SH97.Improve preparedness to weather related events including snow and ice.

Appendix F - Programme Evaluation Spreadsheet

Programme Evaluation SpreadsheetNational Resilience Programme Business Case

Programme 1 Programme 2 Programme 3 Programme 4 Programme 8 Programme 9 Programme 10 Programme 11 Programme 12

RelativeImportance ofbenefit

What increase is achievable ifimplemented

What increase is achievable ifimplemented

What increase is achievable ifimplemented.







Better enabled disasterresponse and recovery

45%

Better event preparedness 25% 40% 80% 60% 70% 60% 55% 55% 55% 60%

Achievenment ofinfrastructure standards

20% 40% 80% 60% 70% 60% 55% 55% 55% 55%


45%

Improved public/businessconfidence in routeavailability

25% 40% 90% 70% 80% 75% 70% 70% 65% 70%

Improved availability of keyroutes

20% 40% 90% 70% 80% 75% 70% 70% 65% 70%

Reduced risk of harm toroad users

10%

Decreased occurance ofactual harm and incidents

5% 40% 70% 55% 60% 55% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Reduced risk of harm 5% 40% 70% 55% 60% 55% 50% 50% 50% 50%

40.00% 83.50% 64.00% 73.50% 66.25% 61.25% 61.25% 59.00% 62.50%

$4,000,000,000 $5,442,750,000 $4,741,500,000 $5,091,000,000 $4,266,250,000 Scope not defined Scope not defined Scope not defined $4,346,250,000$1,442,750,000 $ 741,500,000.00 $ 1,091,000,000.00 $ 266,250,000.00 $ 346,250,000.00

$2,500,000,000 $3,221,375,000 $2,870,750,000 $3,045,500,000 $2,633,125,000 $2,673,125,000

10yrs 30 years 15 years 15 years 15 years 15 years 15 years 10 years 10 years

Parts of Network might not be resilientenough.

The benefits of addressing all resiliencerisks are not justified by the very largecosts.

Non national strategic notaddressed. Freight may not be ableto get to natonal strategic

Doesn't address regional conectors plustourist destinations.

Doesn't address regional conectorsplus tourist destinations.

Do we have a set of agreedlifelines nationally? See CDEMrequirements

Doesn't address national andregional stratgeic routes

Doesn't address national and regionalstratgeic routes

Doesn't address national andregional stratgeic routes

Overly reliant on responsivemaintenance

The benefits of addressing all resiliencerisks are not justified by the very largecosts

Over emphasises stratgeic netowrkto detriment of rest of network.Sub optimal investment becauseyou are focusing on roadclassification rather than purposeof the journey.

Doesn't achieve all the benefits. Doesn'taddress total journey's. Might invest inparts that on not on ciritcal routes.

Doesn't achieve all the benefits.Doesn't address all journey's. Mightinvest in parts that on not on ciritcalroutes.

Doesn't achieve all the benefits.Doesn't address total journey's.Might invest in parts that onnot on ciritcal routes.

Doesn't achieve all the benefits.Doesn't address total journey's.Might invest in parts that on not onciritcal routes.

Doesn't achieve all the benefits.Doesn't address total journey's.

Doesn't achieve all the benefits.Doesn't address total journey's.

Reactive maintenance could be higherwhole of life cost. Potentially missingout on econmic growth in areasoutside RONs

Unaffordable High cost of addressing all mationalstratgeic roads

Very high cost of addressing all nationalstratgeic and regional strategic

High cost of addressing all nationalcritical journeys

High cost of addressing allagreed lifelines

High cost of addressing all touristroutes

Lower cost of this option which focuseson hotspots only

Lower cost of this option whichfocuses on hotspots only

Inconvenience to network users whenroad closes.

Diverting large sums would leave otherprogrammes short of funding

Risk that high level of stakeholderswill miss out

Risk local authorities might not meettheir share of the work


Risk that high level ofstakeholders will miss out


Risk that high level of stakeholders willmiss out

Risk that high level ofstakeholders will miss out

Climate change may not e catered foradequately

Robust solutions may have consentingissues

Robust solutions may haveconsenting issues







May or may not have an unacceptablelevel of risk. Safer journeys may notcover reilience issues adequately

Safety funding could be reduced ifdiverted to Resilience

Safety risks may eventuate onother road classifications e.g.rockfall fatality on SH3, SH6 Haast

Safety risks may eventuate on other roadclassifications e.g. rockfall fatality on SH3,SH6 Haast

Safety risks may eventuate on otherroad classifications e.g. rockfallfatality on SH3, SH6 Haast

Safety risks may eventuate onother road classifications e.g.rockfall fatality on SH3, SH6Haast

Safety risks may eventuate onother road classifications notcovered by Tourist routes

Safety risks may eventuate on otherroad classifications e.g. rockfall fatalityon SH3, SH6 Haast

Safety risks may eventuate onother road classifications e.g.rockfall fatality on SH3, SH6 Haast

Isolated communities may suffereconomic loss e.g. tourism

The benefits of addressing all resiliencerisks are not justified by the very largecosts

Certain industries don't rely solelyon strategic network alone. Misseskey tourist routes

Certain industries don't rely solely onstrategic network alone. Misses sometourist routes

Certain industries don't rely solelyon national critical journey's alone.Misses key tourist routes

Certain industries don't relysolely on agreed lifelines alone.Misses some tourist routes

Certain industries don't rely solelyon tourist routes

NIP hotspots only covers critical partsof network. Large parts of network leftuntrested.

NIP hotspots only covers criticalparts of network. Large parts ofnetwork left untrested.

Isolation of communities Would provide good benefits foraccessibility and social inclusion

Rest of network stakeholders leftout - no access to network

Rest of network stakeholders left out - noaccess to network


Rest of network stakeholdersleft out - no access to network


Rest of network stakeholders left out -no access to network


Sub optimum response times Best option for response time Sub optimum response times onparts of the network not treated

Sub optimum response times on parts ofthe network not treated

Sub optimum response times onparts of the network not treated

Sub optimum response timeson parts of the network nottreated


Sub optimum response times on partsof the network not treated


Stakeholder/Public

(Range)

Technical

Operational

Environmental

Financial

Risks

Safety

Benefit 3

Outcome: Network Performance & CapabilityDo Minimum

KPI

KPI

Strategic options

Cost

TimeOperational costs if significant (Range)

KPI

Investment cost (Range)

National Strategic (including highvolume)

National critical journeys Agreed lifelines Tourist Routes

KPI

KPI

High Volume

Weighted score

Economic

Accessibility & Social Inclusion

other

National Infrastructure Plan (NIP)hotspots

Do Maximum (All State Highways)

KPI

Benefit 1

Benefit 2

National and Regional Strategic(includes high volume)

6/06/2014Appendix F - FINAL PBC Evaluation spreadsheet.xlsxRevision A

Programme Evaluation SpreadsheetNational Resilience Programme Business Case

This is datum for comparing optionstherefore zero net benefits

Reduced funding for other programmes Reduced funding for otherprogrammes

Reduced funding for other programmes Reduced funding for otherprogrammes

Reduced funding for otherprogrammes




This is datum for comparing optionstherefore zero net benefits

<Insert description> <Insert description>

EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS PARTOF THE SHAMP

EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OFTHE SHAMP

EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED ASPART OF THE SHAMP

EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OFTHE SHAMP


EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSEDAS PART OF THE SHAMP


EFFICIENCY TO BE ASSESSED AS PARTOF THE SHAMP


TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THESHAMP

TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THESHAMP

TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE SHAMP TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THESHAMP

TO BE ASSESSED AS PART OFTHE SHAMP




20.10 21.58 20.47 65.73 43.32

Priority 5 3 4 1 NA NA NA 2

abcdefghij

Overall Assessment:

Recommendation:Commentary

Dis-benefit 2

Anticipated Programme BCR:

Dis-benefit 1Dis-benefits

Anticipated Programme Profile:

Ranking factor

Cost - range of total estimated expenditure (TEI). It should be sufficiently reliable to provide an order of magnitude of the programme.

1-3

Notes:

Timeframe - From funding date to delivery of benefits.

Assign what could be achieved if the programme was implemented

Recommendation - How should this investment proceed…or not?

Ranking - Considering all factors, which programmes are the preferred response to the problem.Overall Assessment - why was the preferred programme chosen? Any other assessment observations?

Target - rank as a percentage % the relative importance of the target

Dis-benefits - Negative impacts that are likely to occur as a direct consequence of implementing this programmeRisk - the most significant things that might result in the failure of this programme to deliver the expected benefits.

Cost (Operational) - impacts of operational cost should be identified (if significant) as these may substantialy differ between programmes.

Commentary

6/06/2014Appendix F - FINAL PBC Evaluation spreadsheet.xlsxRevision A

Appendix G - Corridor Prioritisation Spreadsheet and Map*

*Map based on spreadsheet

Corridor Prioritisation AssessmentNational Resilience Programme Business Case

Corridor Corridor ID

Corridor Priority (1 =Highest Score in ColumnAA)

One Network RoadClassification

Programme 1 - Dominimum

Programme 2 - Domaximum (all SHs)

Programme 3 -National

Programme 4 - Nationaland Regional

Programme 5 - Freight journeys(20% or more heavies) - NOT USEDAS ALREADY COVERED BY ROADCLASSIFICATION

Programme 6 -National criticalJourneys

Programme 7 - Lifelines(Y /N) - NOT USED ASINCOMPLETE

Programme 8 - TouristRoutes - NOT USED ASROUTES NOT DEFINED

Programme 9 - NationalInfrastructure Planhotspots - NORT USED ASLOCATION BASED NOTCORRIDOR BASED

Programme 10 - HighVolume Comments

Levin to SH 58 Intersection (SH 01N) 16 1 High Volume

1 1 1 1 1

RONs provide robust solutions

SH 2 Intersection to Wellington Airport (SH 01N) 41 1 High Volume1 1 1 1 1

SH 24 Intersection to SH 2 Intersection (SH 29) 42 1 High Volume

1 1 1 1 1

SH 58 Intersection to SH 2 Intersection (SH 01N) 52 1 High Volume1 1 1 1 1

Tokoroa to Taupo (SH 1) 64 1 High Volume1 1 1 1 1

Covered by Waikato Expressway

Upper Queen Street to Taupiri (SH 01N) 74 1 High Volume

1 1 1 1 1 Taupiri to SH2 intersection - robustnessprovided by Waikato expressway.

Greville Road to Upper Queen Street (SH 01N) 76 1 High Volume1 1 1 1 1

Brynderwyn to Greville Road Intersection (SH 01N) 81 1 High Volume

1 1 1 1 1 Greville road to Warkworth - robustnessprovide by RONs and exisitng northernMotorway.

Tirau to Tokoroa (SH 01N) 92 1 High Volume1 1 1 1 1

Intersection SH 01B to Tirau (SH 01N) 93 1 High Volume1 1 1 1 1

Covered by Waikato Expressway

Pakipaki to SH 50 Intersection (SH50A) 105 1 High Volume1 1 1 1 1

Assume already robust?

SH 73A Intersection to Timaru (SH 01S) 108 1 High Volume1 1 1 1 1

SH 1 Intersection to SH 74 Intersection (SH 73A) 136 1 High Volume1 1 1 1 1

Pokeno to Cambridge (SH1) 140 1 High Volume1 1 1 1 1

Waikato expressway RONs providerobustness

SH 1N Intersectin to SH 24 Intersection (SH 29) 156 1 High Volume1 1 1 1 1

Blenheim to Kaikoura (SH 01S) 4 2 National Strategic1 1 1 1

Hobsonville Road to Upper Queens Street (SH 16) 12 2 High Volume

1 1 1 1

Picton to Blenheim (SH 01) 30 2 National Strategic1 1 1 1

Sanson to Levin (SH 01N) 33 2 National Strategic1 1 1 1

SH 50 Intersection to Pakipaki (SH 2) 48 2 National Strategic1 1 1 1

SH50A Intersection to Port of napier (SH 50) 57 2 High Volume1 1 1 1

Taupo to Turangi (SH 1N) 60 2 National Strategic1 1 1 1

Timaru to SH 88 Intersection (SH 01) 63 2 National Strategic1 1 1 1

Turangi to SH 3 Intersection (SH 01N) 65 2 National Strategic1 1 1 1

SH 1N Intersection to Maioro Street (SH 20) 73 2 High Volume

1 1 1 1

Belfast to Lyttleton (SH 74) 80 2 National Strategic1 1 1 1

Upper Queen Street to Tamaki Drive (SH 16) 82 2 High Volume

1 1 1 1

SH 16 Intersection to Constellation Drive (SH 18) 83 2 High Volume

1 1 1 1

SH 2 Intersection to SH 29 Intersection (SH 2A) 89 2 High Volume1 1 1 1

Woodville to SH 50 Intersection (SH 02) 97 2 National Strategic1 1 1 1

20/08/2014Appendix G - FINAL Prioritised corridors V6.xlsxRevision A


Kaikoura to Rolleston (SH 01S) 119 2 National Strategic1 1 1 1

Port Marsden SH1 Intersection (SH 15A) 125 2 National Strategic1 1 1

SH 01N Intersection (North) to Greville Road 141 2 High Volume

1 1 1 1

Whangarei to Brynderwhyn Intersection (SH 01N) 161 2 National Strategic1 1 1 1

SH 58 Intersectin to SH 1 Intersection (SH 02) 50 2 National Strategic1 1 1 1

SH 1 Intersection to Port Chalmers (SH 88) 1 3 National Strategic 1 1 1

Palmerston North to SH 2 Intersection (SH 03) 29 3 Regional Strategic1 1 1

SH 2 Intersection to Te Ngae (SH 33) 40 3 Regional Strategic 1 1 1

SH 25 Intersection to SH 25 Intersection (SH 2) 43 3 Regional Strategic 1 1 1

SH 50 Intersection to SH 2 Intersection (SH 2B) 49 3 Regional Strategic1 1 1

Waihi to SH 29 Intersection (SH 02) 67 3 Regional Strategic1 1 1

Waipa to Wairakei (SH 05) 68 3 Regional Strategic1 1 1

SH 3 Intersection to SH 1 Intersection (SH 57) 95 3 National Strategic1 1 1

Wanganui to Palmerston North (SH 03) 96 3 Regional Strategic1 1 1

SH 1N Intersection to SH 25 Intersection (SH 02) 100 3 Regional Strategic1 1 1

Hawera to Wanganui (SH 03) 153 3 Regional Strategic1 1 1

New Plymouth to Hawera (SH 03) 154 3 Regional Strategic1 1 1

Clinton to Mataura (SH 93) 5 4 Arterial1 1

Dunedin to Bluff (SH 01S) 7 4 Regional Strategic1 1

Featherston to Woodville (SH 02) 9 4 Regional Strategic1 1

Frankton to Queenstown (SH 6A) 10 4 Regional Strategic1 1

Lumsden to Te Anau (SH 94) 18 4 Regional Strategic1 1

Manapouri to Milford Sound(SH 95) 20 4 Regional Strategic1 1

Nelson to Blenheim (SH 06) 23 4 Regional Strategic1 1

Otorohanga to SH 45 Intersection (SH 03) 28 4 Regional Strategic1 1

SH 01N Intersection to SH 36 Intersection (SH 05) 34 4 Regional Strategic1 1

SH 1 Intersection to Cromwell (SH 06) 35 4 Regional Strategic1 1

SH 1 Intersection to SH 2 Intersection (SH 58) 37 4 Regional Strategic1 1

SH 1 Intersection to SH 94 Intersection (SH 97) 39 4 Regional Strategic1 1

SH 58 Intersection to Featherston (SH 02) 51 4 Regional Strategic1 1

SH35 Intersection to Wairoa (SH 02) 56 4 Regional Strategic1 1

Taupo to SH 2 Intersection (SH 05) 59 4 Regional Strategic1 1

Wairoa to Napier (SH 02) 69 4 Regional Strategic1 1

SH1 Intersection to Glenbrook Road Intersection (SH 22) 77 4 Regional Strategic1 1

SH 1 Intersection to Otorohanga (SH 3) 86 4 Regional Strategic1 1

Spring Creek to SH 6 Intersection (SH 62) 103 4 Regional Strategic1 1

SH2 Intersection to SH 50A Intersection (SH 50) 104 4 Primary Collector1 1

Napier to Hastings (SH 2) 106 4 Arterial1 1

SH 74 Intersection to Darfield (SH 73) 114 4 Regional Strategic1 1

Sh 6 Intersection to SH 77 Intersection (SH 73) 115 4 Regional Strategic1 1

Kawakawa to Whangarei (SH 1N) 122 4 Regional Strategic1 1

SH 36 Intersection to Waipa (SH 05) 130 4 Regional Strategic1 1



SH73 Intersection to SH74 Intersection (SH 74A) 135 4 Arterial1 1

SH 3 Intersection to Inglewood (SH 3A) 137 4 Arterial1 1

SH30 intersection to SH5 intersection (SH 30A) 138 4 Regional Strategic1 1

Alexandra to SH 1 Intersection (SH 85) 2 5 Secondary Collector1

Allenton to SH 1 Intersection (SH 86) 3 5 Arterial1

Cromwell to Hokitika (SH 06) 6 5 Arterial1

Featherston to Martinborough (SH 53) 8 5 Primary Collector1

Kawhia to SH 3 Intersection (SH 39) 14 5 Primary Collector1

Kopu to Hikuai (SH 25A) 15 5 Arterial1

Lumsden to Gore (SH 94) 17 5 Primary Collector1

Makerua to Palmerston North (SH 56) 19 5 Arterial1

Manunui to Turangi (SH 41) 21 5 Primary Collector1

Mosgiel to Kyeburn (SH 87) 22 5 Secondary Collector1

Nelson to Collingwood (SH 06) 24 5 Primary Collector1

Omarama to Clarksville (SH 8) 25 5 Arterial1

Opotiki to SH 2 Intersection (SH 35) 26 5 Primary Collector1

Opotiki to SH 35 Intersection (SH 2) 27 5 Arterial1

Pukeuri to Omarama (SH 83) 31 5 Primary Collector1

Renwick to SH 6 Intersection (SH 63) 32 5 Secondary Collector1

SH 1 Intersection to Ohai (SH 96) 36 5 Primary Collector1

SH 1 Intersection to SH 47 Intersection (SH 46) 38 5 Arterial1

SH 29 Intersection to Awakeri (SH 02) 44 5 Arterial1

SH 29 Intersection to SH 5 Intersection (SH36) 45 5 Primary Collector1

SH 3 Intersectin to Wanganui (SH 04) 46 5 Primary Collector1

SH 30 Intersection to Opotiki (SH 02) 47 5 Arterial1

SH 6 Intersection to Clifden (SH 99) 53 5 Secondary Collector1

SH 8 Intersection to SH 1 Intersection (SH 90) 54 5 Primary Collector1

SH1 Intersection to SH 6 Intersection (SH 98) 55 5 Primary Collector1

Tarras to Luggate (SH 8A) 58 5 Arterial1

Te Kuiti to Atiamuri (SH 30) 61 5 Primary Collector1

Thames to Whitianga (SH 25) 62 5 Primary Collector1

Turangi to SH 4 Intersection (SH 47) 65 5 Arterial1

Whakamaru to SH 41 intersection SH 32) 70 5 Primary Collector1

Whitianga to Waihi (SH 25) 71 5 Primary Collector1

Atiamuri to Rotorua (SH 30) 72 5 Primary Collector1

Wellsford to Hobsonvill Road (SH 16) 75 5 Primary Collector1

Awanui to Ohaeawai Intersection (SH 01N) 78 5 Primary Collector1

Awanui to Pakaraka (SH10) 79 5 Primary Collector1

SH 3 Intersection to Waitomo Caves (SH 37) 84 5 Primary Collector1

Ngaruawahia to Tihiroa (SH39) 85 5 Arterial1

Rotorua to Whakatane (SH 30) 87 5 Primary Collector1

SH 02 Intersection to SH 30 Intersection(SH34) 88 5 Primary Collector1




Tokoroa to Whakamaru (SH 32) 91 5 Primary Collector1

Intersection SH 26 to Tirau (SH 27) 94 5 Arterial1

Thames to Tatuanui (SH 26) 98 5 Arterial1



SH 2 Intersection to Kopu (SH 25) 102 5 Arterial1

Wairoa to Waikaremoana (SH 38) 107 5 Primary Collector1

Rangitata to Fairlie (SH 79) 109 5 Arterial1

Hanmer Springs Junction to SH 1 Intersection (SH 07) 110 5 Primary Collector1

Hamner Springs Junctionto Greymouth (SH 07) 111 5 Primary Collector1

Hanmer Springs Junction to Hanmer Springs (SH 7A) 112 5 Primary Collector1

Northern Motorway to Rangiora (SH 71) 113 5 Arterial1

SH 73 Intersection to Akaroa (SH 75) 116 5 Arterial1

Darfield to SH 1 Intersection (SH 77) 117 5 Primary Collector1

SH 8 Intersection to Mount Cook (SH 80) 118 5 Primary Collector1

Richmond to SH 67 Intersection (SH 06) 120 5 Arterial1

Cape Reinga to Awanui (SH 01N) 121 5 Primary Collector1

Dargaville to Brynderwyn (SH 12) 123 5 Primary Collector1

Kawakawa to Kawakawa (SH 01N) 124 5 Primary Collector1

Ohaeawai to Kawakawa (SH 01N) 126 5 Primary Collector1

Ohaeawai Intersection to Waimamaku (SH12) 127 5 Primary Collector1

SH 12 Intersection to Whanagrei (SH 14) 128 5 Primary Collector1

SH5 Int to Murupara (SH 38) 129 5 Primary Collector1

SH 1 Intersection (Timaru) to Omarama (SH 08) 131 5 Arterial1

SH 8 Intersection to SH 6 Intersection (SH 8B) 132 5 Arterial1

SH 1 intersection to SH 83 intersection (SH 82) 133 5 Secondary Collector1

SH 6 to Wanaka (SH 84) 134 5 Arterial1

Intersection SH 01N to Intersection SH 05 (SH 28) 139 5 Primary Collector1

Greymouth to Hokitika (SH 06) 142 5 Arterial1

SH 67 Intersection to Hokitika (SH 6) 143 5 Arterial1


Mokihinui to SH 6 Intersection (SH 67) 145 5 Primary Collector1

Cape Foulwind to SH 67 Intersection (SH 67A) 146 5 Primary Collector1

SH 6 Intersection to Reefton (SH 69) 147 5 Primary Collector1

Waiouru to SH 4 Intersection (SH 49) 148 5 Arterial1

Stratford to Taumaranui (SH 43) 149 5 Secondary Collector1

SH 1N Intersectino to SH 3 Intersection (SH45) 150 5 Primary Collector1

New Plymouth to Hawera (SH 45) 151 5 Primary Collector1

SH 47 Intersection to Whakapapa (SH 48) 152 5 Primary Collector1

Hamilton to Intersection SH27 (SH26) 155 5 Arterial1

Intersection SH 01N to Cambridge (SH1B) 157 5 Primary Collector1



SH1 Intersection to SH3 Intersection (SH 21) 158 5 Arterial1

Te Uku to Hamilton (SH 23) 159 5 Primary Collector1

Waimamaku to Dargaville (SH 12) 160 5 Primary Collector1


Documents

State Highway Network Resilience National Programme ...€¦ · This State Highway Network Resilience National Programme Business Case therefore seeks funding in the 2015-18 NLTP