Standard ITA template Standard ITA template

A standard template for preparing an ITA to ensure it is streamlined and contains all the relevant information.

Executive summary

Prepare a short synopsis of the proposal, its effects and the planned mitigation and implementation measures identified through the ITA process. The Executive Summary should be short and concise – but detailed enough to be read as a standalone section and provide a reader with enough information to be familiar with the development and the recommended outcomes without needing to read the full report.

Introduction

Outline why consent is being sought

Describe the general location of the proposal.

Provide an overview of the content of the following sections of the ITA to explain to the reader the overall framework of the document.

For plan changes and structure plans

Describe what type of zoning is proposed, the key transport matters such as the walking and cycling facilities proposed, the roading layout proposed, the type of landuse activities proposed and their intensity (eg. 750 dwellings are planned). Outline any particular transport issues that are peculiar or unique to the proposal and that the reader should be alerted to.

For site-specific proposals

Describe the site characteristics, the land use proposed and its intensity, and relevant transport matters such as the proximity to public transport, supply of on-site parking for bicycles and vehicles proposed, access arrangements and hours of operation (if known). Outline the layout of the site that is proposed.

Keep the description brief for both, bearing in mind that a fuller description will be provided in a later section under “Proposal” and that a description will also be provided in the AEE when the ITA is associated with a planning application.

Description of land use and future transport environment

Set the scene and introduce the location in more detail than in the introduction.

Provide a map identifying the existing and any future transport infrastructure surrounding or within the vicinity of the site or development area. Show any places of interest, particularly surrounding activities relevant to the development proposals which will be referred to within the body of the ITA. For example, for a residential development this would include surrounding land use activities that provide future residents with access to employment, education, retail and leisure opportunities. Provide photos and aerial photographs that are particularly helpful in familiarising the reader with the area.

Identify the features of the existing transport network, and any future changes proposed by the relevant transport agencies. Include the following items as relevant to the proposal:

existing and proposed walking routes
existing and proposed cycling routes, directly referencing the proposed Auckland Cycle Network (ACN)
existing or proposed off-road cycling routes endorsed in any Local Board greenway networks
existing and proposed bus and rail service routes and frequencies with reference to the RPTP
existing and proposed bus stops, bus lanes, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or public transport infrastructure
on street and off-street parking facilities for vehicles and bicycles
existing or proposed park and ride facilities with reference to the Parking Strategy
the roading classification of adjoining roads and those within the vicinity of the proposal
traffic volumes on main routes (which could include turning volumes, level of service (LOS) information, and comparisons between peak and inter-peak time) including pedestrian and cycle traffic
crash records
truck and service vehicle access and facilities
existing and proposed end-of-trip facilities and bike parking.

Mapping this information where possible will present a clearer picture to the reader.

Any planned upgrades arising out of any previously approved development in the area, such as upgraded intersections or new public transport, pedestrian or cycle facilities should be outlined in this section.

The proposal

Provide a full description of the proposed development, supporting infrastructure and anticipated land uses to ensure the reader fully understands the development proposal.

For plan changes and structure plans

For proposals covering a wide geographical area the ITA will need to demonstrate how the proposal integrates with and supports the future transport network surrounding the development area. With respect to the internal layout of the structure plan or plan change it should demonstrate that decisions made about the type of land use, and the intensity of land use, have been made to support the street network that is planned, that the area can be efficiently served by public transport, that the layout provides a connected network for all modes of transport, and that all transport modes have been considered in determining street widths and cross sections.

It should also demonstrate the transport function proposed for each road, for example those roads planned for public transport routes, those which will provide cycle metros or connectors, and traditional local, collector and arterial notations for general traffic.

Examples of matters that should be addressed include:

Has industrial zoning been located so that it has the most appropriate access to the state highway, Regional Freight Network or rail corridors? Consideration should be given to safety and efficiency.
Have retail and town centre zonings been centred around local roads, collector roads or proposed Frequent Network bus routes, rather than along main arterials whose function is expected to be movement of regional trips? This is to avoid immediate conflict between motorists and pedestrians (place vs. movement).
Have zonings which accommodate high trip attracting activities (eg. schools, retail, offices) been placed along existing or planned Frequent Network lines or clustered around public transport nodes such as railway stations? Similarly are such facilities located on the planned or future Auckland Cycle Network. This will achieve mode shift away from private vehicles in line with regional guidance.
Is density proposed in places where it can be efficiently served by existing or planned public transport? For example is density centred around public transport nodes or along public transport corridors, rather than dispersed throughout the development area?
What measures are being proposed to integrate the plan change or structure plan into the surrounding walking, cycling, public transport and roading networks? This will include suggested locations for new pedestrian and cyclist crossing points or intersections and extensions or footpaths or cycling facilities where necessary to connect the proposal to existing urban areas or destinations such as local shopping centres or schools.What will the roading classification within the development area be and what are the proposed cross sections or road reserve widths proposed for each road in the hierarchy¹⁰? Structure Plans and plan changes should set out the proposed traffic, bus and cycling networks within the development area and how cross sections respond to the function of each road. Control of vehicle driveways on key cycling routes is a paramount consideration.
Are the measures proposed on the perimeter of a plan change or structure plan area consistent with the vision of a Corridor Management Plan (CMP), Centre Based Transport Study (CBTS)or any other currently planned transport project that might apply in the location?
If a greenfield development, what upgrades to rural formed roads surrounding the development area are proposed? Are they consistent with ATCOP and the proposed function of the road?
What is the approach that will be taken to parking provision (for cars, motorcycles and cycling), as well as loading provision within the plan change area? Are standard Unitary Plan rates appropriate or should a more context specific approach be taken?
Is the structure of the plan change set out so that pedestrians and cyclists can safely and directly access bus stops?
Does the design of the road network and cross sections provide sufficient width for buses to move through the area and for bus stops to be provided?
If mass transit stops are proposed as part of the structure plan/plan change (eg. a train station), are there appropriate cycle parking facilities provided?
Do the cross sections provide for dedicated cycling facilities linked to the cycling hierarchy that has been identified both within and external to the development area?
How will networks within the structure plan or plan change area link into the surrounding road network and dedicated cycling/pedestrian networks to enable pedestrians and cyclists to travel along desire lines?
Are there intersections in the locality with a poor crash record?
Does the proposal resolve or not exacerbate current safety issues?

For site-specific proposals

For proposals on a single site or covering a limited geographical area, the ITA should demonstrate that the proposed intensity and type of land use is appropriate with respect to the surrounding transport network, or sufficiently mitigated so as to not reduce the resilience or function of that transport network.

The focus of the analysis should also be on how the site achieves adequate integration with the surrounding transport network and also how the proposed design within the site provides for all transport modes adequately. Matters that should be addressed include:

Is the site located adjacent to an existing or planned Frequent Network line or station?
If not, is the site within a reasonable walking distance of a Frequent Network line or station (1km)? If so, how easily can pedestrians access the site in terms of directness and the quality of pedestrian facilities along that route? What interventions are proposed?
Is the site within a reasonable cycling distance of a Frequent Network line or station (3km)? If so, how easily can cyclists access the site in terms of directness and the quality of cyclist facilities along that route? What interventions are proposed?
What impact will the proposal have on existing businesses or freight movements if residential intensification is proposed in a business zone?
Does the site locality have adequate levels of walking and cycling infrastructure?
How has the development been designed to interact with the transport network so as to facilitate pedestrian and cyclists movements, to encourage public transport use and to manage traffic congestion?
Is a travel plan proposed? If the site has an existing travel plan, how will this be amended to respond to the proposal?
What level of car parking is being provided and how is this being managed?
What level of bike parking and other end-of-trip facilities are being provided?
Is safe and functional vehicle access to the site/s provided?

Staging

If the development is proposed to occur in stages, outline those stages and the timeframes involved. More detail is often available and would be expected for site specific proposals.

A particularly important component of integration is ensuring that the staging of the development is proposed in line with the predicted completion dates for any particular infrastructure or service upgrade as published by transport agencies. Realistic development timeframe are critical to ensure that necessary infrastructure can be programmed at the right time, rather than on optimistic predictions.

Reference should be made to the current RLTP, National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) and LTP to ascertain the indicative timing of proposed transport projects. The NLTP lists activities that NZTA is likely to co-invest in as they meet its criteria and priority for funding, while the RLTP/ LTP includes additional activities that AT may proceed with based on Auckland Council funding.

Other reference sources that may be of relevance are the State Highway Asset Management Plan (SHAMP) for State highways and Auckland Transport’s Asset Management Plan (AMP). The SHAMP describes the services that the State Highway system provides now and in the future, how NZTA intends to manage the assets and how it intends to fund the work that is needed. Auckland Transport’s Asset Management Plans (AMPs) provide the framework for managing the asset portfolio in the most cost-effective and sustainable manner to meet the levels of service (LOS) required from the network. The impact of any development proposal on these LOS targets should be considered and mitigation offered where necessary.

Predict trip generation and expected mode-share

Outline the results from the ART3 zone including the proposed development, either from a relevant existing model run or from a new ART3 model run including the proposed development. These results will include predicted private vehicle and public transport trips during the peak two hour period, and where these trips originate from or are destined to (trip distribution). Consider whether the results are sensible given the location and type of development proposed or whether manual adjustments are necessary based on professional judgement.

The following should be considered in determining whether manual adjustments are required:

Industry data

In relation to determining the person trip generation characteristics of a development proposal, guidance can be taken from the following types sources:

travel to work surveys as recorded during the census (Statistics New Zealand)
the New Zealand Household Travel Survey (Ministry of Transport)
where available, actual survey data from similar land uses with similar transport characteristics
United Kingdom National Travel Survey (Department of Transport), given the many similarities between UK and NZ travel behaviour and trip-making.

ART3 provides trip estimates for generic landuse types based on the forecast regional growth pattern and planned roading and public transport networks. Standard industry sources of vehicle trip rates will still be useful in cross checking the forecast private vehicle trips from the ART model runs (and other sources). These sources include the Trips Database Bureau (TDB), RTA and ITE guidance as well as other sources noted directly above. Differences between the ART3 trip estimates and industry data should be logically explained by either the landuse or locational context.

Land use characteristics

With respect to land use the following factors may be relevant:

Will the land use be serving a local catchment or will it draw people from a wider area?
Will the land use attract single or multi-purpose trips, or will people be undertaking other activities in the vicinity, and will these be within walking distance of the development?¹¹
Are the landuses proposed ‘dependant’ on car use (for example bulky goods) or can a significant proportion travel by public transport (for example well located offices)?
Is the generic landuse type defined within the ART model broadly consistent with the proposed development? There may be factors relevant to this specific development that the ART model does not or cannot represent, and therefore manual adjustment may be appropriate.

Public transport accessibility

With respect to the trips predicted to use public transport, the following may be of relevance:

If the ART model zone is large, and the development in question is relatively closer or further away from the nearest public transport stop than that assumed for the whole zone.
Is the development proposing measures that would increase public transport use further? For example are new services proposed or upgrades to existing infrastructure? The ART3 model will be sensitive to reductions in average walking distances to public transport stops, the locations served by public transport routes and frequencies. Proposed changes to these will directly impact the predicted trips.
Are currently planned services capable of handling predicted demand? This may result in the need to transfer trips away from public transport or agreement may be reached with AT to increase planned services.

Walking and cycling accessibility

Given the particular limitations of the ART3 model with respect to predicting active modes, a qualitative assessment of the quality of the cycling and pedestrian network should be undertaken.

As a general rule pedestrians can be expected to walk within a 1km radius of their destination (this being an upper limit), while cyclists’ range can be extended to 3km¹². Questions to consider would be:

What is the state of the footpath and cycling network?
Is the network complete or piecemeal?
Are high levels of service achieved for each mode for eg. wider footpath than usual or separated facilities for cyclists?
How easy it is to cross at main crossing points?
Are any of these measures proposed within the development area or are upgrades proposed on the perimeter of the development area?

Having undertaken this assessment it may be appropriate to amend the predicted active modes share in the ART3 model either up or down. Any adjustments should be explained and agreed with the relevant transport agencies.

Accessibility of the site by private transport

Having undertaken ART3 modelling, and making adjustments where appropriate, an assessment should be made of the impact of private vehicle generation on the transport network.

Information should be provided showing the existing and future private vehicle generation of the development, including consideration of the number of people in each car. It will be necessary to consider the distribution of trips onto the wider road network in order to understand any effects on the operation of the surrounding road network. This requires an understanding of existing areas of congestion and the access arrangements to the plan change area or development site.

The accessibility of the development by private vehicles also needs to give consideration to the level of parking to be provided within the development area or site, as this will influence the number of vehicle trips generated. Consideration of private vehicle carparking and trip generation together is important. Where carparking is identified as a constraint to private vehicle travel, an assessment of how these trips will be made by other modes and any further improvements required to support this should be undertaken.

AT and the NZTA have a number of traffic models which may be of assistance. Where an appropriate traffic model is available, it is preferred that this model is used as the basis of any detailed traffic modelling. It is not desirable for there to be multiple models for a single area unless they are serving different purposes (such as different levels of detail). This can lead to unnecessary time and resource spent scrutinising new traffic models rather than focussing on the transport issues to be resolved.

All traffic models (such as SATURN, PARAMICS, SIDRA, or other accepted tools) should take into account changes in traffic demands on the wider network, as predicted by the ART model and adjusted where necessary, unless it can be demonstrated in advance that an alternative approach is more appropriate.

Person trip generation

Ultimately, it is expected that the resulting trips predicted for each travel mode should be consistent with all relevant factors, such as traffic generation rates of the expected landuse type; parking provisions; public transport routes, frequencies and capacity; and walking and cycling facilities. This information should be reported as both numbers of trips and resultant % mode share at the end of this section.

Assessment of effects

At this stage, the number of trips predicted to travel to or from the development by each travel mode and where these trips are likely to originate from or are destined for will have been established.

Using these estimates the effects of the development on the surrounding transport network should be evaluated. In addition to the traditional assessment of traffic effects on the road network, this should include consideration of the operation of the public transport system, any vehicle and pedestrian/cyclist conflicts arising from vehicle movements to and from the development, and should consider positive, as well as negative, effects.

To understand the implications on the road network it is likely that detailed traffic modelling will be required. This could include wider traffic network modelling, micro-simulation modelling of a road corridor or localised area of the road network or isolated intersection modelling, in software packages such as SATURN, PARAMICS, SIDRA, or other similarly accepted tools. Any such detailed modelling should be consistent with the regional ART model where appropriate, in terms of predicted changes in demands on the wider network and general assumptions. It is noted again that the extent of modelling analysis will depend on the size and significance of the development and its location.

Consideration of the transport effects of the proposal should include the interim years while development is occurring as well as the final build out. There may be critical stages during the development where local transport improvements or future planned improvements beyond the control of the applicant are required to support ongoing development. It is expected that these matters be investigated with detailed traffic modelling to ensure appropriate staging provisions are identified, or alternatively to demonstrate that the development is not reliant on these improvements.

In practice the above assessment will likely be an iterative process that considers further transport mitigation, or changes to the form or scale of the proposed development, in response to the level of traffic effects based on the current set of assumptions. The results reported in this section will summarise the final proposal that has been developed during that process, including the final set of assumptions, and the magnitude of effects.

Mitigation of adverse impacts/improvements to influence travel choice

Having assessed the anticipated transport effects of the development through an iterative process, the ITA should identify how effects have been avoided or remediated and where necessary what mitigation measures are required to address any impacts on the transport network. Measures may also be proposed as a positive way of increasing the number of trips made by public transport, walking and cycling.

Any mitigation must have regard to the proposed function of the adjoining roads. For example if an existing CMP exists for a corridor, it would not be acceptable to propose mitigation that undermined the strategy set out in that CMP.

Mitigation measures may be needed both within a development area or site, as well as within the transport network surrounding the development site or area.

If there are stages during the development where specific improvements are required then these should be identified. Similarly, if the full development proposal is reliant on future planned infrastructure beyond the control of the applicant then this should also be identified, along with appropriate staging provisions.

Outline which of the following mitigation measures are proposed (as relevant):

Changes that have been made to the location, use, design and intensity of land use, so that the site or development area is more supportive of the transport networks in the area.
Are new bus services proposed over and above those planned by AT?
Are different parking rates proposed to those stipulated in the Unitary Plan to encourage fewer trips by private vehicle?
Are wider and/or new footpaths or upgraded crossing points for pedestrian and cyclists at key points proposed both within and external to the development area?
End of trip cycle facilities for both visitor and staff which are secure, weather sheltered and include facilities such as lockers and changing rooms. If offered as mitigation these should exceed rates specified in the Unitary Plan.
Are dedicated cycle facilities or shared path facilities proposed?
Are bus priority measures, bus lanes or HOV lanes required?
Will public transport stops and real time signage be upgraded?
Providing for shared or remote parking and car-pooling.
Do existing intersections need to be upgraded to ensure adequate capacity (ensuring that provision is made for all travel modes)?
Do existing public roads surrounding the development area need to be upgraded to provide satisfactory LOS for pedestrians, cyclists and general traffic?
Will the development create impacts and greater operation and maintenance costs (consequential opex cost) on existing transport assets in the vicinity and should the applicant provide mitigation for such impacts?

Consultation summary & implementation plan

Scoping

Provide information on the scoping exercise undertaken with AT, the NZTA and KiwiRail and outline the changes that have been made to the proposal through that iterative process.

This section should detail the discussions that have been had with relevant agencies and the agreements that have been reached.

Implementation

One of the most important aspects of a complete ITA is outlining how necessary infrastructure upgrades or mitigation will be implemented in a sequence that aligns with the staging of the development.

Where mitigation projects are identified, the following type of information should be provided in the ITA:

The mitigation measure
The timing or sequencing of this measure
Whether this measure is currently included in the LTP or RLTP
Estimated cost.

This information should be shown in a table, such as this:

Mitigation measure	Required by	Estimated cost	LTP/RLTP status
Upgrade existing roundabout to traffic signals	2015	$750,000	Listed in RLTP in 2015
New pedestrian crossing facilities at two locations	2018	$50,000	Unfunded
New bus lane	2020	$1,000,000	Unfunded

An important area that must be considered in any ITA is what staging is planned to ensure any infrastructure upgrades or other measures proposed in the ITA are in place prior to development occurring.

Appropriate trigger points should be identified, and this section should record how these triggers have been captured in rules of the plan change, or conditions on any notice of requirement or resource consent application. These will be further considered and assessed by the planner in the AEE supporting the application.

It is recommended that the above information is also demonstrated on a map so that the spatial sequencing of all measures can be easily understood.

Consistency with relevant transport strategies

The main focus of this section should be on how the proposal will fit with specific transport policies and strategies, including the existing and future transport networks when considered together as one system.

It is considered that this assessment can be undertaken by the transport expert and then used to appropriately inform the AEE. Provide a short statement referring to wider planning strategies such as the Auckland Plan or the RPS to outline the strategic direction sought for land use and transport in the relevant part of the Auckland Region to which the proposal relates. This should remain brief recognising that this analysis will be available in the AEE prepared for the development. Where the ITA is a standalone document prepared for “information only” this section should be expanded upon.

It should outline the relevant objectives and policies of AT’s strategic plans and how these are of relevance to, and met by the development proposal. The key strategies and documents at present include:

The Integrated Transport Programme
The Regional Public Transport Plan
The Regional Freight Network
The Auckland Cycle Network
The Regional Arterial Road Plan (Roading Hierarchy and Function¹³)
The Ferry Development Plan;
Corridor Management Plans; and
Centre Based Transport Studies
Comprehensive Parking Management Plans
AT’s Asset Management Plan.

If there are implications for the State Highway or rail network, reference should also be made to relevant NZTA and Kiwirail strategies.

In undertaking this assessment, the practitioner needs to consider the alignment of the development proposals with the direction of key transport policy / strategy and future network considerations for the Auckland Region.

A summary of the key transport policies / strategies and future network integration assessment should be provided with any further detailed assessment included in an appendix to the ITA.

It is suggested that in the summary, the practitioner will provide opinion on the alignment of the development proposal (for example, in a range from very low to very high) with the key transport policy / strategy and network integration considerations. In reviewing the overall level of compliance across all these considerations, the practitioner will be able to form a view on appropriateness of the development proposals in a land use / transport planning context and whether sufficient consideration has been given to all modes of transport.

Given the iterative process in developing ITAs it is expected that this summary will justify the proposal that is being reported, on the basis that any major issues will have already been identified earlier.

Conclusion

This section should summarise the development, the assessment that has been undertaken and any changes or mitigation that are recommended to ensure an acceptable outcome from a transportation perspective. It should describe:

The nature of the land use proposed, the overall structure plan for the area (where appropriate), and how the development has been designed to integrate with existing and future transport networks.
The modal shares being targeted by the development and the measures that will be implemented to meet those targets.
Any mitigation measures that are proposed, the implementation and sequencing of these mitigation measures, and estimated costs (where appropriate).
How the mitigation measures proposed in the ITA have been captured in the layout and the rules of a structure plan or plan change, or the conditions of a notice of requirement or ‘out of zone’ resource consent. In particular, the monitoring or staging triggers that have been inserted to ensure that mitigation is actually provided.
A conclusion relating to whether the development proposal is supported by the practitioner in the context of the assessment and associated mitigation measures identified within the ITA.

¹⁰ Reference should be made to the Auckland Transport Code of Practice minimum standards
¹¹ This should generally be no more than 400m
¹² An average based on ARTA Pedestrian Studies (2010), the New Zealand Travel Survey 1997/1998 and the Economic Evaluation Manual
¹³ This plan is supported by technical documents (eg. deficiency analysis) which should also be referred to.