Before a Board of Inquiry MacKays to Expressway Proposal

under: the Resource Management Act 1991

in the matter of: Notice of requirement for designation and resource consent applications by the NZ Transport Agency for the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway Proposal

applicant: NZ Transport Agency Requiring Authority

Statement of evidence of Timothy [Tim] Martin Kelly (Transportation) for the Airport Holdings Limited

Dated: 5 October 2012

1

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF TIMOTHY [TIM] MARTIN KELLY FOR THE HOLDINGS LIMITED

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1 My full name is Timothy [Tim] Martin Kelly.

2 I hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geography, and a Master of Science degree in Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning, both from the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. I am a member of the Institute of Professional Engineers (IPENZ) Transportation Group, and the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport.

3 I have over 27 years experience in the transportation planning area, initially in the United Kingdom but for the last 16 years in New Zealand. Since 2000 I have operated my own consultancy business, providing advice on transportation matters to a variety of clients in the public and private sectors. Some of the more significant projects of relevance to the content of this evidence include:

3.1 Transmission Gully (specification and application of transportation models, preparation of transportation impact assessment, evidence to Board of Inquiry);

3.2 (now Kapiti) Airport Plan Change 73 (transportation and traffic assessments of large-scale development, for Paraparaumu Airport Limited);

3.3 Kapiti Western Link Road (transportation assessments of previously proposed roading project, for Council);

3.4 Porirua Transportation Strategy (development of a multi- modal strategy for the district, for Porirua City Council);

3.5 Inner City Bypass (transportation assessments, for Transit New Zealand); and

3.6 Numerous peer reviews of strategic transportation projects (including the Mount Victoria – Cobham Drive upgrade, the Basin Reserve upgrade and the Taupo Eastern Arterial Road, mostly for the NZ Transport Agency).

4 My evidence is in relation to a Notice of Requirement (NoR) and application for resource consent lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) by the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) on 20 April 2012 in relation to the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway Proposal (Proposal).

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 2

5 Having previously lived in Plimmerton for 13 years, I am very familiar with the Kapiti district and the State highway and local roading networks in the vicinity of the proposed Expressway.

6 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses as contained in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note (2011), and I agree to comply with it as if this Inquiry were before the Environment Court. My qualifications as an expert are set out above. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

7 My evidence will deal with the following:

7.1 Background and role;

7.2 General support for the Proposal;

7.3 Process;

7.4 Network Connectivity Issues;

7.5 Modelling Methodology & Results;

7.6 Ihakara Street Extension;

7.7 Growth Assumptions;

7.8 Sensitivity Testing;

7.9 Proposed Conditions; and

7.10 Conclusions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

8 General support for the Expressway proposal is tempered by concerns relating to the limited connectivity proposed and the potential for traffic congestion in the vicinity of the Kapiti Road interchange.

9 The application documentation provides only a partial reporting of results from the transportation assessment and a number of concerns are expressed in relation to the validity of the assessments.

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 3

10 With large volumes of Expressway traffic having a local origin and/or destination, the limited connectivity proposed between the Expressway and the local road network is likely to result in high levels of traffic demand in the vicinity of the access points. The resulting implications for the performance of the local road network have not been fully reported.

11 The assessment has assumed a rate of development uptake for the Airport area which is unrealistically low and has no evidential basis. Assessments undertaken for the Airport indicate that the rate of uptake originally envisaged at the time of the plan change application remains realistic. Accordingly, the future traffic demands upon which the assessments are based are significantly understated.

12 Sensitivity tests have been undertaken, but at a superficial level and have not been subject to thorough interpretation. The inclusion in the Proposal of connectivity at Ihakara Street would offer potential benefits in terms of the operation of the local road network and accessibility to the Airport area which have been largely overlooked. Such connectivity would complement, rather than be contrary to the wider objectives of the Proposal.

13 As a consequence there is a real prospect of congestion on local roads, especially Kapiti Road, with a potential for serious adverse effects not only upon the local road network but also the accessibility upon which the Airport development depends.

14 Proposed conditions are too vague to adequately address these effects.

15 Such effects would run contrary to the wider objectives of the RoNs programme to encourage economic development and activity.

BACKGROUND AND ROLE

16 I was engaged by the Paraparaumu Airport Limited (PAL) in 2006 to undertake transportation assessments associated with private plan change 73 (PC73) to the Kapiti Coast District Plan (KCDP).

17 This work involved the commissioning of extensive modelling of the traffic effects of the large-scale development enabled by the plan change, to assess its effects upon the operation of road network.

18 These assessments took account of the Western Link Road (WLR) proposal and carefully identified thresholds of development which sought to ensure that the level of traffic generation associated with the Airport area would not exceed the ability of the road network to accommodate it.

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 4

19 PC73 was subsequently approved, but appealed to the Environment Court. The traffic issues were again challenged on appeal, but resolved. PC73 is now operative and forms Section D9 of the KCDP.

20 In December 2009, the NZTA announced that the WLR was to be dropped in favour of the MacKays to Peka Peka (M2PP) expressway proposal. Since this announcement, I have been engaged by Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Limited (KCAHL) to advise it on the possible implications of the Proposal, primarily in terms of accessibility to and from its development area. Subsequent to the lodgement of applications for a NoR and consents in April 2012, I have assisted KCAHL with a more detailed review of the application material, submissions and evidence.

21 As part of my assessments, I have reviewed the relevant parts of the application material and evidence, especially:

21.1 Assessment of Environmental Effects Report (March 2012);

21.2 Technical Report 5: Urban and Landscape Design Framework (March 2012);

21.3 Technical Report 32: Assessment of Transport Effects (February 2012);

21.4 Technical Report 34: Traffic Modelling Report (March 2012); and

21.5 Evidence of Andrew Murray (September 2012).

22 I have also attended a number of meetings with the Alliance team prior to the lodgement of the application in which the details and timing of the Airport development were described.

GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL

23 My view, and that of KCAHL, is one of general support for the Expressway proposal. Together with the other Roads of National Significance (RoNs), it will significantly improve the accessibility of the district and will provide much-needed certainty around the future form of the state highway.

24 This support is tempered by concerns regarding the potential effects of the Expressway upon the accessibility of the Airport, not only in terms of the immediate traffic conditions on Kapiti Road but also the lack of any provision for a direct connection to the extension of Ihakara Street.

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 5

PROCESS

25 Since the announcement regarding the Expressway, KCAHL has sought to engage with the Alliance team to discuss and resolve its concerns.

26 Subsequent to the lodgement of the application, the Alliance team has referred KCAHL to the available application material, which does not provide all of the information necessary for a holistic assessment of the potential effects of the Expressway proposal.

27 Accordingly it has been necessary to seek this information through the process of evidence preparation and witness caucusing.

NETWORK CONNECTIVITY

28 Evident from the assessments undertaken by the Alliance is that a high proportion (75%)1 of traffic using the existing State Highway 1 (SH1) has an origin and/or a destination in-between the ends of the proposed Expressway.

29 One of the principal differences of the Expressway when compared to the previous WLR proposal is the philosophy around connectivity to the local road network. The six access points originally proposed for the WLR (Poplar Ave, Ihakara St, Kapiti Rd, Rd, Te Moana Rd, Peka Peka Rd) have been reduced to four by the dropping of connections at Ihakara St and Otaihanga Rd.

30 A consequence of this change is that the considerable volume of local traffic wishing to access and leave the Expressway leads to increased traffic demands on the local road network in the vicinity of the remaining access points.

31 Potential congestion around these points would not only be detrimental to the operation of the local road network, but could cause a diversion of trips to other routes with impacts elsewhere. Further, such congestion has the potential to offset some of the benefits of the Expressway itself, if the time savings provided by the use of the new route are negated by congestion around the access points.

32 This issue is of particular relevance in the vicinity of the proposed Kapiti Road interchange. In my view, there is a strong likelihood of congestion along the section of Kapiti Road between the Te Roto / Milne Drive intersection and the Expressway (the reasons for which I will describe).

33 With Kapiti Road being the primary east-west arterial route in this

1 Evidence of Andrew Murray para 54, p16

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 6

area, not only would this be potentially damaging to the efficient functioning of the district road network, but it would have an adverse effect on the accessibility upon which the development of the Airport area is reliant.

MODELLING METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

34 My greatest concern with regard to the modelling methodology relates to underlying assumptions around growth, particularly for the Airport development. Whilst I will address this issue in more detail later in my evidence, I stress that the comments I make here are in relation to the reported results from the ‘composite’ growth scenario, for which I hold significant concerns.

35 The various documents reporting the traffic assessments provide information regarding the effects of the Proposal upon the local road network. But some information necessary to form a complete picture of the effects has not been reported.

36 For example, the reporting of the forecast residual traffic volumes on SH12 gives a figure for a point to the south of the Kapiti Road intersection. This shows reductions of 41% and 37% for daily volumes in 2016 and 2026 respectively.

37 But for a more complete picture, figures should also be provided for the forecast change in traffic volumes for the sections of (the old) SH1 between the Poplar Avenue, Raumati Road and Ihakara Street intersections. This is because the forecasts for the Expressway3 indicate daily volumes of 26,900 and 13,900 vehicles/day to the south and north of the Poplar Avenue intersection in 2026.

38 This suggests that a large volume of traffic will use the Poplar Avenue intersection to exit and join the Expressway, to the extent that it appears likely that the old SH1 will carry more traffic than the parallel section of Expressway. The reason for this is evident from a summary of the Expressway users4, which shows that none of the traffic between SH1 (south) and the Paraparaumu town centre would use the Expressway. Similarly, only 4,100 vehicles/day between SH1 (south) and the entire area to the west of the Expressway (including the airport development, large residential and commercial catchments and Paraparaumu Beach) would use the Expressway.

39 As such, it appears that large volumes of local traffic will use the Poplar Avenue intersection in combination with various routes through the local road network (including the old SH1). For this

2 Technical Report 32, Table 6.3, p47 3 Technical Report 32, Table 6.1, p45 4 Technical Report 34, Table 6.12, p52

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 7

reason, it is important that the impacts are reported in terms of forecast traffic volume changes on local roads, such as:

39.1 the ‘old’ SH1 (as noted above);

39.2 Raumati Road (SH1 – Rimu);

39.3 Ihakara Street (SH1 – Rimu);

39.4 Ihakara Street (Rimu – Airport);

39.5 Ihakara Street (Airport – Kapiti); and

39.6 Rimu Road (Raumati – Ihakara).

40 None of these road sections are included in the reporting of flow changes on the local road network5. The residual traffic volumes and consequent conditions on these routes are of relevance for traffic movements to and from the Airport area and the Paraparaumu town centre.

41 Although provided in relation to the sensitivity testing of an off- ramp at Ihakara Street (which I address later), the figures provided in Table 8.5 of Technical Report 34 provide some of the missing information, although only for the AM peak period. With daily traffic volumes typically being around 10 times those in the AM peak period, it appears that the ‘old’ SH1 between Poplar Avenue and Raumati Road is forecast to carry 19,000 vehicles/day with the Expressway in place, whilst Raumati Road (east) and the Ihakara Street extension would carry 9,000 and 8,000 vehicles/day respectively. These are high volumes for local roads (especially in the context of an expectation of considerable relief being provided by the Expressway).

42 Travel times along Kapiti Road are reported for a total length between the Ocean Road and Hinemoa Street intersections, showing forecast increases by 2026 of 10-13%.6 However, as there will be travel time reductions between the Expressway and Kapiti Road intersections, the extent of the increases in travel times to the west of the Expressway will be larger. Accordingly, a more holistic picture of road conditions can only be provided with a breakdown in the effects by road section.

43 With the Airport area being a large generator of traffic movements, it would also be useful if travel times between this and a number of destinations (for example, SH1 south / north) were reported.

5 Technical Report 32, Table 6.4, p49. 6 Technical Report 32, Tables 3.7 and 3.8, p23.

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 8

44 The ‘headline’ forecast traffic volume changes on Kapiti Road to the west of the Expressway are reported7 repeatedly as a 6% (2026) to 9% (2016) increase, which appears modest. But these figures are for the forecast change in daily traffic volumes. From an operational perspective, it is the change in the peak period traffic volumes which will govern the performance of the local road network. These figures, which are supplied8, indicate increases of 14-16% in 2016.

45 As a result of the micro-simulation modelling of the Kapiti Road area in the vicinity of the Expressway intersection, it has been recommended that an additional traffic lane be provided between the proposed interchange and the Te Roto / Milne Drive intersections ‘to help increase the capacity of the road and operates [sic] of these intersections’.9 It is unclear whether the modelling has assumed this additional lane is present and hence clarification is required as to whether this is a committed component of the Expressway proposal.

IHAKARA STREET EXTENSION

46 Ihakara Street currently terminates as a cul-de-sac to the west of Rimu Road. As part of the Airport development, it was proposed to extend this through the development area to connect to Tahi Road, Toru Road and Kapiti Road at the Hurley Road intersection.10 This included an at-grade intersection with the WLR.

47 The (extensive) modelling of traffic movements which formed the basis of the assessments for PC73 indicated that such a link would perform a dual role in terms of not only accessibility for the Airport, but also as an important local east-west link which would allow traffic movements to be removed from Kapiti Road (and to a lesser extent Raumati Road / Wharemauku Rd / Matatua Rd). Indeed, forecasts suggested that the link would be well used with a high proportion of the traffic being unrelated to the Airport development.

48 There appears to be some confusion within the application material with regard to the assumed connectivity of the Ihakara Street extension. The AEE states that ‘KCDC intends to extend Ihakara Street through to link with Waikare Road to create an additional east-west link to ease traffic congestion on Kapiti Road’.11

49 A review of potential connectivity undertaken as part of the PC73

7 Technical Report 32, Table 6.4, p48 and Evidence of Andrew Murray para 246, p70. 8 Technical Report 32, Table 6.4, p49. 9 Technical Report 34, Section 7.8, p91. 10 The construction of the Ihakara Street extension will be a public / private initiative with an agreement established between KCDC and the Airport regarding funding. 11 AEE, Section 9.5.2.2, p240.

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 9

assessments eliminated any linkage to Waikare Road on the basis of its efficiency and potential impacts. When this issue was raised with the Alliance, advice received was that the AEE should have stated ‘in the vicinity of Waikare Road’.12

50 In evidence, the linkage of the Ihakara Street extension is stated to connect ‘to Kapiti Road in the vicinity of Magrath Avenue’.13

51 Such apparent confusion and uncertainty around this road link is of concern, as the connectivity which it provides will have a direct bearing upon its likely use and hence conditions elsewhere in the network, especially Kapiti Road.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS

52 The establishment of ‘correct’ growth rates in transportation modelling is often fraught with difficulty, since by definition the underlying issue is one of uncertainty. It is not uncommon for the summation of the growth aspirations within a district or region to exceed what is likely to eventuate.

53 The approach I have adopted to this problem on other projects (such as Transmission Gully) is to differentiate between ‘aspirational’ and ‘committed’ growth. An example of aspirational growth might be the desire of a local authority or a developer for residential development in a particular area which is not allowed for in the district plan and for which there is only an intention to lodge a plan change to facilitate such growth. On the other hand, once a plan change becomes operative, the growth may be regarded as committed.

54 In my view, it is necessary to critically review each known development or plan change proposal in terms of not only its likelihood of happening but also the consequences for the project being assessed. For example, whether or not a large potential development occurs may be of little consequence if located in Porirua or the Hutt Valley whereas a smaller potential development located close to the project may be of much greater relevance.

55 In this case, the development of the Airport area is highly relevant, because it is:

55.1 very significant in terms of size (total floor area of 339,400m2);

55.2 very significant in terms of traffic generation (up to 24,500 vehicle movements on a typical weekday with 3,200 in an

12 Email from Graham Spargo, 1 August 2012. 13 Evidence of Andrew Murray, para 72.2, p22.

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 10

evening peak hour period);

55.3 in close proximity to the proposed Expressway; and

55.4 committed (PC73 now being a part of the operative district plan).

56 For the assessment of effects associated with the Expressway to be credible, it is vitally important that realistic assumptions are made in the modelling with regard to this development.

57 The application material and evidence describes a process of deriving what has been termed ‘composite’ growth. This is mathematically convenient, but is not grounded in any evidence.

58 Technical Note 34 states that: ‘the report authors consider that a more likely scenario would be that only a certain proportion of each planned development would be operational in each of 2016 and 2026’.14 We are told that the approach to growth was agreed with the NZTA, KCDC and the peer reviewer. But not only was there no contact at all with the Airport itself during this process, but I understand15 that this agreement was only in relation to residential and not commercial growth.

59 In the evidence of Andrew Murray, it is stated (in relation to the Airport development) that: ‘There is no certainty as to the likely rate of growth for that development, and I do not consider the rate of growth used to be unrealistic’.16 It is surprising that he felt able to reach this conclusion without the benefit of liaising with the Airport itself on this matter.

60 The extent of the growth adjustments assumed for the Airport development are only to be found in an appendix to Technical Report 3417 and I have summarised these with Figures 1 and 2.

61 As these charts show, the extent of the assumed reductions in 2026 is very significant, amounting to 56-62% (light vehicles) and 79- 82% (heavy vehicles). Such reductions effectively remove around 15,000 vehicles/day from the road network in 2026.

62 In broad terms, the composite growth scenario effectively assumes that by 2026 only around 125,500m2 of the total 339,400m2 floorspace will be taken up.18 But the expectations of the Airport,

14 Technical Report 34, Section 4.3.3, p18. 15 Advice received from Don Wignall (acting for KCDC), 25 September 2012. 16 Evidence of Andrew Murray, para 265.2, p75. 17 Technical Report 34, Appendix 34H, Tables 1 & 2. 18 Technical Report 34 Figure B4 suggests 139,292m2 in 2026 and 165,824m2 in 2031.

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 11

supported by independent assessment, indicate that this level of development will be exceeded well before this time.

Figure 1: Assumed Airport Dvpt Light Vehicle Movements, 2026 Full Composite 3,000 2,754

2,500

2,104 1,998 2,000

1,500

Vehicles/Hour 1,083

1,000 905 864

500

0 AM IP PM Time Period

Figure 2: Assumed Airport Dvpt Heavy Vehicle Movements, 2026 Full Composite 1,000

900 867 845

800

700

600 582

500

Vehicles/Hour 400

300

177 200 157 118 100

0 AM IP PM Time Period

63 The Airport has, through earlier representations to the Alliance team, reinforced its view that development was occurring broadly on programme and hence that appropriate allowance was necessary in the assessments. Despite this, the assessments have adopted very large reductions without any advice being sought from the Airport in this respect.

64 The consequence is that the future year traffic demands associated with the Airport development have been significantly understated. This has implications for the assessed ability of the local road

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 12

network to accommodate the changes in traffic demands with the Expressway in place, and for the merits of the provision of a direct link to the Airport area from the Expressway at Ihakara Street.

65 In his evidence, Andrew Murray correctly identifies that development of the Airport land above 102,900m2 is a restricted discretionary activity.19

66 Firstly, this is part of the operative rules which were developed to create linkage between the provision of additional roading infrastructure (principally the WLR) and traffic demands generated by the Airport. The ‘replacement’ of the WLR with the Expressway does not mean that in the wording of the rules ‘WLR’ can simply be replaced with ‘Expressway’. As I have indicated, the different connectivity proposed under the Expressway concept significantly changes the resulting patterns of traffic demands and hence effects. I understand that KCDC has been looking to address this matter as part of the district plan review process.

67 Secondly, the implication of this reference is that the planning of the Expressway need not be concerned with development above the 102,900m2 threshold. But the intention of the threshold was simply as a ‘review point’, at which consideration could be given to progress made on the roading infrastructure, the development itself and elsewhere in the district. It is not an indication that development above this level is somehow uncertain or unlikely to occur.

68 There is a very real likelihood that the approach taken by the Alliance could lead to problems of congestion on the local road network for which the responsibility would then fall upon KCDC and/or the Airport to resolve. Such an approach appears inconsistent with the intent of the Government Policy Statement and the RoNs programme to facilitate economic growth and development.

69 I acknowledge that the assessments include a sensitivity test under a ‘Full Growth’ scenario, but I disagree with the conclusions which the Alliance has drawn from this test, for reasons which I will now describe.

SENSITIVITY TESTING

Full Growth

70 The results which are provided for this sensitivity test are only in a summarised format and some (such as the micro-simulation

19 Evidence of Andrew Murray, para 286.3, p80.

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 13

results20) only relate to the 2026 PM peak period. This partial picture means it is difficult to get a good understanding of the road network operation under this scenario.

71 Technical Report 34 suggests that the ‘full growth’ scenario is expected to have an additional 1,000 trips when compared to the ‘composite’ scenario.21 But this appears inconsistent with the assumptions around the ‘composite’ growth scenario which would remove approximately 2,350 vehicle trips for the 2026 PM peak period for the Airport development alone.

72 The reporting of daily traffic flow differences on the road network are for the same locations on SH1 and the local road network22 as for the ‘composite’ growth scenario and hence my earlier comments around the limitations of this reporting equally apply.

73 Some further indication is provided by flow difference plots which present the ‘composite’ growth figures subtracted from those for ‘full’ growth. Whilst actual numbers are not provided these plots indicate sizable increases on many parts of the local network, especially Kapiti Road and the Ihakara Street extension in the PM peak, which is acknowledged by the reporting.23

74 The performance statistics provided24 for the Kapiti Road / Expressway intersection do not include the right turn movements from Kapiti Road to the Expressway. As the reporting for the ‘composite’ growth scenario indicated a potential lack of queuing space25 this can only be expected to be more severe under the ‘full’ growth scenario, yet no figures or comment are provided in this regard.

75 The description of results indicates that traffic volumes to and from Te Roto Drive are lower for the ‘full’ growth scenario, and this is observed to ‘create a lesser queue and blocking back along Kapiti Road from Te Roto Drive intersection to the proposed intersection.’26

76 Whilst no explanation for this unexpected result is offered, a clue is provided with the following statement regarding the proposed Kapiti Road interchange: ‘The interchange is expected to operate to within capacity level without significant queuing or vehicle delay issues. However, the pedestrian crossing located north of Te Roto Drive is

20 Technical Report 32, Section 7.4.1, p84. 21 Technical Report 32, Section 7.4.1, p84. 22 Technical Report 34, Tables 8.2 and 8.3. 23 Technical Report 34, Section 8.7.3, p100. 24 Technical Report 32, Table 7.1. 25 Technical Report 32, p61. 26 Technical Report 32, Section 7.4.1, p84.

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 14

observed to cause traffic to block back significantly, and the model extents. This means that some vehicles are unable to be released into the model. This may be the reason why the interchange and the intersection of Kapiti Road / Arawhata Road operate to an acceptable level ... removing the pedestrian crossing is observed to create extended queues and significant congestion along Kapiti Road and blocking back through the interchange and further upstream intersections.’ 27

77 It appears that the Alliance has satisfied itself that conditions in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Kapiti Road interchange will be acceptable, since traffic would be simply unable to get to it because of congestion elsewhere. With such results, a responsible approach would be to more closely identify and address the bottlenecks in order to determine the most appropriate and realistic measures to address potential problems of congestion.

78 Despite this (and notwithstanding my earlier comment regarding the validity of travel time results quoted for Kapiti Road), the results still indicate considerable increases in travel times along Kapiti Road of between 7% and 112% or 0.5 to 8.4 minutes.28

79 As I have indicated, large volumes of traffic will use the Poplar Avenue intersection under the ‘composite’ growth scenario. The pressure on this intersection (and consequently the parts of the local network to the north) intensify under the ‘full’ growth scenario, with the LOS provided by the northbound ramps declining to ‘E’ in the AM peak29. This again suggests that the provision of connectivity at Ihakara Street would be beneficial.

Northbound Off-Ramp at Ihakara Street

80 As the reporting notes, a test of the effects of providing a northbound off-ramp at Ihakara Street was requested by the Airport.

81 However, the test undertaken and subsequent reporting is superficial. For example, this relates only to the 2026 AM peak period30, so effects in the PM peak are unknown. Similarly, the results relate to the ‘composite’ growth scenario only and so Airport- related vehicle movements will be understated.

82 It is unclear if the testing allowed for an ability to turn from the end of the off-ramp towards Ihakara Street (east, i.e. passing back

27 Technical Report 32, p86. 28 Technical Report 34, Table 8.4. 29 Technical Report 32, Table 7.2, p87. 30 Technical Report 34, Section 8.8.1, p105.

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 15

under the Expressway). Whether or not such a facility is available would have a large bearing on its potential use.

83 Based upon the results supplied, the test suggests the off-ramp would carry around 300 vehicles/hour in the AM peak period in 202631, with the removal of reasonable volumes of traffic from the ‘old’ SH1, Raumati Road, Ihakara Street, Matatua Road and Wharemauku Road. In the context of understated growth for the Airport, the beneficial impacts upon the local road network appear significant, in addition to the improved accessibility provided to the Airport itself.

84 There is nothing in the assessment results or evidence which suggests that the inclusion of such an off-ramp would be detrimental to the efficient operation of the Expressway.

85 Given this, and with the overall effects of the off-ramp being to keep traffic on the Expressway for longer, provide greater relief to local roads and improve accessibility to an area of economic development, it would appear to be strongly aligned with the objectives for the Expressway.

86 For these reasons, the provision of connectivity in this area appears to have been dismissed prematurely on the basis of an incomplete assessment.

PROPOSED CONDITIONS

87 Proposed condition DC.X332 suggests that the NZTA collaborate with KCDC to develop a Network Integration Plan ‘to demonstrate how the Project integrates with the existing local network and future improvements planned by KCDC’.

88 Such an important action should have been addressed as part of this application, and not left to a condition. If investment decisions are to made in relation to future development, then clarity is needed now around the additional measures required to ensure the efficient working of the local road network and where the responsibility lies for implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

89 My general support for the Expressway is tempered by a serious concern that the resulting changes in traffic demands will lead to problems of congestion on parts of the local road network, especially Kapiti Road. A failure of Kapiti Road and other routes to accommodate traffic movements would have serious consequences

31 Technical Report 34, Figure 8.9 and Table 8.5. 32 Evidence of Andrew Murray, Table 9, p84.

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 16

for the district and the vitality of the Airport development (and other economic activities). 90 The assessments undertaken in support of the Expressway have omitted key results which prevent the formation of a holistic picture of the likely effects of the project. 91 From the figures which are available, it appears that the limited connectivity provided by the Expressway will lead to high residual traffic volumes on some parts of the local road network, with consequent impacts upon the efficiency and accessibility. 92 My greatest reservation relates to the manner in which the assumed growth rates for the Airport development have been dramatically reduced, with no consultation with the Airport on the matter. This results in a significant under-estimate of future traffic demands with the result that the assessed effects of the Expressway cannot be considered to be reliable. 93 Whilst sensitivity tests have been undertaken to assess a ‘full’ growth scenario and the effects of connectivity at Ihakara Street, the analysis has been superficial with only partial results and an interpretation which is at best questionable. 94 From the results available, it appears that the provision of connectivity would be strongly aligned with the general objectives for the Project. 95 Considerable uncertainties remain around upgrades to the local network which are needed to support the changes arising from the Expressway, when these would be needed, the extent to which these should be a legitimate part of the Project and where the responsibility lies for funding and implementation. 96 Such uncertainty around the ability of the local road network to accommodate increased traffic volumes and the implementation of measures to address this is not conducive to investment in areas such as the Airport development and hence runs contrary to the high level objectives of the RoNs programme to encourage economic development and activity.

SPECIFIC INFORMATION SOUGHT

97 In this section, I have identified the information required in order to enable a more comprehensive assessment of the impacts of the Expressway proposal upon accessibility to the Airport development area. 98 Growth 98.1 What was agreed with KCDC regarding growth and with whom? Did this relate to commercial or just residential activity? What evidential basis does the Alliance have to support the assumed growth reductions? 99 Network 99.1 Clarify assumptions in the SATURN and VISSUM models with regard to the detail of Kapiti Road between the Arawhata and Te Roto intersections. If this differs to the existing situation

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 17

can confirmation be provided that this is a part of the Expressway proposal? 100 Composite Model Results 100.1 Provide details of the forecast travel times and assumed routes for travel between the Airport development and SH1 North and South. 100.2 Provide details of the forecast east-west travel times on Kapiti Road, disaggregated by sections. 100.3 Provide forecast delays at the Ihakara Street / Rimu Road, Rimu Road / Raumati Road, Ihakara Street / old SH1 and Raumati Road / old SH1 intersections. 100.4 Provide forecast delays for the right turn movements from Kapiti Road at the Expressway interchange. 100.5 Provide traffic volumes forecasts for: (a) SH1 north of Poplar Ave; (b) Ihakara St (SH1 – Rimu); (c) Ihakara St (Rimu – Airport); (d) Ihakara St (Airport – Kapiti Road); (e) Raumati Road (SH1 – Rimu); (f) Rimu Road (Raumati – Ihakara); and (g) Kapiti Road (W of Expressway). 101 Ihakara Street Off-Ramp Sensitivity Test 101.1 Provide results for the PM peak period; 101.2 Clarify whether the test assumes a facility to turn right from the end of the slip road towards the town centre? If not, can this be included as part of the assessment?; 101.3 Is there any impairment to the Expressway functionality as a result of the provision of this facility?; 101.4 Provide flow forecasts for the road sections above, in addition to the off-ramp itself; and 101.5 Provide results for the 2026 ‘full’ growth scenario. 102 Full Growth Sensitivity Test 102.1 Clarify whether demand flows differ from actual flows on any part of the local road network; 102.2 If so, where and how much traffic being held back?; 102.3 Could any bottlenecks be realistically addressed, and what impact would this have upon the operational efficiency of Kapiti Road and the Expressway intersection; and 102.4 Provide other flows, travel times and intersection delays as identified above.

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx 18

______Timothy [Tim] Martin Kelly October 2012

kapiti airport m2pp tk evidence v3 oct12.docx