Auckland BEFORE a BOARD of INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK

BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROJECT

UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF Notices of requirement for designation and resource consent applications by the NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY for the East West Link Project

STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF ANDREW PETER MURRAY ON BEHALF OF THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY

Traffic and Transportation Including Walking and Cycling

Dated: 20th June 2017

Barristers and Solicitors Auckland

Solicitor Acting: Pat Mulligan Email: [email protected] Tel 64 9 358 2555 Fax 64 9 358 2055 PO Box 1433 DX CP24024 Auckland 1140

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1 2. INTRODUCTION 2 3. PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCING 2 4. SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF EVIDENCE 3 5. EVIDENCE OF MR DAVID SMITH FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 5 6. EVIDENCE OF MR DUNCAN TINDALL FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 11 7. EVIDENCE OF MR ROD MARLER FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 14 8. EVIDENCE OF MR GRAEME MCINDOE FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 16 9. EWL CONNECTIVITY AT ALFRED STREET 19 10. EVIDENCE OF MICHAEL DAVIES FOR AUCKLAND TRANSPORT 28 11. EVIDENCE OF ANTHONY CROSS FOR AUCKLAND TRANSPORT 29 12. EVIDENCE OF MR STEPHEN BROWN FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 30 13. EVIDENCE OF MIMOUK HANNAN FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 32 14. EVIDENCE OF KATHRYN COOMBES ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL 34 15. EVIDENCE OF KATHRYN KING FOR AUCKLAND TRANSPORT 36 16. EVIDENCE OF LEMAUNGA SOSENE FOR THE MĀNGERE-ŌTĀHUHU LOCAL BOARD 38 17. EVIDENCE OF JOSEPHINE BARTLEY FOR THE MAUNGAKIEKIE-TĀMAKI LOCAL BOARD 39 18. EVIDENCE OF IAN CARLISLE FOR MERCURY NZ LTD 39 19. EVIDENCE OF JOHN PARLANE FOR KIWI PROPERTY GROUP LTD 40 20. EVIDENCE OF MARK LUKER FOR KIWI PROPERTY GROUP LTD 46 21. EVIDENCE OF DON MCKENZIE FOR PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED (POAL) 46 22. EVIDENCE OF DON MCKENZIE FOR JACKSON ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES 48 23. EVIDENCE OF JOHN BURGESS FOR TRAMLEASE 48 24. EVIDENCE OF WES EDWARDS FOR 8 SYLVIA PARK ROAD AND KERRY WILSON FOR 8 SYLVIA PARK ROAD BODY CORPORATE AND SYL PARK INVESTMENTS 51 25. EVIDENCE OF AMANDA KINZETT FOR ONEHUNGA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 56 26. EVIDENCE OF GREGOR HOHEISEL FOR ONEHUNGA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 57 27. EVIDENCE OF MR STEPHEN LASHAM FOR AOTEA SEA SCOUTS 59 28. EVIDENCE OF E. KIRK, MĀNGERE BRIDGE RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION AND THE MĀNGERE HISTORIC SOCIETY 60 ANNEXURE 1: ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS TO THE COASTAL EDGE 62 ANNEXURE 2: ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED CAR PARKING ACCESS TO THE COASTAL EDGE 67 ANNEXURE 3: ACCESS TO SH1 AND SH20 FROM ALFRED STREET 74

BF\57020889\1

ANNEXURE 4: CRASH ANALYSIS FOR ALFRED STREET INTERSCETION 75 ANNEXURE 5: CHANGE IN TRAVEL TIMES TO/FROM MT WELLINGTON HIGHWAY 77

BF\57020889\1

1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

1.1 Subsequent to preparation of my EIC, I have read the evidence provided by submitters and participated in five conferencing sessions (expert and non-expert). I have also worked with the project team on revised drawings and designation Conditions that address many of the issues raised. I respond here to transport issues (including walking and cycling) to over 20 evidence statements, so I have not summarised those responses here.

1.2 I have however noted some key themes and outcomes from the evidence and conferencing process, including:

(a) The experts recognise that, if approved, a subsequent detailed design process would be undertaken for this Project. A significant number of issues raised in evidence by submitters related to uncertainty about design details and the conferencing sessions were able to clarify the intent of many design features, especially in relation to property access;

(b) The overall methodology for the transport assessment, including the modelling and associated benefits, has not been refuted by the transport experts. Some local modelling queries or issues were raised in Onehunga and Mt Wellington, however the results of the modelling have not been materially disputed.

(c) Many issues raised in evidence relate to access, including to the coastal edge, Onehunga Wharf and specific properties. In this regard I have undertaken additional assessments, including:

(i) Walking, cycling and vehicle access to the full coastal edge, which I conclude is significantly improved as a result of the Project

(ii) Consideration of a full vehicle access to the EWL at Alfred Street, which I conclude would have significant detrimental effects on the transport outcomes of the Project;

(iii) Access to properties on Sylvia Park Road, where I conclude that some movements may require a longer detour route, but in many cases this is off-set by improved access for other movements. There is a possibility that access to 8 Sylvia Park Road could be moderately affected if specific traffic features are not able to be confirmed as feasible in detailed design; and

BF\57020889\1 Page 1

(iv) Revised modelling in the Mt Wellington area that confirms earlier assessments that a significant adverse effect of the EWL is not expected on Mt Wellington Highway.

(d) I also consider that the majority of desired outcomes for walking and cycling facilities sought by submitters during the design process have been reflected in the revised and additional Conditions provided in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Hopkins.

1.3 Having reviewed the submitter evidence and attended conference I can confirm that my opinions expressed in EIC regarding the substantial travel time, travel reliability, bus access and walking and cycling benefits of the Project have not changed, and hence I still consider that it strongly meets the Project Objectives.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 My name is Andrew Peter Murray.

2.2 I have the qualifications and experience set out at paragraphs 2.1 – 2.4 of my statement of evidence in chief (EIC) dated 12 April 2017.

2.3 I have been engaged by the New Zealand Transport Agency (the Transport Agency) to undertake an assessment of the traffic and transportation effects of the East West Link Project (the Project), for which the Notices of Requirement (NORs) and resource consent applications have been lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). My EIC described this assessment and its findings, and my rebuttal evidence responds to the evidence of submitters within my area of expertise.

2.4 I prepared two EIC statements:

(a) 1: Assessment of Traffic and Transportation Effects (except walking/cycling);

(b) 2: Assessment of walking and cycling facilities.

2.5 In this rebuttal statement I address both traffic and walking/ cycling issues.

2.6 I repeat the confirmation given in my EIC that I have read the 'Code of Conduct' for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that my evidence has been prepared in compliance with that Code.

3. PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCING

3.1 I attended the following expert and non-expert conferencing sessions;

(a) Traffic and Transportation (expert), Wednesday 24th May 2017.

BF\57020889\1 Page 2

(b) Waikaraka Park and Cemetery (multi-disciplinary expert), Friday 26th May 2017

(d) Neilson Street Area (multi-disciplinary expert), Tuesday 6th June 2017

(e) Traffic and Transport (Mercury NZ Ltd Site) (expert), Thursday 8th June 20171

3.2 Throughout this statement I refer extensively to the expert traffic and transport Joint Witness Statement (24 May), which I refer to here as the JWS.

3.3 I have also attended liaison meetings with Auckland Transport, Bike Auckland and Auckland Council experts and staff on specific design detail and proposed Conditions. I am also aware that a ‘Consenting Phase Agreement’ is being developed between NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport (as discussed in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wickman). I understand this agreement addresses the ongoing working relationships between the agencies, especially to address any integration issues between the State Highway and Local road networks.

4. SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF EVIDENCE

4.1 In this statement of rebuttal evidence I address each statement of evidence as they relate to transportation matters within my area of expertise. Some common issues have been raised by more than one expert, so where possible I have used cross-references rather than repeated the response. The exception to this is in relation to the request from Auckland Council for full vehicle access to the EWL at Alfred Street, which I have addressed as a single topic.

4.2 In this statement of rebuttal evidence I will respond to the evidence of:

(a) David Smith (Auckland Council - Panuku)

(b) Duncan Tindall (Auckland Council)

(d) Graeme McIndoe (Auckland Council)

(e) Michael Davies (Auckland Transport)

(f) Anthony Cross (Auckland Transport)

(g) Stephen Brown (Auckland Council)

(h) Mimouk Hannan (Auckland Council)

1 The report is incorrectly labelled as Thursday 7th June 207

BF\57020889\1 Page 3

(i) Kathryn Coombes (Auckland Council)

(j) Kathryn King (Auckland Transport)

(k) Lemaunga Sosene (Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board)

(l) Josephine Bartley (Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board)

(m) Ian Carlisle (Mercury NZ Ltd)

(n) John Parlane (Kiwi Property Group Ltd)

(o) Mark Luker (Kiwi Property Group Ltd)

(p) Don McKenzie and Alistair Kirk (Ports of Auckland Limited - POAL)

(q) Don McKenzie and Jim Jackson (Jackson Electrical Industries)

(r) Wes Edwards (8 Sylvia Park Road and Kerry Wilson (8 Sylvia Park Road Body Corporate and Syl Park Investments)

(s) John Burgess (TramLease)

(t) Amanda Kinzett (Onehunga Business Association)

(u) Gregor Hoheisel (Onehunga Business Association)

(v) Stephen Lasham (Aotea Sea Scouts)

(w) E. Kirk (Māngere Bridge Residents and Ratepayers Association and the Māngere Historic Society)

4.3 The fact that this rebuttal statement does not respond to every matter raised in the evidence of submitter witnesses within my area of expertise should not be taken as acceptance of the matters raised. Rather, I rely on my EIC, Technical Report 1 (TR01), and this rebuttal statement to set out my opinion on what I consider to be the key traffic, transportation, walking and cycling matters for this hearing.

4.4 I have primarily addressed the technical evidence of the experts rather than the non- expert statements. I first address the evidence provided by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, followed by individual submitters.

BF\57020889\1 Page 4

5. EVIDENCE OF MR DAVID SMITH FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Access to Onehunga Wharf

5.1 Mr Smith suggests that the Project has a negative effect on accessibility to the Wharf (paragraph 7.4) due to the longer route from SH20 south being less desirable than the current route. I do not agree with this as his assessment only considers travel distance and has not considered the high levels of congestion on the existing routes. When considering the improved travel times for a number of movements accessing the Wharf (as quantified in paragraph 19.21 of my EIC), I consider that overall access to the Wharf is improved.

5.2 Mr Smith seeks an additional access to the Wharf from the proposed Land Bridge. This was addressed in the JWS (paragraph 3.14, page 14), where it was agreed that “..the future development of the Wharf could be supported by providing access directly off the land bridge, however this would not be constructed until the redevelopment of the Wharf occurs, and is outside the scope of the East West Link Project”.

Galway Link Intersection Designs

5.3 In paragraphs 7.18 - 7.21 Mr Smith expresses a preference for an alternative form of intersection at the Galway Link/Onehunga Mall intersection. I agree that the eastern intersection could be shifted further eastwards within the designation to increase the distance between the two intersections on the Galway Link and that alternative forms of intersection should be considered at detailed design (although I do not consider that traffic signals at the western end would necessarily provide better outcomes). This was discussed in the JWS where it was agreed that alternative intersection forms (including revised designs for the existing concept), should be considered at detailed design. I note that examples of such alternative designs are included in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Nancekivell. I consider that this matter can be addressed in detailed design with the liaison with Auckland Transport required under Condition DC12.A. I understand that AT have agreed that this issue can be addressed via the Consenting Phase Agreement, and are no longer proposing the suggested changes to Condition DC12(d) included in the evidence of Mr Winter.

Road Network Capacity in Onehunga and Consideration of Development Traffic Associated with Potential Wharf Development

5.4 Mr Smith (paragraph 8.13) proposes a Condition requiring that the design of the Galway Link intersections include provision for the anticipated traffic generation associated with the potential development of the Onehunga Wharf.

BF\57020889\1 Page 5

5.5 As indicated in my EIC2, the modelling undertaken to inform the AEE does not include development of the Onehunga Wharf, as it is based on land use predictions prepared by Auckland Council that reflect the Minor Wharf zoning for the Onehunga Wharf recently confirmed in Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). I consider this is the appropriate approach to the assessment of effects for this project.

5.6 The AUP3 requires an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) for significant changes in use such as redevelopment of the Wharf. An ITA would assess the transport effects of the development, which would include determining the appropriate access arrangements. The development of the Wharf will very likely require a full plan change process which will include the ITA and determine the activities to occur. I understand that an ITA analysis has not been undertaken4 and therefore I consider a Condition requiring consideration of an as-yet non-assessed and non-approved development as somewhat premature.

5.7 That being said, I agree that consideration of potential growth can be a consideration in the design of new permanent infrastructure. To that end, I undertook preliminary modelling of potential traffic associated with the Wharf in June 2016 at the request of Panuku Auckland. This was based on traffic generation estimates provided by Mr Smith for a ‘High’ growth scenario indicated in preliminary work undertaken by Panuku. I note that those preliminary traffic generation estimates were for some 10,800 vehicles per day, which is noticeably higher than the 6,600-8,200 vpd now estimated by Mr Smith for the development (paragraph 8.7 of his EIC).

5.8 The outputs from that preliminary modelling were shared with Panuku in regards to the expected additional traffic flows on the network in June 2016. My conclusion from that preliminary work was that the wider network (as amended by the Project) appeared able to accommodate that level of traffic, however there could be some localised intersections on Onehunga Mall/Galway Link that could require more detailed analysis and mitigation as part of any change in activity5. I also concluded that a development with that scale of traffic generation would require detailed and careful analysis of its effects on the local and wider network.

5.9 Mr Smith states6 that he has undertaken his own modelling allowing for his updated calculations of the likely trip generation for a mixed use development at the Wharf of 60,000m2 – 80,000m2. He concludes that “based on my high level check, that the

2 Including paragraphs 8.15 and 20.7(b). 3 Rule E27.9.5 of the AUP (Operative) requires an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) for any new activity, or change in activity, which will generate 100 vehicles or more (any hour) be prepared, in accordance with the AT Integrated Transport Assessment Guidelines. 4 EIC of Mr Smith, paragraph 8.8. 5 I note that my analysis was not comprehensive and could not be considered a detailed analysis suitable for an ITA. 6 EIC of Mr Smith, Paragraphs 8.4 – 8-8, Pages 12 & 13.

BF\57020889\1 Page 6

Proposal generally accommodates the likely additional traffic generation from Onehunga Wharf, other than in the vicinity of Galway Link”.

5.10 Mr Smith appears to be satisfied that the intersections at Galway Link / Galway Street Galway Link / Onehunga Mall / Onehunga Harbour Road both operate at appropriate Levels of Service7 when considered in isolation, with his concern relating to potential queueing between the intersections. He suggests greater separation be provided between the two intersections on the Galway Link to address this.

5.11 As stated in Paragraph 3.5 of the JWS, it was agreed that alternative designs for the Galway Link and intersections should be considered as part of detailed design, to provide safe and efficient intersections and included in the Outline Plan.

5.12 In conclusion, I consider that:

(a) The AEE has correctly excluded the potential future rezoning and development of the Wharf;

(b) That both my preliminary 2016 modelling and Mr Smith’s modelling indicate that the general level of traffic activity currently estimated for the potential development of the Wharf can be accommodated by the Project, subject to design refinement of the Galway Link intersections;

(c) That the Outline Plan process (especially Condition DC12.A) adequately addresses the Galway Link intersection design issue and I do not support the scope of the Condition suggested by Mr Smith; and

(d) That a full ITA process should be undertaken on the potential Wharf Development to identify the full effects and appropriate mitigation required as part of any plan change process.

Consideration of Public Transport

5.13 Mr Smith (paragraphs 9.1 – 9.4) states that the proposal will decrease connectivity of the Wharf to public transport links because northbound buses will not pass the site as they will be in the trench, and use Galway Street to access Onehunga Mall. He states that the current situation would allow easily for a future bus stop adjacent to the Wharf which would provide connectivity for public transport supporting the Council’s aspirations of development at the Wharf. I consider this to be highly speculative because, as per Paragraph 20.7(b) of my EIC, I do not consider that the Council’s aspirations for the Wharf could be accommodated on the existing network. I note that this constraint is also

7 EIC of Mr Smith, Paragraphs 8.10, Page 13.

BF\57020889\1 Page 7

acknowledged in the evidence of Mr Marler8 for Panuku and in Paragraph 3.2(e) of the JWS agreed for the Neilson Street area. I therefore do not consider that this speculative situation represents an adverse effect of the Project requiring mitigation as indicated by Mr Smith (paragraph 9.4).

5.14 However, as noted in my EIC (paragraph 19.5) I agree that a bus-only exit from the SH20 off-ramp directly into Onehunga Harbour Road at the proposed land bridge should be investigated further at detailed design. Such a link would provide the opportunity to provide a bus-stop on Onehunga Harbour Road for northbound buses entering Onehunga from SH20 (southbound buses do not use Onehunga Harbour Road so passengers from the Wharf wishing to head south would still need to walk to Neilson Street).

5.15 Through the expert conferencing it was agreed between by myself, Mr Smith and Mr Nancekivell that the feasibility of the bus-exit ramp from SH20 Northbound to Onehunga Harbour Road should continue to be investigated through detailed design, including liaising with Auckland Transport and Panuku regarding the timing and form.9 I support the continued investigation of the feasibility of a bus-exit ramp. I understand that these matters will be reflected in the Consenting Phase Agreement between NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport.

Amenity and provision for active modes – Old Māngere Bridge to Onehunga town Centre

5.16 In paragraphs 10.1-10.4 Mr Smith raises concerns about the amenity and safety for the pedestrian/cycle route between the Old Māngere Bridge and Onehunga town centre (and suggests the Project does not meet its related Objective 2). As per my EIC (paragraph 10.9 statement#2), I consider that during detailed design alternative configurations for the walking/cycling facilities could be investigated. However, there are specific elements of Mr Smith’s evidence I wish to respond to.

5.17 Mr Smith states that the new path beside Onehunga Harbour Road includes a number of gradient changes and has poor amenity for pedestrians passing under SH20. I note that the existing pedestrian underpass of SH20 will remain and does not include gradient changes. The proposed new path beside Onehunga Harbour Road will have gradient changes but these are expected to be less than via the existing road. I understand that since lodgement additional refinements have been proposed and indicative cross sections showing the relationship of the shared path with SH20 and EWL are included in Annexure A of Ms Hancock’s rebuttal evidence. The route to Onehunga town centre will

8 Paragraph 9.7. 9 Expert Conferencing JWS to the BOI – Traffic and Transportation (24th May 2017), Paragraph 3.4.

BF\57020889\1 Page 8

have significantly reduced car and truck traffic which allows reallocation of road space on Onehunga Mall and reallocation of traffic signal times to favour pedestrians at the Neilson Street intersection. As such, I consider that this route is clearly and significantly improved over the current situation, and as such contributes to Objective 2.

5.18 In paragraphs 10.2 and 10.3 Mr Smith suggests that no crossing facilities would be provided at the proposed roundabout, and that traffic signals would address this. I note that the main walking/cycle path is on the western side of Onehunga Mall, and as such pedestrians and cyclists will not need to cross the roundabout. Also, crossing facilities would be provided via the approach islands (albeit uncontrolled), which I consider to be acceptable for such a low-volume road.

5.19 Finally, Mr Smith states that I support an amendment to the designation to enable high- quality walking and cycling connection along Onehunga Mall. In paragraph 10.9 of my Walking and Cycling evidence (EIC #2), I refer to my support for the Designation Condition DC11(d), however for clarity, I do not support expanding the lodged designation boundary itself to achieve this.

5.20 I note that issues regarding the paths in this area are addressed in the modified Conditions LV.5C, LV.5CD and LV.5CE included in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Hopkins.

Amenity and provision for active modes – Gloucester Park North Crossing

5.21 At paragraph 4.6, Mr Smith requests a crossing facility for active modes between Gloucester Park Road north and destinations to the south of Neilson Street. The crossing Mr Smith proposes would be to replace the existing pedestrian crossing which is proposed to be removed as part of the Project.

5.22 Through the expert conferencing it was agreed between by myself, Mr Smith, Mr Davies, and Mr Nancekivell that the ability to retain a staged crossing at this location should be considered in detailed design.10

5.23 However, I do not consider it essential that this crossing be retained due to the physical and operational constraints at this location. This intersection is at the end of the southbound SH20 off-ramp, and as such needs to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the high off-ramp traffic flows without queues that could extend back to the high-speed motorway mainline. Such queueing would be a significant safety hazard.

5.24 As part of the project, the northern arm of the intersection (Gloucester Park North) is proposed to be closed to increase the intersection capacity and accommodate the improved access to properties on Gloucester Park South and hence to reduce the risks

10 Expert Conferencing JWS to the BOI – Traffic and Transportation (24th May 2017), Paragraph 3.1.

BF\57020889\1 Page 9

of queueing back to the motorway mainline. The existing pedestrian crossing is staged, with pedestrians crossing firstly to a central island, then undertaking a second signalised crossing to the opposite side. The current Project design indicates that there would be insufficient width on the modified central traffic island to retain a 2-stage pedestrian crossing. A single-stage crossing would require all vehicles to have a red-signal other than the very small movement turning right into Gloucester Park South from the off- ramp. If this crossing was activated regularly, the need to hold almost all traffic movements for the time required to make the crossing11 would significantly reduce the capacity of the intersection, and hence increase the risk of dangerous queueing.

5.25 I do not consider removal of this crossing to represent a significant deterioration in pedestrian accessibility due to the very low desire line between Gloucester Park north and south, and the readily available signalised crossing 70m away at the Selwyn Street intersection (see Figure 5-1 below). As such I do not consider that its omission would compromise the Project Objective 2.

Figure 5-1 Pedestrian Crossings at Gloucester Park

5.26 I have read the relevant updated proposed conditions, presented through the rebuttal evidence of Ms Hopkins. I consider that the Conditions adequately provide consultation

11 The traffic signals are likely to need to provide some 28 seconds for such a crossing - based on standard requirements of a 6- second green time followed by a clearance time of 22 seconds to cross the 27m at a speed of 1.2m/s. This would be a significant proportion of the total cycle time of the signals, and hence have a potentially significant effect on the capacity if called regularly.

BF\57020889\1 Page 10

with Auckland Transport as part of the Outline Plan process12, in which such detail could be considered.

Future vehicular connection at Alfred Street and location of the Alfred Street pedestrian / cycle overbridge

5.27 I address this issue separately in a stand-alone Section 9 of my rebuttal, including a response to the comments made by Mr Smith.

6. EVIDENCE OF MR DUNCAN TINDALL FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL

6.1 Mr Tindall concludes in his evidence (Paragraphs 3.2 – 3.3) that the Project will deliver the intended benefits and is well aligned with the transport objectives of the Auckland Plan. Mr Tindall states in paragraph 6.21 of his evidence that the option modelling is consistent with that within the base models, and therefore provides a robust basis for the assessment of effects.

6.2 However, Mr Tindall has some issues of concern which are stated in 3.7(a) to (f) of his evidence and I address the four issues where they are relevant to operational transport and traffic.

Additional Traffic Flows on Church Street

6.3 Mr Tindall requests (paragraph 8.2) a condition for additional modelling during detailed design to manage potential adverse traffic effects on Church Street. He states that the predicted flow changes are unlikely to lead to adverse effects, but he seeks to manage potential effects he considers could arise with design changes.13

6.4 The project will provide additional east-west capacity and hence reduce demands on Neilson Street and parallel roads such as Church Street. There will be some re- arrangement of traffic in the network, however I do not see a logical reason for a material increase in traffic flows on Church Street as a result of the Project. I also consider it highly unlikely that potential refinements during detailed design would materially alter that outcome.

6.5 Through the expert conferencing it was agreed between by myself, Mr Tindall and Mr Davies that there are no identified significant adverse effects based on the modelling.14 However, there is concern that this could change with significant design changes. 15 I do not consider that a specific Condition is required to address this issue. I understand that it was agreed that engagement between Auckland Transport and The NZ Transport

12 Such as through DC12(A). 13 EIC of Mr Tindall, Paragraphs 7.10 and 7.11. 14 Expert Conferencing JWS to the BOI – Traffic and Transportation (24th May 2017), Paragraph 3.6. 15 For clarity, I note that this statement mainly recognises the concern held by Mr Tindall. As noted, I do not consider this to be likely.

BF\57020889\1 Page 11

Agency will continue throughout the design process and that such network integration matters can be reflected in the Consenting Phase Agreement.

Design of Galway Street

6.6 I have already addressed the design of Galway Street intersections in responding to Mr Smith, noting the agreed position in the JWS for alternative designs to be considered at detailed design. I consider that the specific issues Mr Tindall raises in paragraphs 7.17 and 7.18 could be readily addressed by the addition of a right turn bay for vehicles turning into the Galway Link, which could be readily accommodated within the proposed designation.

Hugo Johnston Drive Carpark and Turning Facility

6.7 Mr Tindall supports the Hugo Johnston Drive carpark and turning facility but is concerned about combining these functions on a single site for safety reasons.16 At the expert conferencing it was agreed between by myself, Mr Tindall and Mr Nancekivell that there is adequate space to allow design changes to separate the carpark facility and turn around area which will provide better safety outcomes.17 A separated parking area from the truck turning area are shown on the Revised Drawing Set dated 27th June 2017 referred to in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Nancekivell. I agree that the updated conditions included in Ms Hopkins’ rebuttal evidence adequately reflect the outcomes for the safe turning of large vehicles and a separate parking area within this facility. I therefore support the modified condition DC11(h) provided in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Hopkins that addresses this issue.

Sylvia Park Road Shared Path

6.8 Mr Tindall states that there are only convoluted connections for cyclists wanting to connect from Great South Road (north and south) to the east18. Cyclists would be required to make a detour to head west, then join the elevated Kāretu path to then head east to Sylvia Park Road. Mr Tindall suggests increasing the width of the proposed footpath on Sylvia Park Road under the Kāretu Path to allow it to continue as a shared path.

6.9 Through the expert conferencing it was agreed that to provide a shared path would require the widening of the proposed 1.8m footpath to 3m for some 375m (between chainage 5125 and 5500). There is disagreement about the need to widen the path.

16 EIC of Mr Tindall Paragraphs 7.44 and 7.45. 17 Expert Conferencing JWS to the BOI – Traffic and Transportation (24th May 2017), Paragraph 3.7. 18 EIC of Mr Tindall, Paragraph 7.51, Page 21.

BF\57020889\1 Page 12

6.10 I do not consider the shared path is needed in this location due to the constraints of the adjacent property which is covered in Mr Nancekivell’s evidence. Further, I do not consider the detour via the Kāretu Path to be excessive for cyclists. For example, to undertake the additional 170m detour to access the elevated crossing over Great South Road would involve approximately 30-40 seconds (assuming cyclists speeds of 15-20 kph), relative to a direct (and un-delayed) crossing via the traffic signals.

6.11 However, the use of the elevated path avoids the need to cross the traffic signals, and avoids the crossing of driveways accessing the Stratex site on Sylvia Park Road. The proposed layout for the traffic signals would require that east-west movement to traverse 3 separate crossings. The average delays on those crossings is predicted to be approximately 70-90 seconds19. Hence the more direct at-grade route suggested by Mr Tindall would actually take 30-60 seconds (on average) longer than the ‘convoluted’ route via the elevated path. Additionally, I consider that the cyclists would prefer the uninterrupted route to having to make up to three separate signalised crossings, irrespective of the time difference.

6.12 I also consider that it would be safer for cyclists to use the fully separated elevated pathway than be exposed to high traffic flows at the signal crossings. To this end, I consider that cyclists should be encouraged (via signage) to use the elevated structure to make the crossing, rather than be encouraged to pass through the traffic signals, as could be the case with a full shared path as suggested by Mr Tindall.

6.13 I would not support providing narrower traffic lanes on Sylvia Park Road in order to create space for a shared path. This is due to the high car and traffic flows in this area, the high volume of turning movements (some requiring lane changing) and because of the possibility of some sport-cyclists preferring to remain in the traffic lanes to pass through the signals.

6.14 I therefore do not consider the provision of the shared path suggested by Mr Tindall to be necessary, due to the property constraints and because the current design helps encourage cyclists to use the quicker and safer route via the elevated path.

Foreshore Parking

6.15 In his paragraph 7.39, Mr Tindall notes that while he has not considered specific access proposals for parking on the foreshore, he did not consider that there was any specific reason that would make such access unsafe or have detrimental effects on traffic efficiency. We discussed this issue at expert conferencing and, as outlined in the JWS (paragraph 3.16, page 16), the experts did identify a number of safety and efficiency

19 This is based on localised modelling, as provided to Mr Tindall.

BF\57020889\1 Page 13

impacts of such access. I address the need for such public access later in response to the evidence of Mr McIndoe.

7. EVIDENCE OF MR ROD MARLER FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Walking and Cycling Connections

7.1 Mr Marler is concerned with the walking and cycling connection between Māngere and Onehunga via the Wharf and specifically about the shared path on the northern side of Onehunga Harbour Road. His concerns (paragraph 9.3) include that this route will have a number of gradient changes, is longer than the existing underpass route, has low levels of amenity due to its location under the Manukau Harbour crossing and will be impacted by the new intersection at the Galway Link.

7.2 I consider that the statements about the proposed links are somewhat over-stated. Firstly, the existing underpass is proposed to be retained, and will continue to provide an at-grade connection between The Landing area and Onehunga Mall. The proposed additional path under the SH20 abutment beside Onehunga Harbour Road is expected to be elevated above the road level and will include a connection back to the cul-de-sac end of Onehunga Mall. This route would therefore only have two relatively small grade changes and is only be some 23m longer than the existing underpass route. Given that pedestrians and cyclists are expected to primarily be on the western side of Onehunga Mall, I do not consider that path is impacted by the proposed intersection with the Galway Link (see Figure 7-1).

Figure 7-1 Pedestrian/Cycle routes under SH20 and Galway Link

BF\57020889\1 Page 14

7.3 I understand that since lodgement additional refinements have been proposed and indicative cross sections showing the relationship of the shared path with SH20 and EWL are included in Annexure A of Ms Hancock’s rebuttal evidence.

7.4 At the Neilson Street Area expert conferencing it was also agreed that a five metre wide pedestrian and cycle bridge over EWL is desirable and will contribute to a high amenity route. I support the modified conditions relating to the design of these facilities in LV.5E included in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Hopkins.

Vehicle and Bus Access to the Wharf

7.5 At paragraph 9.7 of his evidence, Mr Marler recognises that given the current congestion on Onehunga Harbour Road it is unlikely that a mixed use development envisaged by Panuku could be serviced from the existing road network without modification.

7.6 Mr Marler states that “A well designed EWL could therefore better enable the Onehunga Wharf mixed use development, supporting the regeneration of the area”. I agree20 with Mr Marler that the Project will enable any future Wharf development and I note a similar agreement was reached in the JWS for the Neilson Street area, namely that:

20 See also paragraph 20.7(b) of my EIC.

BF\57020889\1 Page 15

7.7 Mr Marler states that the dead end nature of the Wharf access road created by the Project will make quality road based public transport very difficult to achieve21. I disagree with this statement as noted earlier in my response to the evidence of Mr Smith. I note that Mr Marler only refers to this northbound movement between Māngere and Onehunga. The southbound bus route will continue to use Neilson Street to access the SH20 on-ramp, and hence does not pass near the Wharf (it would be an approximately 900m walk from the Wharf). Hence this existing constraint on bus access to the Wharf is not negatively impacted by the EWL Project, and will need to be carefully considered by Panuku in planning their proposed development of the Wharf. In my opinion the significantly reduced traffic and congestion on the local road could make it easier to provide a connecting bus service to the Wharf for such southbound movements.

Light Rail Proposals

7.8 Mr Nancekivell addresses Mr Marler’s concerns around the design of EWL and Mass Rapid Transport. I also note the agreed witness statement from the Neilson Street JWS in this regard.

8. EVIDENCE OF MR GRAEME MCINDOE FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL

8.1 Although urban design is outside my specific area of expertise, there are areas of overlap with transport planning that I wish to respond to, particularly in regard to parking and access. Mr McIndoe considers that the Project creates adverse severance effects22, in part due to reduced quality of access.

Extent of Pedestrian/Cycle Access to the Coastal Edge

8.2 In regard to access to the coastal edge, Mr McIndoe (paragraph 11.4) considers that the extent and quality of physical access will be slightly worse than existing as a result of the Project. I disagree with this conclusion as I consider that Mr McIndoe has not assessed access to the full coastal edge, instead focussing only on a shorter section between Onehunga Mall and the Miami Stream.

8.3 In his paragraphs 11.2 and 11.3 Mr McIndoe assesses that both the existing and proposed environments will have four pedestrian/cycle access points. In my opinion, this does not fully reflect the wider access to the coastal edge, especially from the east and the west. In Annexure 1 I have done a fuller assessment of the pedestrian and cycle access to the coastal edge between Onehunga and Great South Road/Sylvia Park

21 EIC of Mr Marler, Paragraph 9.8, page 15. 22 EIC of Mr McIndoe, Paragraphs 11.1-11.5.

BF\57020889\1 Page 16

Road. I will address parking and access for mobility impaired users (universal access) separately.

8.4 My conclusions in regard to pedestrian/cycle access are that:

(a) The existing environment has 6 walking/cycling connections. I consider 3 to be of poor quality, 1 of fair quality and 2 of good quality. There is no access from the east;

(b) The Project environment has 10 walking/cycling connections. I consider 8 to be good quality, with only 1 (Miami Stream) of poor quality (but this has potential to be improved by Auckland Council) and 1 of fair quality. Full new access to the east is provided; and

Extent of Vehicle Access to Coastal Edge

8.5 In his paragraph 11.6, Mr McIndoe states that parking on the Māngere Inlet coastal edge is required for recreational users, universal access and maintenance. Mr Nancekivell addresses maintenance access in his rebuttal evidence, and I agree that such access cannot be considered the same as public parking access.

8.6 I do not consider it safe or appropriate to have parking on the EWL road itself, due to significant safety concerns with the very high traffic (and truck) flows on the new road. I note this view is shared by Mr Tindall23.

8.7 Mr McIndoe considers that it is a matter for expert traffic designers to consider how access could be achieved. As noted in the JWS (page 16), the traffic experts agreed there would be a range of safety and efficiency concerns with provision of vehicle access to the coastal areas, namely:

23 Paragraph 7.38 of EIC of Mr Tindall.

BF\57020889\1 Page 17

8.8 In regard to recreational access, I have included an assessment of parking to the coastal edge in Annexure 2, for both the existing and proposed environments. This includes an assessment of whether the parking location is ‘close to’ the coastal edge or not. For this I considered the coastal edge to be represented by the walking/cycle paths running east- west along the coast, and ‘close to’ to be roughly within a 200m (or 2-3 minute) walk. I also consider that in regard to vehicle access, the whole coastal edge should be included, namely that between Taumanu Foreshore Reserve and Ann’s Creek. From that analysis I found that:

(a) The existing environment has 11 parking locations providing practicable public access, with 6 of these being ‘close to’ the coastal edge.

(b) The Project environment has 14 parking locations providing practicable public access, with 9 of these being ‘close to’ the coastal edge.

(c) With the Project in place, the 14 parking locations are spread along the length, spanning from Taumanu Reserve in the west to Mutukaroa-Hamlins Hill in the east. Together, these provide access from the west, south, north and east.

(d) Although not included in my assessment, I presume that any future development of the Onehunga Wharf could also include public parking that would allow access to the coastal edge.

8.9 I consider that 14 frequently spaced coastal parking areas located along and close to the coastal edge provides significant accessibility and connectivity.

8.10 While I agree that there could be demand for direct parking on the foreshore area, I do not consider this to be necessary to provide suitable access to the foreshore paths. I also consider that there would be negative traffic safety and operational impacts with provision of parking south of the EWL, as agreed in the JWS.

BF\57020889\1 Page 18

8.11 In regard to universal access, I note that all the locations assessed above would provide footpath or shared path access from parking spaces to the foreshore paths. I am not an expert in the specific design considerations for universal access, however I would expect that appropriate design standards would be used in subsequent detailed design phases.

8.12 I agree that the Project does not include parking on the coastal edge in the section east of SH20, and this could restrict access for people unable to walk or use mobility devices (such as wheel chairs). I note however that it would be possible to park on the coastal edge at locations such as Taumanu Foreshore reserve and Coronation Road (south side of the Old Māngere Bridge). Again, I presume that any development of the Onehunga Wharf could provide the opportunity for such parking on the coastal edge.

8.13 To address this foreshore access issue, I support the preparation of material to provide members of the public with information on the location of car parking (including accessible parking) and walking and cycling access to the pedestrian and cycling facilities between Taumanu Foreshore and Mutukaroa-Hamlins Hill Regional Park. I have therefore recommended a Condition in this regard, as reflected in the updated proposed conditions in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Hopkins (specifically ROS.7).

9. EWL CONNECTIVITY AT ALFRED STREET

9.1 Various Council experts24 request provision of, or protection for, a full vehicle access to the EWL at Alfred Street. Specifically:

(a) Mr Smith considers25 that the Project should not preclude the future inclusion of a vehicle connection as it may better facilitate change in land use such as Panuku’s development plans for Foreshore East, by providing more direct access to the arterial and motorway network. He also suggests that such a connection would support the Project Objective 1 by improving travel times and reliability between businesses in the vicinity of the Victoria Street and Alfred Street corridors, and SH1 and SH20. He suggests that the proposed pedestrian/cycle overbridge be located further east to avoid the preclusion on such a future connection;

(b) Mr McIndoe considers (paragraph 12.3) that a full vehicle connection to the EWL should be provided at Alfred Street, at least until such time as the effects on the network are quantified through modelling as being unacceptable. He also considers (paragraph 12.4) that at the very least, Alfred Street should be ‘connection-ready’; and

24 Including Messrs Smith, McIndoe and Marler. 25 EIC of Mr Smith, including paragraphs 4.2 and 7.11.

BF\57020889\1 Page 19

(c) In expert transportation and traffic conferencing Mr Smith, Mr Tindall, Mr Davies, Mr Nancekivell and myself were able to agree that the proposed pedestrian/cycle overbridge at Alfred Street should primarily cater for the Alfred Street-to- foreshore desire line, but that there are forms of the Alfred Street Bridge that retain the Alfred Street desire line whilst not requiring removal or relocation if an at-grade road connection were to be provided in the future, and that these options should be investigated26.

9.2 As a general principle, I support allowing for flexibility in the design of infrastructure for potential future changes in land use (or other future uncertainties). However, I consider that such ‘future-proofing’ should be carefully weighed against the any poorer immediate outcomes.

9.3 I outline below how I consider such a connection would result in poorer transport outcomes, and hence why I do not support such a connection as part of the Project. Although urban design is not my area of expertise and I am not an expert in the “Bridging the Gap” guidelines referred to by Mr McIndoe, I do refer to that document to the extent it relates to my transport planning considerations.

Land Use Change

9.4 Provision of an access at Alfred Street is presented as helping facilitate a change in the current land use in the evidence of Mr Smith (paragraph 4.2), Mr Marler (paragraph 10.10) and Mr McIndoe (paragraph 12.2). In this regard I agree that:

(a) there is an interaction between land use and transport accessibility;

(b) there should be integration between land use and transport planning;

(d) a direct all-vehicle connection of the Alfred Street cul-de-sac to the EWL would be likely to facilitate a change in land use in that location (likely to higher-value uses such as residential, commercial and retail).

9.5 Given that the area east of Galway Street was only recently confirmed by Auckland Council for industrial purposes in the AUP, this is one of the reasons that I do not support such a connection as part of the Project.

9.6 I note that this integration of transport infrastructure with land use planning is recognised in the Bridging the Gap document (page 28), which states:

26 Expert Conferencing JWS to the BOI – Traffic and Transportation (24th May 2017), Paragraph 3.11, page 13.

BF\57020889\1 Page 20

“The location of new roads and interchanges can support existing land uses and facilitate access to new areas identified for urban growth. In the wrong location, roads and interchanges can have detrimental effects by facilitating uncontrolled development, also called ‘urban sprawl’.”

9.7 I note that similar policies exist in the AUP, such as Objective E27.2 that states:

Land use and all modes of transport are integrated in a manner that enables: (a) the benefits of an integrated transport network to be realised; and (b) the adverse effects of traffic generation on the transport network to be managed.

9.8 In terms of the development of the EWL project, this integration was identified early in the Business Case process via the risk of transport changes undermining planned land use activities. This was reflected in the ‘contextual factors’ used in development and selection of options. These are included in the AEE (page 119), and in Annexure 1 of my EIC. This included the following:

“Providing transport outcomes that will not compromise the land use plans of Auckland Council (in particular the intention to support industrial land uses on Onehunga and Penrose)”.

9.9 Any change in the zoning for that industrial area will need to go through a plan change process, which would include a detailed assessment of the transport needs and impacts. In my opinion providing such an access now could undermine the recently confirmed industrial land use zoning.

9.10 For clarity, I do not support such a connection being automatically confirmed as part of any potential future plan change - rather, it would need to be assessed in detail, with any accessibility benefits considered against the adverse effects on the State Highway and local networks. Additionally, the EWL is proposed to be a Limited Access Road (LAR), so approval for any new access would need to be sought through that process.

Effects on Traffic Efficiency, Safety and ‘Amenity’

9.11 Mr McIndoe suggests in paragraph 12.1 that the lack of a connection at Alfred Street reduces the amenity benefits for the local network due to vehicles having to use more of the local network and take longer routes to access the EWL. I would firstly note that in transport terms, the EWL itself is not a destination - rather it provides connection to the wider and strategic network. I consider these access and ‘amenity’27 issues below.

9.12 Mr McIndoe has requested modelling to quantify the impact of such a connection on network efficiency. I do not consider that detailed modelling is necessary to estimate the likely impact of such a connection. For example, the design of such an intersection

27 Based on his para 12.1, I assume Mr McIndoe is referring to amenity in regard to transport access, safety and efficiency.

BF\57020889\1 Page 21

would be to certain performance criteria, as outlined in section 5.10 of TR01 of the AEE. TR01 indicated design Level of Service (LoS) targets for intersections of LoS D or better. The adjacent intersections at Captain Springs Road, Galway Street and the Ports Link have expected LoS B or C, so I would expect a similar performance for any Alfred Street connection.

9.13 The average intersection delay would be 10-20 seconds for a LoS B and 20-35 seconds for LoS C. Hence, the overall average intersection delay at the new intersection would be expected to be in this range28.

9.14 Such a connection would also attract extra turning flows at the adjacent Alfred Street/Neilson Street intersection, which is complex intersection with priority (Stop) control (I discuss this further below). I consider it very likely that traffic signals would be required at that location to safely accommodate the increased turning flows at that intersection. This would be a large cross-intersection, and as such would be more likely to have a LoS D, similar to that predicted at the Neilson Street/Captain Springs Road intersection. This then would have delays to all traffic on Neilson Street (a LoS D intersection would have average delays of some 35-55 seconds).

9.15 I note that I did consider undertaking the modelling requested by Mr McIndoe, however I did not complete that work as it became obvious that the outcome of the modelling would be highly sensitive to the assumptions I made, such as the size and operation of the intersection, the need for traffic signals at the Neilson Street/Alfred Street intersection and any changes in land use in the area east of Galway Street. I consider that this issue can be addressed without modelling.

9.16 Traffic counts collected by Auckland Transport29 indicate typical weekday average daily flows of only some 300 vehicles on Alfred Street south of Neilson Street, and only 400 north of Neilson Street. The modelling estimates daily traffic flows of nearly 40,000vpd30 on the EWL at this location and nearly 20,000 vpd on Neilson Street. Therefore, based on existing land uses I would only expect maybe 1,000 vpd to use the new connection, with only a proportion of the existing 300 vpd from this section of Alfred Street31.

9.17 I would not expect the catchment area north of Neilson Street would materially gain improved access to SH1 or SH20 with such a connection as they would have ready access via Neilson Street or Captain Springs Road to the EWL. Hence it is only likely that the southern part of Alfred Street would gain a more direct route to SH1 and SH20.

28 The delays to the through movements could be lower than this average depending on how the signals are operated, however this would be at the expense of higher delays on the side roads, for which the connection is intended to assist. 29 These surveys were undertaken in 2013, however I do not expect significant changes to those flows due to the limited and unchanged land use. 30 Table 5-6,page 102 of TR01. 31 Not all movements from Alfred Street would wish to head to SH20 or SH1, so many would continue to access via Neilson Street.

BF\57020889\1 Page 22

There are 8 possible movements to/from SH1 and SH20 (to and from SH1 and SH20 north and south). In Annexure 3 I have estimated the travel distances to/from Alfred Street. This shows that only 4 of those 8 movements would gain a shorter route, and those would only save some 500m. Additionally, only a proportion of the movements from Alfred Street would wish to access SH1 and SH20, with the remainder using Neilson Street to head north or east. This means that only a proportion of the 300 vpd movements on Alfred Street would get a shorter route to SH1 and SH20.

9.18 This means that such a new connection would add delays, as a result of additional traffic signals on Neilson Street and EWL, to up to 60,000 vpd (40,000 vpd on EWL and 20,000 on Neilson Street), with strategic access benefits to only a portion of the current 300 vpd. As illustrated in the simple calculations presented in Table 1, the overall effect of this could be a net increase in delay of over 358 hours per day, equivalent to over $3million per year in travel delays costs.

Table 1 Simple Estimate of Network Delay with Alfred Street Added Affected Veh-Hours Extra Delay, s Road Flow, VPD per day Notes EWL 40,000 15 167 Delay assumed as LoS B Neilson Street 20,000 35 194 Delay assumed as LoS C/D Alfred Street 300 -36 -3 Delay assumes 500m saved at 50kph Network Total Hours of Delay 358 Weekdays per year 245 Weekend/Holiday days per year 120 Weekend Delay Factor 53% Assume Flows are 70% and Delays are 75% Annual Delay Hours 110,298 Cost per hour of delay $ 29.10 NZTA EEM Values for urban arterial flows Annual Cost of Delay $ 3,209,943

9.19 I note that users of Alfred Street may use such a connection to make shorter trips, such as to the adjacent intersections at Galway Street or Hugo Johnston Drive. However, such short trips are not desired on a regional arterial and are better served via the local network. Overall, I therefore conclude that such a connection would have a detrimental impact on the network efficiency, and would also be contrary to the Project Objective 1, which is to improve travel times and travel reliability between businesses in the Onehunga-Penrose industrial areas and SH1 and SH20.

9.20 In regard to traffic safety, the addition of a new set of traffic signals does introduce new conflict points which needs to be considered when deciding on new connections. In Annexure 4 I have used the simple crash-prediction models developed by the NZTA to estimate the potential effect of such a new intersection. The models indicated that the additional signals would result in a net increase in the intersection crash rate on the EWL between Galway Street and Captain Springs of some by 36%-42%. This analysis did not

BF\57020889\1 Page 23

consider safety impacts at the Neilson Street/Alfred Street intersection. If traffic signals were also included there to manage the extra turning and through movements, I consider it likely that the crash rate there could increase as well.

9.21 I therefore conclude that the addition of a traffic signal connection at Alfred Street would be likely to result in an increase in the overall crash rate, would reduce network efficiency for a significant volume of vehicles, for very minor access gains to a very small catchment. Overall I consider that this would therefore have a negative impact on transport amenity in this area.

Property Impacts

9.22 As noted above, I consider that it would be likely that traffic signals would be required at the Neilson Street intersection to safely accommodate the changes in turning flows on Alfred Street. As indicated in Figure 9-1, this intersection is on an ‘S’-curve on Neilson Street, with the northern and southern Alfred Street approaches off-set. I have not undertaken any design of such an intersection, however in my opinion it would be highly likely that a significant realignment of Neilson Street would be required in order to provide a safe intersection with sufficient sight-distances. This would be likely to impact on adjacent properties.

Figure 9-1 Complex Skewed Intersection at Alfred Street/Neilson Street

Pedestrian Cycle Impacts

9.23 A connection at Alfred Street could also attract increased traffic flows on Alfred Street, including north of Neilson Street. That route was agreed with Auckland Transport as a key pedestrian/cycle access to the foreshore from the residential areas to the north, due

BF\57020889\1 Page 24

to it not being a major traffic route. The additional traffic could impact negatively on such a route, not only through higher traffic flows but also through the more complex traffic signals required at Neilson Street.

9.24 Mr McIndoe (paragraph 12.5) indicates that the effects of higher traffic flows on the shared path on Alfred Street could be addressed through appropriate design, however I note he only refers to the section of Alfred Street south of Neilson Street, without considering effects further north.

Access Control and Street Spacing

9.25 Mr McIndoe (paragraph 12.6) refers to the EWL as an “urban arterial”. I agree that the road is in an urban environment. I refer to the road as an ‘arterial road’, specifically to distinguish its function and form from a motorway or expressway. But not all ‘arterial’ roads have the same function or form.

9.26 As indicated in the evidence of Mr Gliddon, the EWL is proposed as a Limited Access Road (LAR), which provides greater control of access onto the highway, and indicates that such roads have a significant transport movement function, rather than a property access function.

9.27 I also consider it good transport planning practice to consider the differing functions of each element of the road network, as typically reflected through various kinds of road hierarchy definitions. A key finding of the work undertaken in developing the EWL was that much of the existing problems were as a result of the existing network being unable to accommodate the conflicts between local access, regional and strategic access functions. As described in my EIC32, options that provided additional capacity but did not adequately separate those functions did not provide good transport outcomes and were rejected. It is expected that the EWL would take on a more transport movement function with the existing network (such as Neilson Street, Church Street and Great South Road), taking on more of local access function. This separation of function is controlled through access management techniques, which include LAR status and the design and spacing of connections.

9.28 In my opinion, adding additional connections to serve only very small localised areas (that have good alternative access) risks compromising that separation of function, and thereby replicating some of the existing problems.

9.29 In regard to the functional classification of roads, there are various methods and ‘hierarchies’. For example, AT have Strategic, Primary and Secondary roads (as

32 Paragraphs 6.12-6.2 and 9.20.

BF\57020889\1 Page 25

indicated in Figure 6.10, page 151 of TR01 of the AEE). This indicates the EWL as having a ‘strategic arterial’ function.

9.30 The NZ Transport Agency use the One Network Road Classification system (ONRC) which has 8 categories being:

(a) National (High Volume);

(b) National;

(d) Arterial;

(e) Primary Collector;

(f) Secondary Collector;

(g) Access; and

(h) Access (low volume).

9.31 There are various criteria for defining the category of each road. The Project team has agreed with the NZTA that the EWL is likely to have a Regional classification, due to its high car and freight volumes and connections to significant industrial areas and ports. I note that descriptions of the EWL as an ‘arterial’ do not imply it will be categorised as an ‘Arterial’ under the ONRC.

9.32 Alfred Street (south of Neilson Street) is classified as a Local road by AT and is classified as an Access road under the ONRC. Good transport planning practice is to avoid directly connecting roads that differ by greater than one category in the hierarchy. On this basis, I would not consider it to be sound transport planning to connect a local access road with less than 500vpd directly to a regional arterial expected to carry up to 40,000 vpd.

9.33 One of the reasons for avoiding connections between such disparate road types is that it can encourage short-distance local trips to use the strategic network rather than the local network. Such short trips create additional traffic and intersection turning movements that compromise the movement function of the major routes. This concept of managing and balancing conflicts between through movement and local access is also recognised in the ‘Bridging the Gaps’ document referenced by Mr McIndoe. For example on page 32, it states:

“When designing a new highway or altering an existing one, aim to:

BF\57020889\1 Page 26

 Achieve a balance between regional movement and local connectivity for the community it traverses  Provide connectivity along the corridor by locating and designing junctions to serve town centres and other key destinations  Provide connectivity across the road corridor, especially where the road runs between or through urban or recreational areas"

9.34 In this regard I note that Alfred Street is neither a town centre nor a key destination and that access across the EWL is provided at Alfred Street to the foreshore area via the walking/cycling bridge.

9.35 From a transport perspective, I consider that limiting the number of access points to be consistent with the intended function of the EWL as a limited-access, regional State Highway, and that creating a connection to a minor local access road such as Alfred Street would be contrary to that purpose.

9.36 Finally, Mr McIndoe requests that at the very least, the project should be constructed as ‘connection ready’. I take this to mean a more pro-active approach to the design and semi-construction of such a connection than would be implied by the request to only ‘not preclude’ the possibility of such a link as requested by others33. Given the lack of any confirmed plan to change the land use, the negative traffic impacts and the uncertainty that any such connection would be approved onto the State Highway, I consider that a ‘connection-ready’ approach is premature and unnecessary, and that a ‘not-preclude’ approach is sufficient.

Impact on Project Objectives

9.37 Mr Smith suggests that such a connection would support the Project Objective 1 by improving travel times and reliability between businesses in the vicinity of the Victoria Street and Alfred Street corridors, and SH1 and SH20. I do not agree when considered beyond the narrow area considered by Mr Smith. While I agree that some businesses on Alfred Street may get better access to SH20 and SH1 via such a connection, this would be at the expense of additional delay and reduced reliability for the vastly larger number of other vehicles accessing the wider area via this section of the EWL or Neilson Street.

9.38 I note that Mr McIndoe does acknowledge34 that such a connection could impact on the project Objective 1.

33 Such as Mr Smith. 34 EIC of Mr McIndoe, Paragraph 12.3.

BF\57020889\1 Page 27

Summary and Conclusion

9.39 In summary, I consider that providing such a connection would have an overall negative effect on the transport outcomes for the Project, and therefore I do not support a vehicle connection being included as part of the Project. Those negative outcomes include:

(a) It would have an overall negative impact on the transport access amenity in this area, including increased delays, travel variability and crash risks;

(b) It would have a detrimental impact on the Project Objective 1;

(d) It is likely to have property impacts on Neilson Street; and

(e) Would be contrary to good transport planning practice in regard to managing appropriate road functions (both compromising the regional function of EWL and the local function of roads such as Alfred Street).

(f) It could compromise the safety or attractiveness of the pedestrian/cycle facility on Alfred Street, especially across and north of Neilson Street.

10. EVIDENCE OF MICHAEL DAVIES FOR AUCKLAND TRANSPORT

10.1 Overall Mr Davies supports the project but raises three specific concerns I discuss below.

Operation of Sylvia Park Road

10.2 Mr Davies is concerned with weaving movements and u-turn / property access on Sylvia Park Road. This issue was also raised in the evidence of Mr Edwards and Mr Burgess and in the JWS. Based on those discussions I consider that additional design work will need to address the safety of the u-turn facility as discussed in the rebuttal of Mr Nancekivell, and will continue to be subject to ongoing safety audits. As such, I do not consider it necessary to impose a specific Condition to manage this.

Design of the Galway Link

10.3 This is discussed in the JWS and I have addressed it in response to the evidence of Mr Smith and Mr Tindall.

BF\57020889\1 Page 28

Distribution of Vehicles throughout the network as result of Gloucester Park Road (north)

10.4 Mr Davies is concerned (paragraphs 23 – 27) as to where the expected 5,700 vehicles per day reduction on Gloucester Park Road (north of Neilson Street) is distributed and the effects of this distribution on the network. Mr Davies requests a Condition (included as DC14 in the evidence of Mr Winter’s EIC), requiring additional modelling during detailed design to assess any potential adverse effects during detailed design.

10.5 I have met with Mr Davies and Mr Winter and provided them with further outputs from the models showing where the traffic currently using Gloucester Park North is expected to distribute following the closure of its direct access to Neilson Street. Following a review of the models by Mr Davies it was agreed that no further modelling is required and there are no anticipated adverse effects on the Selwyn Street/Princes Street intersection. However, it was agreed that operational changes to the intersection may be required to accommodate the change in traffic patterns (e.g. changes to lane markings and traffic signal operation). Mr Davies and I also do not consider this type of mitigation to be a matter for designation conditions. I consider this matter can be suitably addressed via a Consenting Phase Agreement with Auckland Transport rather than Condition DC14 proposed by Mr Winter.

Approval Process for new or modified roads

10.6 Mr Davies recommends an additional advice note to clarify the level of engagement between NZTA and AT (and included in DC12 of Mr Winter’s EIC). I understand that it has been agreed between NZTA and AT that this is a normal part of the design process and need not be conditioned as suggested, with any additional detail on the engagement process addressed through direct agreements between those parties.

11. EVIDENCE OF ANTHONY CROSS FOR AUCKLAND TRANSPORT

11.1 Mr Cross states at Paragraph 28, that AT does not envisage running bus services along the full length of the EWL and has no current plans to do so. However, Mr Cross goes on to state that in the event that section between Great South Road and the Ports Link Road was to become a future bus route it would be useful if the EWL was designed to enable bus stops to be established near the Hugo Johnston Drive intersection.

11.2 Mr Cross and I agreed that the provision of bus stops would be challenging and have potential adverse effects due to the road being on an elevated structure at this point. I understand from Mr Winter that Auckland Transport have agreed to withdraw the suggested Condition DC.11(k) that sought this.

BF\57020889\1 Page 29

12. EVIDENCE OF MR STEPHEN BROWN FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL

12.1 I respond to the evidence of Mr Brown in relation to transport matters raised regarding parking and access.

12.2 Mr Brown states (paragraphs 50 and 51) that the Project will remove 22 car parks outside The Landing and it is unclear where the new parking bays would be developed. Paragraph 12.1(a) of my EIC states that the Project is expected to remove up to 15 on- street car parking spaces, and that these will be replaced on the redundant section of Onehunga Harbour Road west of The Landing.

12.3 He also states (paragraph 76) that there would be a loss of current car parking for cyclists and pedestrians under the SH20 Bridge, on Onehunga Harbour Road and down Captain Springs Road, and therefore considers that the recreational potential of the foreshore would be, in all likelihood, reduced. In response I make the following points:

(a) As noted in my TR01 (paragraph 7.4.9), the informal parking under SH20 for recreational users can be mitigated by providing parking close by on the redundant portion on Onehunga Harbour Road (in addition to that replaced from outside The Landing); 35

(b) It is incorrect that parking on Onehunga Harbour Road will be lost, as parking is currently banned on that Road due to the high traffic flows. As noted in paragraph 11.31 of my EIC, the significantly reduced traffic flow and reduced strategic function provides an opportunity for parallel parking on Onehunga Harbour Road that currently does not exist; and

(c) As addressed in response to Mr McIndoe, there is no formed public access to the foreshore from Captain Springs Road and no footpaths. With the Project in place there will be a new connection between Captain Springs Road and the new walking and cycling facilities on EWL, including footpaths. Hence as stated in my EIC (paragraph 12.1(f)), there will actually be a net gain of 10 on-street parking spaces on Captain Springs, and direct foot or shared path access to the foreshore.

12.4 In paragraph 71 Mr Brown notes that:

“.. the rail marshalling yards at Southdown and Penrose and the Combined Cycle Power Station have all conspired to limit public access and exposure to the inlet.”

35 Paragraph 7.4.9 also suggests discussions with AT to promote the existing parking at Taumanu-Foreshore for recreational cyclists as a connection is proposed and cyclists can start their route earlier.

BF\57020889\1 Page 30

12.5 However, he does not appear to acknowledge that the Project will substantially reduce those existing barriers, opening access to the inlet foreshore from the east. For these reasons, I do not agree with Mr Brown’s implication that access will be reduced. I refer also to my response to Mr McIndoe in this regard.

12.6 Mr Brown suggests that off-street parking facilities and ready access to the coastal path / board walks via Alfred Street and Captain Springs Road or from car parking south of the EWL on Landforms 1 and 2 is required to mitigate the reduced access and lost parking. In response I note that the existing parking on the western side of Alfred Street will be retained, and will have at-grade connection to the shared path on the northern side of the EWL as well as an overbridge over EWL to connect to the foreshore. As noted above, the Project provides new formed, public access between parking on Captain Springs Road and the foreshore that does not currently exist. I therefore do not agree that additional parking on the land forms is necessary to mitigate loss of parking or access.

12.7 Public access to Mutukaroa-Hamlins Hill is another concern of Mr Brown’s (paragraphs 120 – 124). Mr Brown states that there is currently no off-road parking or formal point of access for those visiting Hamlin’s Hill, and that the loss of parking on Sylvia Park Road will severely hamper access for park users.

12.8 This is incorrect, as the formal access point and public carpark is located on Great South Road, not on Sylvia Park Road (see Figure 12-1 below). In my opinion, the EWL road and shared path facilities will enhance access to the park from the west.

BF\57020889\1 Page 31

Figure 12-1 Public Access to Mutukaroa- Hamlins Hill (source: Auckland Council Website)

13. EVIDENCE OF MIMOUK HANNAN FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL

13.1 I respond here to issues regarding parking and access raised by Ms Hannan. At paragraph 7.22 Ms Hannan states that an effect on Waikaraka Park from the Proposal is the permanent removal of on-street parking on Captain Springs Road which would put additional pressure on parking at Waikaraka Park. I have addressed this in responding to Mr McIndoe and Mr Brown, noting that there will be an overall net gain of 10 on-street parking spaces as a result of the private road (at the southern end of Captain Springs Road) converted into a public road36.

13.2 Ms Hannan expresses concern37 that that the Proposal does not include car parking to support users of the coastal walkway/cycleway at Alfred Street and believes this may have adverse effects on the Cemetery should on-street parking reach capacity and causing people to use parking within the Cemetery. In response I make the following points.

(a) I have estimated that there is capacity for approximately 50 cars to park on the western side of Alfred Street (between the end of the cul-de-sac and opposite the entrance to the cemetery). Those spaces are typically unused during weekends, when the demand for recreational parking is highest. The Cemetery has a

36 Parking on Captain Springs Road is subject to clearways during peak periods meaning that they won’t always be available. However, the statement made was in relation to the permanent removal of parking. 37 EIC of Ms Hannan, Paragraph 7.27(b).

BF\57020889\1 Page 32

separate access point close to Neilson Street, and parking within the cemetery is limited. In my opinion recreational users would be less likely to park within the cemetery itself than on Alfred Street, meaning that I would not expect significant over-spill to the cemetery, greater than already occurs; and

(b) I understand that the project does not intend to remove the existing informal parking on the southern edge of the cemetery. This parking could provide universal access to the new shared path on the northern side of the EWL, similar to how it does for the existing cycleway. I consider that the revised Condition wording suggested in Ms Hopkins rebuttal evidence (LV.5DA(c)) addresses this issue.

13.3 Ms Hannon suggests 38 that additional parking and direct access from the EWL to the coast is required. As reflected in my response to Mr McIndoe, I consider that sufficient parking is available to provide access to the coastal edge and that direct access and/or parking to the foreshore is therefore not necessary.

13.4 Ms Hannan has raised safety concerns over the design of the car park and turning area facility proposed at Hugo Johnstone Drive39. This was addressed in the JWS where it was agreed that the design for this facility should be revisited during detailed design as reflected in proposed condition DC11(h).

13.5 Subsequent to the expert conferencing, we have also identified an opportunity to change the shared path access so it directly links into the proposed carpark on the western side of Hugo Johnston drive. This would remove the need for pedestrians and cyclists to cross Hugo Johnston Drive, and better enable universal access. I understand the shared path access is shown on the Revised Drawing Set dated 27th June 2017 referred to in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Nancekivell. This alternative access for the shared path is indicated in the following Figure 13-1.

38 Paragraphs 7.40 (g), 7.42(c) and 7.41(b). 39 EIC of Ms Hannan, Paragraph 7.16(b) and 7.12 (a), Pages 25 and 26.

BF\57020889\1 Page 33

Figure 13-1 Alternative Route for Shared Path Access to Hugo Johnston Drive

14. EVIDENCE OF KATHRYN COOMBES ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL

14.1 At paragraph 11.5(b) Ms Coombes poses the following question:

11.5 (b) Does the activity need to be in, or adjacent to the coastal marine area?

14.2 I addressed this issue in my EIC, including as outlined in paragraph 6.20 where the conclusion of my detailed analysis of the short-listed options was that:

“This new corridor needed to be located south of Neilson Street/Church Street to connect to SH1 south and to SH20 in Onehunga, with sufficient distance from Neilson Street to allow the access intersections to operate effectively.”

14.3 I note that during the development of the Project my focus was on identifying and assessing corridor options that met the desired outcomes, and I was not asked the question specifically as framed here by Ms Coombes. I therefore provide here additional information regarding my transportation reasons for the road’s location adjacent to the coastal edge. I also note that such transportation considerations were not done in isolation, but rather were an input to an option development process that also included other constraints, such as the Waikaraka Cemetery.

14.4 A key finding of the option analysis for the preferred corridor included that an ‘arterial’ style road with at-grade intersections was appropriate in order to provide suitable access from the EWL to the businesses and local road network40

40 Here I use the term ‘arterial’ road simply to distinguish it from a ‘motorway’ style road, which would have grade-separated intersections.

BF\57020889\1 Page 34

14.5 It was also identified that the EWL needed to be efficient, reliable and have enduring benefits, as well as being distinct from the parallel Neilson Street corridor in having a focus on a movement function, rather than also considering a direct property access function.

14.6 Simple T-intersections are typically significantly more efficient (and typically safer) than cross-junctions, as they have less conflicting movements and can operate with a lower number of signal phases.41 I note that the original at-grade cross-junction between the EWL and Great South Road was found to have insufficient long-term capacity and resilience, and was subsequently grade separated.

14.7 For this reason, and to reduce direct impact on businesses and the facilities such as Waikaraka Cemetery and the MetroPort rail interface, it was apparent that a road alignment south of the businesses, and therefore able to utilise the more efficient T- intersections, was necessary to provide the required enduring efficiency. Additionally, a more southward corridor lessened the number of local roads to cross, and hence the number of intersections on the EWL.

14.8 Or put another way, a road alignment roughly mid-way between Neilson Street and the foreshore, with multiple large cross-junction intersections serving activities on both sides, would not have the required enduring efficiency to meet the desired transport outcomes and objectives for the Project.

14.9 I consider that a road alignment located generally south of the business activities is therefore necessary to achieve the desired outcomes.

14.10 Even with the more efficient T-intersection form, there must be sufficient distance between adjacent large intersections on high-volume roads for them to operate efficiently and safely. I am not aware of specific design standards that require minimum spacing between major intersections. However, the intersections need to have additional approach lanes to accommodate turning movements and queues, as well as safe distance between them to allow for safe lane changing for vehicles accessing the correct lanes. For example, the additional intersection approach lanes on Captain Springs Road are some 100m approaching the EWL and 130m approaching Neilson Street. I am not aware of specific design guides that specify weaving distances for non- motorway roads, however I would consider this would ideally be of the order of 200m for roads with such high traffic volumes. I note in the evidence of Mr Edwards (for 8 Sylvia

41 For example, it was found (TR01 page 116) that the T-intersections made much higher performance (LoS B/C) then the cross- junctions (LoS D).

BF\57020889\1 Page 35

Park Road) that he considers a similar issue with lane changing on Sylvia Park Road, suggesting that some 180-230m could be required42.

14.11 Considering the combined approach lane lengths of 230m and a 200m weaving space would indicate a spacing between major intersections of approximately 430m. I note that at Captain Springs Road, the EWL is some 530m south of Neilson Street.

14.12 Based on the above assessment, it is my opinion that in order to meet the desired transportation outcomes for the Project, the EWL needs to be located generally on the southern edge of the land use activities south of Neilson Street, which is the general vicinity of the coastal edge.

15. EVIDENCE OF KATHRYN KING FOR AUCKLAND TRANSPORT

15.1 I have read the evidence of Ms King and agree in Paragraph 33 that the Project will deliver significant new walking and cycling infrastructure, will fill gaps in the current network and will deliver network benefits when viewed in the context of other planned investment. In addition to expert conferencing, I have met with Auckland Transport, Auckland Council and Bike Auckland to discuss various design and network-planning elements of the Project. Here I address the three specific requests for changes to the Conditions in Ms King’s evidence.

15.2 In paragraph 29(a) Ms King requests that ‘connectivity to the new Old Māngere Bridge and Onehunga Wharf’ be added to the condition DC11(c), as outlined in Attachment 1 of Mr Winter’s Evidence for Auckland Transport. I consider that the Project Drawings adequately address the intent of the walking and cycling connections in this area. I understand that it has been agreed between the NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport that Condition DC1 covers this issue adequately. I also note that the proposed new condition LV.5E included in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Hopkins outlines the intended outcomes for the these connections.

15.3 Ms King requests that the Outline Plan shows how greater separation of pedestrian and cycle facilities from general traffic in the EWL main alignment and how greater consistency of those facilities can be achieved43. I note that the first item is addressed through the road cross sections provided in the Revised Drawing Set dated 27th June 2017, which show greater separation between the edge of the separate cycleway and footpath and the kerb, plus a shoulder to the traffic edge line44. The separation is also reflected in proposed Condition DC11(i) of Ms Hopkins rebuttal evidence. However I do not support the suggested Condition seeking greater consistency in the treatment, as

42 His paragraph 47. 43 EIC of Ms King, Paragraph 29 (b), Page 10. 44 On the Embankment.

BF\57020889\1 Page 36

this would imply such segregation between pedestrians and cyclists should continue across other parts of the project. I consider that the use of shared paths in other locations is appropriate, and need not be reviewed through such a Condition.

15.4 Ms King requests in paragraph 29(c) that the Outline Plan includes a feasibility analysis of an alternative dedicated walking and cycling bridge over SH1 in the vicinity of Luke Street or Avenue Road, and a safety audit comparing a dedicated bridge to the currently proposed shared use path facilities at the existing Princes Street Interchange. I understand that this request is due to concerns about the safety of shared use path facilities immediately adjacent to busy roads.

15.5 I consider that the proposed walking and cycling facilities on Princes Street interchange will provide significant improvements for pedestrians and cyclists and I agree that safety features to provide suitable protection between traffic lanes and those paths (especially on the bridge) should be considered in detailed design. However, I do not agree with the suggested condition to consider alternative facilities such as a new bridge over SH1, for the reasons I outline below:

(a) I consider that the proposed shared use paths, with appropriate safety protection, are suitable for the Princes Street environment. Even if other dedicated facilities were to be provided elsewhere, this would not reduce the need for similar such facilities on Princes Street itself. Hence I do not consider a bridge at Luke Street to represent an alternative to the Princes Street shared paths. Any benefits of such a bridge would be additional to, rather than instead of, the benefits of the proposed facilities at Princes Street.

(b) I have participated in additional discussions between The NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Transport, Auckland Council and Bike Auckland around network planning, future connectivity and the various forms of walking and cycling facilities for the Project.45 These included general agreement that the network planning in this area should be updated to reflect current constraints as well as the opportunities presented by the EWL project. In terms of consideration of additional east-west crossings of SH1 in this area, Auckland Transport’s current Cycle Network Plan indicates that Trenwith Street is the preferred crossing point accessing Ōtāhuhu East Street (via its existing underpass of SH1 just south of Princes Street), while the Auckland Council Greenways Plan indicates a crossing along the Ōtāhuhu Creek to the north. The EWL Project provides for facilities on the upgraded Panama Bridge, which provides an opportunity for its use as an

45 Meeting held on 14th June 2017.

BF\57020889\1 Page 37

additional east-west crossing of SH1 and future connection to the north-south route being developed on Mt Wellington Highway.

(c) Similarly, the new Ōtāhuhu Bridge proposed with the EWL provides a potential opportunity for the Greenways path to pass under SH1. However, as indicated in the evidence of Mr Nancekivell46, this has constraints around its available clearance above high tide. Should that Greenways crossing prove to be infeasible or unsafe, the new pedestrian/cycle path over the Ōtāhuhu Creek provides the opportunity to instead locate a crossing further south, such as at Luke Street.

15.6 I therefore consider that the proposed Princes Street facilities will meet the Project Objectives (specifically to improve safety and accessibility for cycling and walking between Māngere Bridge, Onehunga and Sylvia Park, and accessing Ōtāhuhu East): and I do not consider that there are adverse transport effects that require additional mitigation. Subsequently I do not support the suggested Condition requiring assessment of an alternative bridge over SH1.

15.7 It has also been identified that there are opportunities for the cycle facilities to integrate with the local road network on the western side of SH1 particularly Todd Place, Luke Street and Avenue Road. I therefore support the new condition DC11(k) included in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Hopkins, that addresses the design of the pedestrian and cycle facilities across the Princes Street interchange.

16. EVIDENCE OF LEMAUNGA SOSENE FOR THE MĀNGERE-ŌTĀHUHU LOCAL BOARD

16.1 The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board is requesting additional safety features for pedestrians and cyclists on Princes Street (between Frank Grey Place and Albert Street). I have addressed that in response to Ms King above.

16.2 The Local Board also suggests mitigation could include traffic lights or alternative routes through Frank Grey Place (south end) or an over bridge over the motorway linking Avenue Road. I don’t consider that there are adverse transport effects in this area that require mitigation, and I address the idea of additional pedestrian/cycling bridges over SH1 in response to Ms King. Additional traffic lights are proposed on the western side of the Princes Street overbridge, and rationalisation of the two existing signals on the eastern side. It is not clear to me where additional traffic signals are being requested.

46 Paragraph 15.25 of his EIC.

BF\57020889\1 Page 38

16.3 The Local Board wants the implementation and completion of the Norana walkway47 to be included in the Project. I agree that overall network connectivity would be improved once all the various planned paths are implemented, and the EWL project has allowed for future connections to such facilities where they directly interface with the Project. However I do not consider that completion of the Norana walkway is required to be included as part of the EWL Project either to meet its Objectives or to mitigate adverse transport effects.

17. EVIDENCE OF JOSEPHINE BARTLEY FOR THE MAUNGAKIEKIE-TĀMAKI LOCAL BOARD

17.1 I have read the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board evidence and consider that the issues raised have been addressed in my EIC or my rebuttal to other experts.

18. EVIDENCE OF IAN CARLISLE FOR MERCURY NZ LTD

18.1 Mr Carlisle raises concern with the potential adverse effects of the proposed designation and the new alignment of Hugo Johnston Drive on the existing access points to and from the Southdown Site and seeks future access to, from and through the site is provided which is appropriate to the current and expected use.48 This was discussed at the separate conferencing session49 held between myself, Mr Wu and Mr Carlisle. In regard to that agreement, issues during construction are addressed by Mr Wu, and design issues are addressed by Mr Nancekivell, including internal site access. In regard to access to the site, the following was agreed:

47 The Norana Walkway is described by the Board at Paragraph 2.7 as “through Favona, and around the Māngere Inlet that includes going through Ōtāhuhu, Onehunga and looping back through Māngere Bridge”. 48 EIC of Mr Carlisle, Paragraphs 2 and 4, page 2. 49 Expert Conferencing Joint Witness statement to the Board, Traffic and Transport (Mercury NZ Ltd Site), Thursday 7 June 2017.

BF\57020889\1 Page 39

18.2 I consider that there is sufficient flexibility within the proposed Designation for safe access to be appropriately addressed during detailed design. I understand that revised Project Drawings of this area are referenced by Mr Nancekivell in his rebuttal evidence.

19. EVIDENCE OF JOHN PARLANE FOR KIWI PROPERTY GROUP LTD

19.1 Mr Parlane raises concerns about the potential adverse effects of the EWL on the local roads around the Sylvia Park Centre50, and seeks mitigation such as widening of Mt Wellington Highway, grade separation of the South Eastern Arterial (SEART)/Carbine Road intersection and a new ‘loop road’ connecting Carbine Road to the Sylvia Park Train Station. Later in paragraphs 53-57 he also suggests that allowing general traffic access to Sylvia Park via the bus-access road from Mt Wellington Highway proposed by AT would also be suitable mitigation for the effects of the EWL.

19.2 Firstly, I note that some of his comments regarding ‘adverse effects’ relate to predicted traffic growth expected to occur irrespective of the EWL, rather than as a direct result of the EWL. For example in paragraph 9 he states (emphasis added):

“Modelling undertaken by Beca to support the East West Link project suggests that there will be significant increases in traffic on Mt Wellington Highway whether or not the project is undertaken. However, no specific mitigation is proposed to address those effects.’

19.3 Since such traffic increases are expected to occur even without the EWL, I have considered them as part of the baseline environment. Hence I do not consider that element of traffic growth above current levels to be a direct effect of the EWL. I therefore focus on the predicted change in traffic related specifically to the EWL.

Traffic Modelling

19.4 In paragraphs 29-30 Mr Parlane discusses the form of the models used in the AEE in this area. This relates to the two main tiers of models used in the AEE (the higher-level ART3 demand model and the more detailed SATURN traffic model), as outlined in pages 20-21 of my EIC. This issue and agreement was addressed in paragraph 3.9 of the JWS as follows:

50 EIC of Mr Parlane, Paragraph 6.

BF\57020889\1 Page 40

19.5 I agree that the SATURN models indicate an increase in traffic flow on Mt Wellington Highway at that model boundary (north of SH1). Those changes range between -5% and + 15% and are more pronounced in the southbound direction, as shown in Figure 19-1:

Figure 19-1 Change in Predicted Traffic Flows (pcu51) AM Peak Interpeak PM Peak Daily

2026 Without EWL

Northbound 2,603 1,524 2,013 23,056

Southbound 2,409 2,181 2,382 30,773

2-way 5,013 3,705 4,395 53,829

2026 With EWL

Northbound 2,474 1,660 2,101 24,341

Southbound 2,773 2,391 2,637 34,036

2-way 5,247 4,052 4,738 58,377

Change

Northbound -129 (-5%) 136 (9%) 88 (4%) 1,285 (6%)

Southbound 363 (15%) 210 (10%) 256 (11%) 3,263 (11%)

51 The units are passenger car units (pcu) that include a higher weighting on trucks. The peak period values are per hour.

BF\57020889\1 Page 41

AM Peak Interpeak PM Peak Daily

2-way 234 (5%) 346 (9%) 344 (8%) 4,548 (8%)

19.6 I would first note that an increase in traffic flow predicted by a model does not necessarily result in an adverse effect – rather it provides a basis for the transport expert to assess the potential for adverse effects.

19.7 During preparation of the AEE in 2016 I had identified in the regional ART3 model that an increase in traffic on Mt Wellington Highway was predicted. I considered this further and discussed it with the Auckland Forecasting Centre (who operate the ART3 model). As the ART3 model represents the network at a simplified level of detail, I considered that this effect was likely to be overstated. The ART3 model does not represent all the individual access points and traffic signals along this section of Mt Wellington Highway, so was not fully able to capture the capacity constraints on this section. This meant that it would more readily divert traffic to that route than would be likely in reality (that is, the increased delay associated with any extra traffic using those traffic signals was not fully reflected). I subsequently considered that such an increase was not likely to occur, and hence would not result in an adverse effect.

19.8 In response to the evidence of Mr Parlane, I again reviewed how the ART3 model was predicting this increase in traffic. When looking at the more detailed SATURN model I found that the potential for increased delays was most likely for the southbound traffic during the evening peak, and so I focussed on that movement.

19.9 This showed that a significant part of the predicted increase using Mt Wellington Highway was from traffic from Ellerslie using Mt Wellington Highway to access SH1 southbound, rather than using the Ellerslie-Penrose Highway. On further analysis, I found that this was mostly due to how the SH1 on-ramp was represented in the scenario with EWL. The scenario without the EWL included representation of the ramp signals for southbound traffic, however this had been omitted in the scenario with the EWL. This meant that the delay of some 2 minutes using that ramp was removed, making this a more attractive route. It is intended that the existing ramp signal on the southbound on- ramp would be retained52.

19.10 I subsequently requested my team to undertake a sensitivity test of the ART3 model with the ramp signal added back. This indicated that the Ellerslie traffic would generally switch back to the original route via the Ellerslie-Penrose Highway. The effect of this

52 It is unclear if this omission in the ART3 model was a coding error or a misunderstanding of how the new ramps were expected to operate.

BF\57020889\1 Page 42

test was that the predicted increase in southbound traffic flow on Mt Wellington Highway was significantly reduced. I then applied that level of reduction to Mt Wellington Highway in the local SATURN model. This indicated an increase in the southbound pm peak traffic on Mt Wellington Highway of only some 3%, rather than the 11% indicated in the original models (and a 2-way increase of only 2%).

19.11 To assess the potential effect of this change in traffic flow, I then extracted the predicted travel times between Mt Wellington Highway and various destinations around the network. This is the same analysis in Section 5.3 of TR01, but with a focus on travel to or from Mt Wellington Highway. These results are presented in Annexure 5 and use the modified models for the pm peak, but the unmodified ones for the other periods. I consider that these values are likely to indicate the potential effects of the EWL on travel times accessing Sylvia Park from the wider network.

19.12 This analysis indicates significant reductions in travel times to/from the Sylvia Park centre as a result of the EWL from a wide range of locations. This includes up to 8 minutes saved to/from the airport and up to nearly 12 minutes saved to SH20. I consider that this intuitively makes sense as the EWL will significantly improve accessibility to this area to and from the west.

19.13 The models do indicate increases in delays for some movements, including up to 2.8 minutes heading to Highbrook in the morning peak. Even with these increases, I consider that overall the access to the Sylvia Park Centre is likely to be improved as a result of the EWL. As such, I do not agree with Mr Parlane that the EWL will create an adverse effect on that area. I also note that potential upgrade work at the Highbrook roundabout was identified during the EWL Business Case process (to be progressed as a separate project), but these are not reflected in the modelling. As such, those increases in travel time are also unlikely to occur.

19.14 I note that in addition to diverting trips, the ART3 model predicts induced traffic, in response to reduced travel times. As such, it is likely that a proportion of any increase in traffic on Mt Wellington Highway could be induced traffic associated with the activities in that area, such as the Sylvia Park Centre. Those trips would only be induced if they had reduced travel times, so would clearly not suffer an adverse effect.

Carbine Road/Clemow Drive Route

19.15 Mr Parlane also considers that, contrary to the model predictions53, there could be potential adverse effect of the EWL due to traffic from the east (from SEART) using the

53 Table 2 of EIC of Mr Parlane.

BF\57020889\1 Page 43

Carbine Road and Clemow Drive routes to access the EWL. This route is indicated in Figure 19-2, along with the alternative route via SEART and Church Street.

19.16 The traffic models indicate that only small volumes of traffic (some 100vpd) are expected to use the Carbine Road route from SEART to access the EWL (west of Great South Road), and generally only to access the areas near Great South Road. A much greater volume (4,000 vpd) is predicted to remain on SEART and use Church Street, Neilson Street then Captain Springs Road to access the EWL. This is influenced by the expected reduction in congestion on Church Street and Neilson Street.

19.17 The models predict that the SEART route would be quicker than the alternative by only 8 seconds in the morning peak but 1 minute quicker in the interpeak and nearly 2 minutes quicker in the evening peak. The very small difference in the morning peak indicates both that congestion on the SEART route is being reflected in the models, and that this period is when the alternative route could become more viable (it is also where the model indicates the greater use of the Carbine Road route). I note that during the am peak, the southbound route via Carbine Road is generally not congested, so could accommodate this extra traffic (it is also when the traffic generation of retail areas such as Sylvia Park are not at their peak).

Figure 19-2 Alternative Routes between SEART and the EWL

19.18 To check the model predictions I considered the features of the two competing routes to get to the EWL. I found that the SEART route would have:

BF\57020889\1 Page 44

(a) A total distance of 5.2km, with 2km on 80kph roads and 3.2km on 50kph roads

(b) Pass through 5-6 traffic lights (depending on direction) to reach the EWL at Captain Springs Road

19.19 The Carbine Road route would have:

(a) A total distance also of 5.2km, but with some 2.4km on 50kph roads and 2.8km on a 60kph road

(b) Pass through 7 or 8 traffic lights (depending on the direction) and the complex 5- leg roundabout on Mt Wellington Highway

19.20 I therefore consider it very plausible that the route via SEART/Church Street would be the preferred route between the east and the EWL, due to it having a higher speed environment and passing through less intersections. Overall, I conclude that no adverse effect is evident for the Carbine Road route.

Adverse Effect and Mitigation

19.21 At paragraph 46, Mr Parlane makes a distinction between congestion related to the operation of a Metropolitan Centre and that caused by ‘through’ traffic. He implies that the former could be positive in that it could encourage modal shift, but states that the latter could compromise efficiency and is therefore a potential adverse effect of the EWL.

19.22 I don’t share this particular distinction. I agree that a change in mode shift can be driven by increased congestion, however I don’t believe that travellers considering a change in mode would make the distinction between which vehicles may have caused the congestion (that is, congestion created by either type of traffic would have a similar effect on mode shift). I also note that traffic associated with a Metropolitan Centre is effectively ‘through’ traffic for the remainder of its journey as it passes through other areas.

19.23 Mr Parlane makes these comments in relation to Carbine Road and Clemow Drive, which he refers to being ‘in effect local roads within or alongside’ such centres. As noted by Mr Parlane (his Table 2), my assessment has not identified additional traffic on Carbine Road as a result of the EWL (a reduction is predicted). However, a small increase is expected on Mt Wellington Highway. I note that Mt Wellington Highway is deemed a Primary Arterial by Auckland Transport (see page 29 of TR01), and as such is expected to have a through-traffic function. In this regard, AT’s classification system54 defines Primary Arterials as: ”Intended to carry predominantly through traffic (but may

54 Auckland Transport Code of Practice, Chapter 4, Table 3.

BF\57020889\1 Page 45

also serve adjacent activities).” Subsequently I don’t consider that a small increase in through traffic on Mt Wellington Highway would automatically be deemed an adverse effect.

19.24 In summary, I do not agree that the EWL is likely to have an adverse effect on the roads around the Sylvia Park Centre. This is because:

(a) The expected increase in traffic flows on Mt Wellington Highway are not expected to be significant; and

(b) I consider that overall, the EWL would provide improved accessibility to the Centre, especially from the west.

19.25 As I do not consider there to be an adverse effect of the EWL on the roads adjacent to the Sylvia Park Centre, I do not support the need for the mitigation items suggested by Mr Parlane to be included in the EWL Project.

20. EVIDENCE OF MARK LUKER FOR KIWI PROPERTY GROUP LTD

20.1 Mr Luker considers55, in reliance of Mr Parlane’s evidence, that the EWL is likely to have adverse congestion effects on the local road network accessing the Sylvia Park Centre. These concerns are based on expected or possible increased traffic flows on Mt Wellington Highway and Carbine Road, both of which I have addressed in response to Mr Parlane.

20.2 Mr Luker seeks an MOU between Kiwi Property Ltd and the NZTA whereby Kiwi Property Ltd would monitor effects on the local network, which could then trigger the need for the parties to meet to discuss mitigation. I do not support such specific monitoring being required as part of the EWL because I have not identified any specific adverse effects, and because in my opinion it would be extremely difficult for such monitoring to isolate the effects of the EWL from the effects of background growth or of specific intensification or network changes associated with the Sylvia Park Centre itself.

21. EVIDENCE OF DON MCKENZIE FOR PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED (POAL)

21.1 Mr McKenzie raises concerns with the effects of the Project on the POAL Pikes Point and the Port of Onehunga sites. Mr Kirk (General Manager of Infrastructure and Property) refers to and concurs with the transport related matters raised in Mr McKenzie’s evidence.

55 EIC of Mr Luker, Paragraph 30.

BF\57020889\1 Page 46

Ports Link Road

21.2 Mr McKenzie considers that the proposed Ports Link Road (Pikes Point site) does not appear to provide an efficient link between the EWL, the properties it is intended to service (western side of the link road) and the existing wider network56. He does not believe that the proposed Port Link Road will contribute to the efficient distribution of freight within Auckland without a full road link between the EWL, the neighbouring inland ports and other existing public arterial roading links (e.g. Neilson Street).

21.3 The Ports Link Road is intended to connect to the properties in this area (including the large freight generating sites of MetroPort and POAL) via both direct property access and via the local road network (Miami Parade). This local road connection provides EWL access to properties located on Angle Street, Pukemiro Street and Edinburgh Street. It provides indirect access through to Neilson Street via Miami Parade and Angle Street, however the main access to Neilson Street from the EWL is intended to be via Captain Springs Road. I therefore do not agree with the suggestions that this road will not contribute to the efficient distribution of freight, or that a ‘much larger and more connected road network’ should be provided. I note that consideration of alternative designs and locations for the Ports Link Road are addressed in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Nancekivell.

21.4 Through the expert conferencing it was agreed between myself and Mr McKenzie that the intent of the link at the northern end is to provide access to properties from the cul- de-sac and not act as a through route to Neilson Street57. It was also acknowledged that the Ports Link Road will provide the opportunity for those properties along the western side of the road to seek access should they wish to do this in the future.

Port of Onehunga

21.5 Mr McKenzie’s evidence states the main concern is to ensure the current level of site access / egress for all types of vehicles if the Port of Onehunga is retained long term.58 Mr McKenzie also goes on to state that the NoR drawings do not show detail on turning lanes and intersection control.

21.6 Through the expert conferencing (JWS, paragraph 3.14 page 14) it was agreed between myself, Mr McKenzie, Mr Smith and Mr Nancekivell that the intent is for all vehicles to be able to continue to use the Wharf including turning from the new intersection, with detailed design to confirm the feasibility and safety of such manoeuvres. It is also

56 EIC of Mr McKenzie, Paragraph 4.11. 57 JWS, paragraph 3.12, page 13. 58 EIC of McKenzie, Paragraphs 5.1 – 5.15, pages 9-11.

BF\57020889\1 Page 47

intended that the future development of the Wharf could be supported by providing access directly off the land bridge.

21.7 I consider that this is addressed in Condition DC11(c) included in Ms Hopkins rebuttal evidence.

22. EVIDENCE OF DON MCKENZIE FOR JACKSON ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES

22.1 This submission relates to retaining vehicle access to/from 14-18 Gloucester Park Road (South), which includes the Jackson Electrical properties. The Project proposes a new cul-de-sac access from the Neilson Street/Gloucester Park Road intersection to serve 14-18 Gloucester Park Road.

22.2 Through the expert conferencing it was agreed between myself and Mr McKenzie (Paragraph 3.13, page 14 of JWS) that the intent is for all vehicles to be able to turn from the new intersection with Gloucester Park Road South. Detailed design should confirm that access and egress manoeuvrings from the cul-de-sac through the Neilson Street intersection can be undertaken safely and effectively.

22.3 Vehicle tracking access is demonstrated in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Nancekivell.

23. EVIDENCE OF JOHN BURGESS FOR TRAMLEASE

23.1 Mr Burgess raises concerns about the effect of banning right-turn movements from the Tramlease property at 19-21 Sylvia Park Road. These concerns relate to three issues:

(a) The safety and feasibility of allowing u-turn movements at the Pacific Rise intersection;

(b) The safety and feasibility of allowing u-turn movements at the proposed u-turn bay near Great South Road (at chainage 5200); and

23.2 These issues are stated in paragraph 3.15 of the JWS. The first issue was agreed as follows:

BF\57020889\1 Page 48

23.3 The design of this intersection, and its provision for u-turns, was developed early and so has been subject to a number of independent Safety Audits, as discussed in the evidence of Mr Nancekivell59. The intersection is required for access to Pacific Rise, so u-turners travelling east on Sylvia Park Road would simply turn right into the large gap in the central median.

23.4 The design would need to actively ban u-turns (such as via No Right Turn restriction) if it was considered unsafe. Given the previous safety audits of this intersection, I consider it unlikely that such a restriction would be imposed on safety grounds. Mr Nancekivell describes the design and safety audit process, including checks on the tracking of vehicles making such a u-turn, and is included in his rebuttal evidence.

23.5 The second issue was agreed in the JWS as follows:

59 Paragraph 9.11 of his EIC.

BF\57020889\1 Page 49

23.6 This u-turn facility was added to the design at a much later date (and between my assessment for the AEE and my EIC). As such, it has not been subject to the same safety audit process as that at Pacific Rise. Mr Nancekivell describes in his rebuttal evidence concept designs for alternative u-turn facilities. Based on the concepts outlined in Mr Nancekivell’s evidence, I consider it remains feasible that a safe facility can be provided, but I acknowledge this is a not certain.

23.7 In the event that this facility cannot be provided, then my assessment in TR01 remains valid, namely those that currently turn right out of the site would instead need to turn left and use the local network, such as via Great South Road then Vestey Drive.

23.8 I note that such vehicles wishing to head east from the Stratex site would be likely to be destined for either north to SH1, north to Mt Wellington Highway, east to SEART (via Clemow Road), south to SH1 or south to Mt Wellington Highway. I discuss these in turn:

(a) For vehicles heading south to Mt Wellington Highway, it is already quicker to turn left to Great South Road then east via Vestey Drive, then it is to head east on Sylvia Park. Therefore I do not consider such movements would be adversely affected by the lack of a u-turn;

(b) For vehicles heading north to SH1, it is already shorter to go west to Great South Road then access at the SEART on-ramp, rather than via Mt Wellington Highway. That route via Great South Road is currently congested approaching Church Street during peaks, however the EWL project is expected to significantly reduce such congestion. It is also proposed to extend westward the entry to the truck- bypass lane, meaning this would be a suitable replacement for accessing via Mt Wellington Highway. Hence I do not consider those movements would be significantly adversely affected.

(c) For vehicles heading east to SEART, the decongested route via Great South Road would also provide a good alternative once the EWL is in place.

(d) Vehicles destined for Mt Wellington Highway or south on SH1 would need to make the 1km longer detour via Vestey Drive.

23.9 Therefore, the risk of a u-turn facility at Great South Road not being able to be provided only affects one of the 4 access movements (the right turn out). And only 2 of 5 major destinations of that right-turn out movement would need to divert via the longer Vestey Drive Route. Overall, I consider that this limited additional diversion is off-set by the significantly improved access to this site provided by the EWL to strategic destinations to

BF\57020889\1 Page 50

the west, such as up to 8 minutes saved from the airport, up to 13 minutes saved from SH20 north and up to 10 minutes saved to Onehunga60.

23.10 The third issue was described in the JWS as follows:

23.11 As described by Mr Nancekivell, it is not intended that such vehicles would use the new off-ramp from SH1 to access the site. As noted in the JWS, these movements would need to continue using the existing Mt Wellington Highway off-ramp, then Sylvia Park Road as currently. As this is an existing movement, I don’t consider that restriction to represent an adverse effect.

23.12 I therefore consider that even if a u-turn facility near Great South Road cannot be provided, overall the access to the Tramlease site would not be adversely affected.

24. EVIDENCE OF WES EDWARDS FOR 8 SYLVIA PARK ROAD AND KERRY WILSON FOR 8 SYLVIA PARK ROAD BODY CORPORATE AND SYL PARK INVESTMENTS

24.1 Mr Edwards provides expert traffic evidence in relation to access to 8 Sylvia Park Road. Mr Wilson provides (non-expert) evidence on behalf of 8 Sylvia Park Road Body Corporate and Syl Park Investments. I have focussed my response on the technical aspects of Mr Edward’s evidence, however Mr Wilson provides helpful context in regard the current access behaviour of the current employees of that site.

24.2 This issue relates to the proposed removal of right-turn movements for properties accessing 8 Sylvia Park Road. It is a similar issue to that raised by Mr Burgess on behalf of Tram Lease Ltd, however 8 Sylvia Park Road is located on the other (north) side of Sylvia Park Road, which has different implications for its access.

24.3 Left turns (in and out) to the 8 Sylvia Park will be retained so access for those movements will not be negatively affected. In fact, the left-in movements will have come from the west, so are likely to benefit by the significantly improved access from the west

60 See para 19.29 of my EIC.

BF\57020889\1 Page 51

provided by the Project (e.g. as noted in my EIC61 travellers from SH20 north will save up to 13 minutes).

24.4 As noted by Mr Edwards62, there is currently internal (intra-site) access between 8 Sylvia Park Road and the adjacent property at 1 Pacific Rise. This access appears to be actively used, with the site layout of parking at the rear of 8 Sylvia Park road appearing to be configured to rely on this movement (i.e. cars and especially the large trucks accessing the site would struggle to u-turn within the site to exit via the formal access. I accept Mr Wilson’s statement63 that the different property ownership means that the internal inter-site links could potentially be closed. If that occurred, it would appear that 8 Sylvia Park road would need to reconfigure their site to allow u-turn manoeuvres for both cars and trucks.

24.5 In my assessment for the AEE (TR01, page 194) I recommended exploration of the potential to formally allow internal access between 8 Sylvia Park Road and 1 Pacific Rise. However, I understand that it is not feasible to impose such legal easements as part of the EWL Project.

24.6 I first briefly discuss the information provided by Mr Wilson in regard current access patterns to the site, then I separately address the two affected movements, namely the right turn exit, and the right turn entry.

Site User Information

24.7 Mr Wilson presents64 employee surveys for 8a Sylvia Park Road (Think IT) that show the majority of employees access Sylvia Park Road via the east (some 80-83%), with wide distribution of employees from across the region. This includes journey times to work ranging from 12 to 90 minutes with a median of 30 minutes. The data shows that some 25% of employees live in ‘west Auckland’, but only 17% access Sylvia Park Road from the west, and only 17% indicate they would use the EWL. I suspect that the difference between the employees living out west and those currently accessing from the west reflects the current poor and congested access through Onehunga/Penrose area. I expect that that the improved access to/from the west created by the EWL (and in conjunction with the opening of the Waterview Tunnel), would be likely to encourage greater access to this area from the west.

61 EIC of Mr Murray, Paragraph 19.29. 62 EIC of Mr Edwards, Paragraph 18. 63 EIC of Mr Wilson, Paragraph 11. 64 Paragraph 13.5-13.7.

BF\57020889\1 Page 52

24.8 I note that the survey undertaken by Mr Wilson only applies to his business at unit 8a, and may not be representative of the whole site. However, in the absence of other such data I have assumed it is reasonably representative.

Right-Turn Exit Movement

24.9 I agree with Mr Edwards65 that with the proposed u-turn facility at Pacific Rise, the additional distance for this movement would be small and a relatively minor inconvenience.

24.10 Mr Edwards has raised potential safety concerns with the u-turn facility at Pacific Rise66. This is addressed by Mr Nancekivell, who explains that there are potential design refinements to address those concerns.

24.11 Mr Edwards does however consider the potential effects on access if such a u-turn facility at Pacific Rise cannot be provided, in conjunction with the assumption that the intra-site access is also restricted. I consider it very unlikely that the u-turn facilities at Pacific Rise cannot be provided, however I have also considered this worst-case scenario of having no u-turn and no intra-site access.

24.12 Mr Edwards has used Google Maps to estimate the additional delay for the detour route, suggesting67 additional travel time for the detour routes of up to 5 minutes off peak and up to 7 minutes in the PM peak. I take Mr Edwards analysis at face value, however I note the following:

(a) the range indicated in his Appendix A is typically an additional 1-5 minutes, with no indication where in that range the delays would sit;

(b) the Google analysis would not include the delay for vehicles waiting at the site exit for gaps in both directions of traffic before making the right turn for the existing Route. I estimate that such delays could readily be 0.5-2 minutes;

(c) Many drivers feel uncomfortable turning right across heavy traffic flows, so could prefer to make the left turn, followed by the right-turn into the median break at Pacific Rise;

(d) The vehicles making this right-turn exit from the site are wishing to head west. Such vehicles will gain the most from the EWL, especially those heading to Onehunga or SH20. Based on the 2026 traffic models, those westbound

65 EIC of Mr Edwards, Paragraph 25, page 6. 66 EIC of Mr Edwards, Chapter 6, pages 6 & 7. 67 EIC of Mr Edwards, Paragraph 82, page 15.

BF\57020889\1 Page 53

vehicles will save between68 1.5-4 minutes heading to Onehunga, 4-13 minutes heading to SH20 north and 2-7 minutes heading to the airport;

(e) Mr Edwards has considered the EWL time savings for the right-turn entry but did not do so for the right-turn exit, which as noted above are significant; and

(f) From the evidence of Mr Wilson, the majority of employees and clients would access the site to/from the east and therefore not be making this movement.

24.13 In conclusion, I consider it unlikely that the u-turn facility at Pacific Rise cannot be provided. In the unlikely event that it cannot be and the intra-site link is closed, the extra detour routes would represent a longer, and more inconvenient route existing the site, however I do not consider that this would represent a significant impact on the site access as only a low proportion of the site users would be impacted, and those impacted would be the most likely to gain the significant improved access to/from the west created by the EWL.

Right Turn Entry Movement

24.14 As noted by Mr Edwards69, the right-turn entry movement requires a detour via a u-turn at the western end of Sylvia Park Road. As agreed in the JWS (page 15), there are safety concerns with the concept design for the u-turn as included in the lodged drawings. In his rebuttal evidence Mr Nancekivell describes some design refinements that could potentially address this.

24.15 However, like Mr Edwards, I have considered the potential impact on the site access in the event that a design for a safe facility cannot be identified in detailed design (and in the event that the intra-site access is banned).

24.16 Mr Edwards (Figure 4) outlines the potential detour routes via Vestey Drive for access from the north or east under those assumed conditions. Again, I take his analysis at face value, which shows detour routes that could involve extra travel times of between 2 and 7 minutes from Mt Wellington Highway North, 1-4 minutes from Clemow Drive and - 1 to 3 minutes from Mt Wellington Highway south (ignoring savings from the EWL).

24.17 I do however note that a significant number of those accessing from Mt Wellington Highway North would have come from SH1 north. That movement has an alternative entry via the SEART off-ramp then via Great South Road to enter Sylvia Park Road from the west. This movement is some 1.9km longer than via Mt Wellington Highway and off- peak is only some 2-3 minutes longer. That route is currently congested approaching the

68 The range reflects the model predictions for the three peak periods. 69 EIC of Mr Edwards, Chapter 7, pages 7 & 8.

BF\57020889\1 Page 54

Gt South Road intersection in the morning peak, however that congestion is expected to reduce due to the EWL itself. Therefore I consider this to be a potentially more viable detour route than via Vestey Drive, especially outside the morning peak.

24.18 I accept Mr Wilson’s evidence that the majority of his clients and employees would access from the east, rather than the west, thereby not be likely to gain significant benefits from the EWL. Therefore, I agree that under a worst-case scenario of no u-turn at the western end of Sylvia Park Road (and the intra-site access prohibited), there would be a longer, and less convenient access route required for vehicles wishing to access Sylvia Park Road from the east.

24.19 In summary, I consider that access to/from the site at 8 Sylvia Park Road will be affected as follows:

(a) The existing left-turn entry movement will not be directly affected but will likely benefit from the improved access from the west with the EWL;

(b) The existing left-exit is not directly affected, and this will represent the majority of movements exiting the site;

(c) With the Pacific Rise u-turn facility provided, the right-turn exit only has a minor detour, and vehicles are likely to benefit from the improved access to the west with the EWL.

(d) In the unlikely event of both no u-turn facility at Pacific Rise and the intra-site access prevented, then the right-turn exit movements would have a relatively minor longer route, but again would be most likely to benefit from the significantly improved access to the west with the EWL.

(e) With a u-turn facility provided at the western end of Sylvia Park Road, the right- turn entry movements will have a short diversion of some 800m, which would represent a relatively small inconvenience to the overall journeys of the users entering the site

(f) In the event that both no u-turn facility in the west is provided and the intra-site access is prevented, then the right-turn entry movements would need to make a detour of typically 1.4-2km. This could increase their journeys by 2-7 minutes as indicated by Mr Edwards, although this could be offset by some 3 minutes due to the EWL.

BF\57020889\1 Page 55

24.20 I therefore agree that under certain circumstances that the right-turn entry movement would be longer by maybe 2-5 minutes70 as a result of the EWL. While this would represent an impact for those entering the site, I consider that the overall access to the site to only be moderately impacted, given that the other movements (including the majority who exit to the east), will not be significantly impacted (or would gain a benefit).

25. EVIDENCE OF AMANDA KINZETT FOR ONEHUNGA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

25.1 Ms Kinzett raises71 a series of questions regarding the transport outcomes for the project. I have addressed a number of these in response to the traffic experts, so focus on the additional questions raised.

Significant Benefits for the Transport Network

25.2 Ms Kinzett queries at paragraph 18.1.1 of her evidence whether there are going to be any travel time benefits when there will be traffic lights along the length of the EWL. I can confirm that there will be significant travel time savings (as set out in paragraph 10.4 of my EIC) and the four set of traffic lights on the EWL are accounted for in the traffic modelling. I note that the time savings are measured in regard to accessing this area, and this does not imply that travel along the EWL will be uninterrupted.

25.3 Ms Kinzett also questions whether the EWL in fact increases the build-up of local traffic around Galway Street72. The project is expected to significantly reduce traffic flows in the area of Neilson Street and Galway Street. The southern section of Galway Street does change from its current local cul-de-sac to a major road with higher traffic flows. This area is however expected to be less congested as a result of the project.

Improved Resilience to the Transport Network

25.4 Ms Kinzett queries how the transport network becomes more resilient when EWL and Waterview utilise the existing Manukau Harbour crossing with its current traffic volumes73. I agree SH20 will become busier in the future, however the EWL provides options for traffic to use different routes than are currently available. For example, the models indicate that some traffic from SH20 wishing to head east towards Highbrook could use the EWL rather than travel further south on SH20. These extra options for traversing this area contribute to network resilience.

70 I have simply assumed here that the EWL would reduce some movements by 2-3 minutes, similar to Mr Edwards. 71 Page 7. 72 EIC of Amanda Kinzett, Paragraph 18.1.2, Page 7. 73 EIC of Amanda Kinzett, Paragraph 18.1.1, Page 7.

BF\57020889\1 Page 56

Enhance public access to the coast

25.5 Ms Kinzett asks if the EWL creates further obstacles to access. I have responded to this in relation to Mr McIndoe, where I demonstrate how I consider that access is enhanced by the Project.

Future Proofing

25.6 Ms Kinzett is concerned over future proofing and doesn’t believe that SH20 and the Manukau Harbour crossing will cope with increased traffic and that the EWL may further exacerbate this rather than solve it.74 I agree that traffic flows on SH20 will continue to grow at high rates (irrespective of the EWL), with the Māngere Bridge becoming much busier and subject to congestion in peak periods. However, as noted above in regard to network resilience, I consider that the EWL Project provides the potential for alternative routes to be used. As per Figure 10-2 (page 41) of my EIC, the EWL project is expected to result in a small decrease in traffic on the SH20 Māngere Bridge (relative to a future without the EWL), as a result of these increased network options. As such, the EWL is not expected to exacerbate this situation.

Galway Intersections

25.7 Ms Kinzett refers75 to the evidence of Mr Davies and Mr Smith and their concern over the proposed configuration of the Galway Link intersections76. I have addressed this in my rebuttal to Mr Smith.

Traffic Assessment

25.8 On page 24 Ms Kinzett raises concerns about the omission of development of the Wharf in the transport modelling and the ‘disparity between economic growth and projected traffic modelling’. I have addressed the development of the Wharf in response to Mr Smith. I also note that the modelling is considered significant growth in this area and the wider region. For example, TR01 (page 24) indicates inclusion of a 63% increase in population in the Onehunga/Penrose area alone.

26. EVIDENCE OF GREGOR HOHEISEL FOR ONEHUNGA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

26.1 Mr Hoheisel raises concerns about the interpretation of the OBA option (page 6 of his evidence), where he states that the NZTA interpretation failed to consider eliminating the existing on-and-off-ramps in Onehunga. I respond to this in relation to the likely transport effects of removing those connections.

74 EIC of Amanda Kinzett, Paragraph 21, Page 9. 75 EIC of Amanda Kinzett, Paragraphs 35-77, Pages 13 & 14. 76 EIC of Amanda Kinzett, Paragraphs 35-77, Pages 13 & 14.

BF\57020889\1 Page 57

26.2 On page 8 of his evidence he suggests that the following changes to the OBA option could have been made for the assessment. I have repeated this graphic from his evidence below in Figure 26-1, along with the ramp numbers referred to:

(a) The removal of the existing southbound on-ramp (ramp 177)

(b) The removal of the existing northbound on-ramp form Onehunga Harbour Road (ramp 4)

Figure 26-1: OBA Design View 1 Looking South

26.3 He also suggests a change to the alignment of the northbound ramp across the Manukau Harbour, however this would not significantly change the transport connectivity so I have not addressed that here. I do not agree that removal of those existing ramps was not considered. They were retained in the concept design for the option because those existing ramps would form important local connectivity functions. In developing this option for assessment, Mr Nancekivell and I considered that removing those ramps would significantly reduce the local connectivity between SH20, Onehunga and the

77 The southbound on-ramp is just outside the view shown in Figure 26-1.

BF\57020889\1 Page 58

EWL, and hence reduce the performance of that option against the project objectives. I understand that the intent of the OBA option was to provide the same level of connectivity as the other options, but in more direct or less impactful manner. I outline below what I consider the impact of eliminating those ramps would be:

(a) Item 1: Eliminating the southbound on-ramp would mean all vehicles wishing to access Onehunga from SH20 north would need to progress onto the EWL to the Alfred Street intersection, then head west again on Neilson Street to enter Onehunga. This would be about 1km longer accessing the Onehunga Town Centre and some 2.3km longer accessing the Onehunga Wharf. It would also mean that there would not be any direct connection between Onehunga and Māngere Bridge, as the replacement on-ramp would not connect until south of Rimu Road off-ramp.

(b) Item 4: Eliminating the northbound on-ramp would similarly increase the length of access between Onehunga and SH20 north. From Onehunga Mall, this would be some 1.4km longer than the current route and 1.3km longer than that in the Project. From Onehunga Wharf, this would be 3.6km longer than the existing route and 2km longer than the route via Galway Street in the Project.

(c) Item 5: Eliminating the northbound off-ramp would provide similar route lengths to Onehunga and the Wharf as per the Project. However, it would mean that vehicles from Māngere Bridge (using the Rimu Road on-ramp), would be prevented from accessing at Onehunga at all, instead needing to travel north to Queenstown Road, then use the local network to enter Onehunga.

26.4 In my opinion these accessibility issues would mean that such a modified OBA option would score significantly worse against the transport criteria, and in particular objective 1. I consider that retaining the ramps in our interpretation of the OBA option was legitimate attempt to maximise its transport performance. I understand that Ms Linzey addresses the overall assessment of the OBA option in her rebuttal evidence.

27. EVIDENCE OF MR STEPHEN LASHAM FOR AOTEA SEA SCOUTS

27.1 Mr Lasham’s evidence78 states that TR01 fails to mention the network gap between Aotea Sea Scouts and the Port of Onehunga where cyclists ride bikes on the footpath sharing this with pedestrians. I do not consider this to be a network ‘gap’ as it is an existing shared path. I agree parts of that route are relatively narrow in places and could be improved. To this end, the project proposes a new shared path between the proposed Landbridge and the Taumanu Reserve. Following various JWS (Traffic, Urban

78 EIC of Mr Lasham, Page 52.

BF\57020889\1 Page 59

Design and Landscape and the JWS for the Neilson Street areas), this path has been confirmed as being a minimum of 4m in width as reflected in modified Condition LV.5D of Ms Hopkins rebuttal evidence.

27.2 Mr Lasham states the report fails to discuss the current parking availability outside Aotea Sea Scouts or across the road on the side of Gloucester Park Road or what the impact will be79. I agree this issue was not discussed in TR01 however it is covered in EIC and rebuttal evidence of Mr Nancekivell.80 I note that in the joint conferencing statement for the Neilson Street area that there are opportunities for parking within close proximity to the Sea Scouts, associated with Orpheus Drive and the intention is that this public parking could be identified as a Condition. This is addressed in modified Condition LV.5A(b) of Ms Hopkins rebuttal evidence.

27.3 Mr Lasham also states that TR01 fails to discuss the increased travel time and complexity for Aotea Sea Scouts members travelling from Māngere Bridge which he expects will cause a reduction of membership. I agree that there will be a longer route from the south, however I also expect that the current access roads will become less congested and more reliable. This will be especially in the evening peak from Onehunga Mall, where vehicles will no longer have to wait in the on-ramp queues getting to the Sea Scouts.

27.4 Mr Lasham also raises concern about the safety of parking and manoeuvring and the design issues are covered in Mr Nancekivell’s rebuttal evidence. I can add that the current parking and manoeuvring occurs across the high-speed, high-traffic motorway on and off-ramps. The models indicate daily traffic flows in 2026 of some 19,000 vpd without the EWL on this section of Onehunga Harbour Road. This road would become a local access road, with only the traffic from Taumanu Reserve and the Sea Scouts using it, which I estimate as being of order of maybe 500 vehicles per day. With the motorway function removed from this road and the substantial reduction of traffic, I would consider that the safety of parking and manoeuvring near the Sea Scouts to be significant improved.

28. EVIDENCE OF E. KIRK, MĀNGERE BRIDGE RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION AND THE MĀNGERE HISTORIC SOCIETY

28.1 I have read the evidence of Mr Kirk, Māngere Bridge Residents and Ratepayers Association and the Māngere Historic Society. The evidence states that the Project should be rejected unless a new four lane bridge between Onehunga and Mahunga Drive (Māngere Bridge) is included in the Project.

79 EIC of Mr Lasham, Paragraphs 1 & 2, Page 52. 80 EIC of Mr Nancekivell, Paragraph 15.50, Page 54.

BF\57020889\1 Page 60

28.2 I don’t consider that this kind of new north-south connection over the Manukau Harbour would be needed to meet the Objectives of this Project. I also note that possibilities for such future connections are not precluded by the EWL, such as via connections at Galway Street or through the Onehunga Wharf.

Andrew Murray

20th June 2017

BF\57020889\1 Page 61

ANNEXURE 1: ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS TO THE COASTAL EDGE

1. This annexure contains my assessment of pedestrian and cycle access to the Māngere Inlet coastal edge. Here I define the coastal edge as being public access to the formed costal path(s) between Onehunga Harbour Road and Hugo Johnston Drive.

2. The following tables contain my assessment of the existing and proposed access. These points are also mapped in the following figures.

Table A1-2 Existing Access to Māngere Inlet No Location Comment Pedestrian / Cycle 1 Orpheus Drive Shared path of varying width beside a mix of very busy Fair and very quiet roads with a gap in one section with a single lane of traffic and no pedestrian/cycle facilities (they must enter the roadway) 2 Old Māngere Shared Paths Good Bridge 3 Onehunga Mall Footpath and bridge via SH20 underpass, with no Poor (south) cycle facilities and narrow footpath, high traffic flows on Onehunga Mall. 4 Onehunga Unformed car-park but poor or no cycle facilities (i.e. none Harbour Road only for car access) 5 Alfred Street It has poor pedestrian/cycle access to the north due to Poor the lack of cycle facilities and crossing of the very busy Neilson Street. Footpaths on one side of the road only and of poor quality. 6 Captain Springs Private road with gates, and no formed path None Road connecting to coastal edge. 7 Miami Stream The path is clear but the whole route is grown-over Poor (providing an enclosed, unsafe –feeling route) with a hidden entry on Miami Parade 8 Ports Link No Connection None 9 Hugo Johnston Footpaths on both sides of the road and dropped kerb Good Drive for cyclists to access the Waikaraka Cycleway. 10 Ann’s Creek No connection. None

I do not consider that the unformed access at Captain Springs Road should be considered an existing public access. It is via a private road which is frequently gated, is not formed (just a mown grass path) with no formed connection to the path (see following photos).

BF\57020889\1 Page 62

In summary:

 Six walking/cycling connections, three are of poor quality, one is of fair quality and two are good quality.  No access from the east.

Figure A1-1 Overgrown 'hidden' access to the Miami Stream access

Figure A1-2 Gated Private Road at Captain Springs Road

BF\57020889\1 Page 63

Figure A1-3 Unformed Access to path from Captain Springs Road

Figure A1-4 The Popular Hugo Johnston Drive Access to the Cycleway

Table A1-2 Proposed Access to Māngere Inlet No Location Comment Ped/Cycle 1 Orpheus Improved, continuous off-road shared path with Good Drive significant traffic reduction 2 Old Māngere No Change Good Bridge 3 Onehunga Improved access on Onehunga Mall Good

BF\57020889\1 Page 64

No Location Comment Ped/Cycle Mall south 4 Onehunga Improved pedestrian and cycle facilities on Onehunga Good Harbour Harbour Road. Road 5 Alfred Street Improved pedestrian/cycle access via shared path and Good signalised crossing of Neilson Street. Pedestrian overbridge of EWL 6 Captain New public access via footpaths, shared path and Good Springs Road signalised crossing 7 Miami Path could be reinstated/improved or removed Poor or Stream improved 8 Ports Link New connection with footpath and signalise crossing Fair 9 Hugo Good Johnston Drive 10 Ann’s Creek New shared path connection to the east Good

In summary:

 Ten walking/cycling connections, eight good quality, with one (Miami) of poor quality (but has potential to be improved) and one of fair quality.

 Full new access to the east.

This clearly shows enhanced access for walking and cycling to the Māngere Inlet coastal edge.

BF\57020889\1 Page 65

Figure A1-5: Existing Cycle and Pedestrian Access

Figure A1-6: Proposed Cycle and Pedestrian Access

BF\57020889\1 Page 66

ANNEXURE 2: ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED CAR PARKING ACCESS TO THE COASTAL EDGE

Table A2-1: Existing Carparks and Public Access to Coastal Edge (Taumanu Foreshore Reserve to Ann’s Creek)

No Parking Location Description and Comment Close to the Coastal Edge Practicable Public Parking / Access

1 Taumanu-Foreshore Direct access from carpark to existing Taumanu Foreshore shared Yes – car park is adjacent to the shared path ✓ carpark path. Provides western link to new EWL shared path.

2 Onehunga Bay Direct access from carpark to existing shared path through Onehunga No - but provides access to the Taumanu ✓ carpark Bay to pedestrian/cycle bridge over SH20 to join Taumanu Foreshore Foreshore Reserve share path within a 5 shared path. minute walk (approx. 300m). Useful parking location for those starting their route in the north and on the eastern side of SH20.

3 Informal parking on Scouts are using the gravel berm on Onehunga Harbour Road to Yes – the informal parking is on the opposite X berm of Onehunga informally park opposite and to the south of the Aotea Sea Scouts. side of the road from the shared path on Harbour Road Access to the coastal edge involves crossing Onehunga Harbour Onehunga Harbour Road. opposite the Aotea Road to reach the shared path on the coastal edge. Not assessed as Sea Scouts being a location for practicable public parking.

4 Old Māngere Bridge Direct access to Old Māngere walking and cycling Bridge which No - but provides access to the northern side of ✓ (south side) crosses the Māngere Inlet. the Māngere Inlet (Waikaraka Cycleway) within a 5 minute walk (approx. 400m). Useful for those starting their route in the south and on the other side of the inlet.

5 Under SH20 Direct access to Waikaraka Cycleway. Yes – car parking area is adjacent to the ✓ shared path.

6 On-street outside The Access to shared path, pedestrian and cycle bridge over Onehunga Yes - short distance from closest on-street car ✓ Landing Harbour Road, to connect with the shared path (Waikaraka park to inlet side of pedestrian and cycle Cycleway). overbridge (approx. 75m) 7 On-street on Alfred Access to the Waikaraka Cycleway via poor quality footpath on the Yes - short distance from closest on-street ✓ BF\57020889\1 Page 67

No Parking Location Description and Comment Close to the Coastal Edge Practicable Public Parking / Access Street (western side western side. carpark to connect with Waikaraka Cycleway only) (approx. 25m)

8 Informal parking on There are two connections to the coastal edge Yes - these are two direct connections to the ✓ internal Waikaraka (1) Western connection – near cul-de-sac end of Alfred Street Waikaraka Cycleway. Cemetery Road (2) Eastern connection - edge of cemetery

9 Onehunga Sports There is an existing carpark associated with the Onehunga Sports No – the carpark is approximately 380m from ✓ Football Club carpark Football for approximately 80 cars. The route to the Waikaraka the Waikaraka Cycleway. within Waikaraka Park Cycleway would be via the Waikaraka Sports field and cemetery.

10 On-street parking on The southern end of Captain Springs is currently a private road. The No – the distance is approximately 580m. ✓ Captain Springs Road existing route from the on-street public parking to the coastal edge would be via the Waikaraka Sports field and cemetery to join the Waikaraka Cycleway.

11 On-street parking on Walkway between Miami Parade and Waikaraka Cycleway is grown- No –The on-street carparking is approximately ✓ Miami Parade near over with a poor quality surface. There are no footpaths provided near 280m away from the Waikaraka cycleway. entrance to walkway. the entrance on the western side.

12 On-street at the Pedestrians use the footpaths on either side of Hugo Johnston Drive Yes - the on-street car parking is approximately ✓ southern end of Hugo and cyclists use the dropped kerb for access to the Waikaraka 200m from the top of the Ann’s Creek/railway Johnston Drive (cul- Cycleway via the Ann’s Creek/railway pedestrian/cycle bridge. pedestrian/cycle overbridge where a view of the de-sac) inlet is possible.

13 Mutukaroa-Hamlins There is an existing car park at Mutukaroa-Hamlins Hill Regional No – there is a significant distance to the X Hill Carpark Park. This parking location was not considered to be practicable due coastal edge (Ann’s Creek/railway to the long distance to the coastal edge (+2.5km). pedestrian/cycle overbridge) via Great South Road, Church Street and Hugo Johnston Drive.

BF\57020889\1 Page 68

Assumptions:

 Coastal edge is defined as being Taumanu Foreshore Reserve to Ann’s Creek.  “Close” to the coastal edge is defined as generally within 200m (2.5 minute walk).

In summary:

- Total of 13 car parking locations - 11 car parking locations that provide practicable public access - 6 car parking locations are “close” to the coastal edge AND provide practicable public access.

BF\57020889\1 Page 69

Table A2-2: Proposed Carparks and Public Access to Coastal Edge (Taumanu Foreshore Reserve to Ann’s Creek)

Those proposed new, or modified, parking locations are shown in bold in the below Table A2-2.

No Parking Location Description and Comment Close to the Coastal Edge Practicable Public Access

1 Taumanu-Foreshore No change. Direct access from carpark to existing Taumanu Yes – car park is adjacent to the shared path ✓ carpark Foreshore shared path. Provides western link to new EWL shared path.

2 Onehunga Bay No change. Direct access from carpark to existing shared path No - but provides access to the Taumanu ✓ carpark through Onehunga Bay to pedestrian/cycle bridge over SH20 to Foreshore Reserve share path within a 5 minute join Taumanu Foreshore shared path. walk (approx. 300m). Useful parking location for those starting their route in the north and on the eastern side of SH20.

3 Orpheus Drive / New carparking location is proposed on Orpheus Drive/Onehunga Yes – requires the crossing of Orpheus ✓ Onehunga Harbour Harbour Road just south of the Aotea Scouts Hall. Will require the Drive/Onehunga Harbour Road. Road near the Aotea crossing of the lightly trafficked Orpheus Drive to reach the shared Sea Scouts path on the other side of the road on the coastal edge. This will replace the informal parking on the berm used by the Scouts.

4 Old Māngere Bridge No change. Direct access to Old Māngere walking and cycling No - but provides access to the northern side of the ✓ (south side) Bridge which crosses the Māngere Inlet. Māngere Inlet (Waikaraka Cycleway) within a 5 minute walk (approx. 400m). Useful for those starting their route in the south and on the other side of the inlet.

5 On-street on New on-street parallel parking on Onehunga Harbour Road Yes – car parking area is adjacent to the shared ✓ Onehunga Harbour adjacent to shared path or footpath. Pedestrians and cyclists will path or footpath. Road use the footpath or shared path to access the new pedestrian / cycle overbridge over EWL. This will effectively replace the parking under SH20 which will be lost as part of the Project.

6 On-street beside The New car parking location is proposed on the redundant Onehunga Yes - short distance to access the shared path on ✓ Landing Harbour Road. This parking will be slightly further to the west from the Landbridge (approx. 25m).

BF\57020889\1 Page 70

No Parking Location Description and Comment Close to the Coastal Edge Practicable Public Access the existing carparking outside The Landing.

7 On-street on Alfred No significant change in terms of closeness to the coastal edge. Yes - short distance from closest on-street carpark ✓ Street (western side However, the access will be of a higher quality as a shared path is to connect with the shared path and the overbridge only) proposed on the eastern side of Alfred Street. which provides access to the commuter cycle lane + footpath and boardwalks on the inlet side.

8 Informal parking on No significant change. No change to the western connection. The Yes - these are two direct connections to the ✓ internal Waikaraka eastern connection will be replaced and could be slightly further shared path. Cemetery Road east but will still provide a direct connection.

9 Onehunga Sports No change. Although, there will be a new route (via the shared No – the carpark is approximately 380m from the ✓ Football Club carpark path on Captain Springs Road) from the Onehunga Sports Waikaraka Cycleway. within Waikaraka Park Football Club carpark to connect with the shared path on the northern side of EWL it will be approximately the same distance as the existing route. However, the route will be more direct and higher quality.

10 On-street parking on New on-street car parking will be available at the southern end of Yes – the on-street car parking is approximately ✓ Captain Springs Captain Springs Road. Pedestrians and cyclists will be able to use 50m from the new shared path on the northern side Road the new shared path on Captain Springs Road to connect with the of EWL. shared path on the northern side of EWL. This also provides access to the at-grade crossing to connect with the commuter cycle way + footpaths and boardwalks on the inlet side of EWL.

11. Reinstatement of New parking. The reinstatement of open space suitable for Not known - the location of the car park within the ✓ Waikaraka Park recreation use (particularly informal recreation and dog walking) site is not known. (South) - Captain will be established south of the existing Onehunga Sports Club Springs Road and accessed from Captain Springs Road. This will include the provision of a carpark. The location of the car park within the reinstatement is unknown however it is likely that users will use the new shared path on Captain Springs Road (western side) then at grade crossing on Captain Springs Road to connect with the commuter cycle way + footpaths and boardwalks on the southern inlet side of EWL.

BF\57020889\1 Page 71

No Parking Location Description and Comment Close to the Coastal Edge Practicable Public Access

12 On-street parking on There will be opportunity for on-street car parking to occur further Yes - the distance from Miami Parade on-street car ✓ Miami Parade. east on Miami Parade close to the intersection with the Ports Link parking and the at grade crossing over EWL at Road. Ports Link Road will provide footpaths to access the at- Ports Link Road is approximately 150m. grade pedestrian crossing across EWL to connect with the commuter cycle way + footpaths and boardwalks on the southern inlet side of EWL.

13 Hugo Johnston Drive New parking facility on the western side of the newly realigned Parking Facility Hugo Johnston Drive connection to replace the existing on-street Yes - the new car park will still be a similar distance ✓ car parking. from the coastal edge as the existing on-street parking. Pedestrians and cyclists will cross the road and use the shared path the goes under the viaduct to joins the shared path on the inlet side at Ann’s Creek.

14 Mutukaroa-Hamlins The existing car park can be used to provide access, via the new No – over 1 kilometre away. ✓ Hill Carpark pedestrian and cycle connection, to the Māngere inlet coastal edge via the viaduct. Although, I do not consider this to be close (it is over 1 kilometre away) it provides car parking for those wanting to start their route from the east.

Assumptions:  Coastal edge is defined as being Taumanu Foreshore Reserve to Ann’s Creek.  “Close” to the coastal edge is defined as generally within 200m (2.5 minute walk). In summary: - 14 carparking locations that provide practicable public access. - 9 carparking locations are “close” to the coastal edge AND provide practicable public access. It is recognised that development of the Onehunga Wharf has the potential to provide car parking on the coastal edge in the future.

BF\57020889\1 Page 72

Figure A2-1: Proposed Parking Locations with the EWL Project in Place

BF\57020889\1 Page 73

ANNEXURE 3: ACCESS TO SH1 AND SH20 FROM ALFRED STREET

1. This annexure contains my assessment of the potential accessibility gains to/from Alfred Street if a direct connection to the EWL was provided. For this assessment I have assumed:

(a) A measuring point on Alfred Street approximately mid-way between Neilson Street and the EWL. I note that properties further north would have lower distance savings while those further south would have greater

(b) I have only used distance to assess the access. I have not considered travel times as they would require detailed modelling and would be sensitive to the assumed size and performance of the new intersections. Given the uncongested nature of this network with the EWL in place, I consider distance to be a sufficient measure for this particular analysis.

2. The following table provides the estimated route distances between that mid-point and SH1 and SH20

Table 3 Access Distances from Alfred Street to the Strategic Network No Movement No Alfred With Alfred Difference Notes Street Street Connection 1 From SH20 North 1700m 1700m 0 Would not use new access 2 To SH20 North 2250m 1730m 520m Would use new access 3 From SH20 South 2160m 1660m 500m Would use new access 4 To SH20 South 1800m 2270m via 0 Assume they remain on new ramp, the shorter route via otherwise Neilson St 1800m 5 From SH1 North 800m 800m 0 Would not use access. Only measured to 6 To SH1 North 800m 800m 0 Captain Springs/Neilson St 7 From SH1 South 1330 830m 500m Would use new access. Only measured to 8 To SH1 South 1330 830m 500m common point at EWL/Captain Springs Rd

BF\57020889\1 Page 74

ANNEXURE 4: CRASH ANALYSIS FOR ALFRED STREET INTERSCETION

1. This annexure contains my simple assessment of the potential effect on traffic crashes with the installation of traffic signals on the EWL at Alfred Street. I have used the simple Flow-Product models developed by the NZTA in their Crash Estimation Compendium.

2. The crash predictions models used are:

3. The relationship between crash rate and traffic flows (i.e. the b1 and b2 parameters) is less than 1, meaning that the installation of new traffic signals will result in more crashes even if the same volume is removed from adjacent intersections.

4. To estimate the potential net effect I applied the models for both the existing proposal (with two signals on the EWL at Galway Street and Captain Springs Road), and a scenario with an additional intersection added at Galway Street. I then varied the volume likely to use Galway Street, and applied an assumption that the flows on Galway Street and Captain Springs would reduce by equal amounts.

5. The calculations are below, indicate that the extra traffic signals could increase the net crash rate by some 36-42%. This assessment does not include any effect of new signals at the Alfred Street/Neilson Street intersection.

BF\57020889\1 Page 75

Model Parameters bo 0.131 b1 0.04 b2 0.12

No Alfred Street Connection

Major Minor Crash Flow Flow Rate (At) EWL/Galway 40000 9200 0.60 EWL/Captain Springs 40000 17200 0.65 TOTAL 80000 26400 1.24

With Alfred Street Connection (5000 vpd)

Major Minor Crash Flow Flow Rate (At) EWL/Galway 40000 6700 0.58 EWL/Alfred 40000 5000 0.56 EWL/Captain Springs 40000 14700 0.63 TOTAL 120000 26400 1.77 increase 42%

With Alfred Street Connection (1000 vpd)

Major Minor Crash Flow Flow Rate (At) EWL/Galway 40000 8700 0.59 EWL/Alfred 40000 1000 0.46 EWL/Captain Springs 40000 16700 0.64 TOTAL 120000 26400 1.70 increase 36%

BF\57020889\1 Page 76

ANNEXURE 5: CHANGE IN TRAVEL TIMES TO/FROM MT WELLINGTON HIGHWAY

The following Table 4 and Figure A4-1 contains the predicted travel times between Mt Wellington Highway (at Sylvia Park) to various destinations in the wider network.

Table 4: Predicted travel times between Mt Wellington Highway (at Sylvia Park) to various destinations in the wider network

AM AM AM IP IP IP PM PM PM From To DM Opt Diff % Diff DM Opt Diff % Diff DM Opt Diff % Diff Mt Wellington NorthAirport 21.5 21.6 0.1 1% 16.1 17.5 1.3 8% 29.5 23.1 -6.4 -22% Airport Mt Wellington North 28.4 20.2 -8.2 -29% 18.1 17.9 -0.2 -1% 22.2 22.1 -0.1 -1% Mt Wellington NorthSH20 North 18.8 13.8 -5.0 -27% 16.8 14.7 -2.1 -12% 30.9 19.4 -11.5 -37% SH20 North Mt Wellington North 27.7 17.4 -10.3 -37% 16.6 12.3 -4.3 -26% 21.1 13.0 -8.2 -39% Mt Wellington NorthSH1 South 13.0 13.9 0.9 7% 11.7 12.8 1.2 10% 20.6 16.2 -4.3 -21% SH1 South Mt Wellington North 23.4 17.8 -5.7 -24% 11.8 11.9 0.1 1% 13.3 14.1 0.8 6% Mt Wellington NorthSH1 North 13.5 13.6 0.1 1% 6.7 8.4 1.8 26% 11.9 7.7 -4.2 -35% SH1 North Mt Wellington North 9.8 8.1 -1.7 -17% 4.9 4.9 0.1 1% 10.3 9.1 -1.3 -12% Mt Wellington NorthHighbrook 11.0 13.9 2.8 26% 9.7 10.9 1.2 12% 18.2 13.8 -4.5 -24%

Highbrook Mt Wellington North 18.4 13.5 -4.9 -27% 9.3 9.7 0.4 4% 14.9 18.6 3.7 25%

BF\57020889\1 Page 77

Figure A5-1: Predicted travel times between Mt Wellington Highway (at Sylvia Park) to various destinations in the wider network

BF\57020889\1 Page 78