DOCSLIB.ORG

TRANSCRIPT of PROCEEDINGS BOARD of INQUIRY Basin Bridge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TRANSCRIPT of PROCEEDINGS BOARD of INQUIRY Basin Bridge TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF INQUIRY Basin Bridge Proposal HEARING at AMORA HOTEL, WAKEFIELD STREET, WELLINGTON on 18 February 2014 BOARD OF INQUIRY: Retired Environment and District Court Judge Gordon Whiting (Chairperson) James Baines (Board Member) David Collins (Board Member) David McMahon (Board Member) Page 1147 APPEARANCES <DAVID JAMES DUNLOP, on former oath [9.47 am] .......................... 1148 <CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILNE 5 CONTINUING [9.47 am] ................................................................. 1148 <CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS ANDREWS [12.30 pm] ......... 1211 <RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [12.43 pm] ................ 1218 10 Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1148 [9.46 am] CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good morning everybody. Sorry to keep everyone waiting, it is my fault this morning. I was walking here thinking I had 5 plenty of time and about 20 past I was at Cuba Street, and the phone rang in my satchel and I realised it was my wife’s phone and I had her satchel, so I had to go all the way back to Citylife again. MR CAMERON: I am pleased you have those moments is all I have got to 10 say. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I wondered what the strange sound of this phone was ringing in my satchel. Anyway, so I am sorry to keep you waiting. The rest of the team thought I had bunked and gone to the Basin 15 Reserve for the historic day. MR CAMERON: I had been asked on behalf of all counsel to ask for an adjournment for two hours, sir. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Well, we might at 1 o’clock. MR CAMERON: It is more a site visit. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Milne. 25 <DAVID JAMES DUNLOP, on former oath [9.47 am] <CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILNE CONTINUING [9.47 am] 30 MR MILNE: Thank you. Good morning, Mr Dunlop. MR DUNLOP: Good morning. MR MILNE: Now, the media has accused me of spending all of yesterday 35 cooking so I’ll move along. Getting back to Option X, I asked; you to look at two points overnight, have you been able to clarify both of those points? MR DUNLOP: Yes, I am able to clarify those points. 40 MR MILNE: If you would do so. MR DUNLOP: So the first question was asked is to confirm whether the Memorial Park Underpass was included. The Memorial Park 45 Underpass was included in all three scenarios being tested in this testing that was undertaken in January and February 2013. Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1149 MR MILNE: With three lanes? MR DUNLOP: No, not with three lanes, no. Well, all three scenarios were 5 tested with two lanes, okay, and then the final scenarios, which were Option X and Options A were tested with four lanes at the stop line so that means a right turn lane and three ahead lanes, okay. So that was the option, does that make sense? 10 MR MILNE: So the comparison between X and A included three lanes and the intersection improvements for both options? MR DUNLOP: Correct, that is correct, so they are consistent for the option. 15 MR MILNE: Thank you. And then the other question was around whether there was an Option X(a) that was considered. MR DUNLOP: I understand there was no Option X(a). 20 MR MILNE: Okay, all right. MR DUNLOP: Yes. I think that was actually directed to Mr Cameron to find that out. 25 MR MILNE: Thank you, it’s all right. Sometimes you go fishing and you don’t catch anything. So moving along and going back to the question of your understanding around the context for the January/February reassessment. 30 MR DUNLOP: Yes. MR MILNE: I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that there is somewhere a letter briefing Opus as to what it was to do and why it was doing it and what the outputs of this process were to be, a you or will 35 Dr Stewart be able to provide that letter to me? MR DUNLOP: Hopefully, Dr Stewart will be able to provide something, whether it is a letter I’m not sure. 40 MR MILNE: Okay. So, just to be clear, what I am seeking here is the instructions to Opus and to clarify the point that you made yesterday around your understanding of how this study fitted in with what Wellington City Council was doing and what Opus’ brief was at this stage, thank you. 45 MR DUNLOP: Yes. Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1150 MR CAMERON: Sorry, is that a request, so that is a request for information? MR MILNE: It is a request for information that I want to be able to discuss 5 with Dr Stewart so I need it before Dr Stewart. MR CAMERON: And it is a letter you are seeking, you are wanting to know? MR MILNE: The basis of the instructions, the brief that was given to Opus in 10 December 2012/January 2013 which led to the report that we are now discussing. MR CAMERON: Concerning Option X? 15 MR MILNE: Yes. MR CAMERON: I understand. My witness is at the back he will do that. MR MILNE: Thank you. And just going back to what we were discussing 20 what was in and out of baskets in terms of this comparison. For costing purposes was the whole of the Underpass project in or out of the costings of both Options X and A at this stage? MR DUNLOP: My understanding is that it would be out but I was not 25 involved in any detail with regards to the costing I am sorry, so you would have to put that one past Dr Stewart. MR MILNE: Okay. Yesterday you indicated what your role was and it was wider than transport, it seemed to feed into the BCR calculation, didn’t 30 it? MR DUNLOP: The transportation components feed into the BCR. MR MILNE: Of the BCR, yes. 35 MR DUNLOP: Correct. So there’s a cost component and there is a transportation component. Transportation is generally the benefits. MR MILNE: Okay. So you were supervising the benefits side of it. 40 MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct. MR MILNE: And someone else was looking at the costing side. 45 MR DUNLOP: Correct. Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1151 MR MILNE: So who specifically in Opus was looking at the costing of the two options? [9.52 am] 5 MR DUNLOP: I couldn’t confirm who it was, I would expect it would have been Mr Thornton working under Dr Stewart. MR MILNE: And, unlike the Feasible Options Report, my understanding 10 from this report is that Paramics was not used to assess travel time savings for the purpose of this comparison? MR DUNLOP: Correct, that is correct. 15 MR MILNE: And essentially the do-minimum was different from at the Feasible Options Report stage, as I understand it what you were doing at this stage was really comparing Option X and Option A against a revised do-minimum, is that a fair summary? 20 MR DUNLOP: That’s a fair summary, yes, as to where things have moved on and how changes have happened on the network. MR MILNE: So in terms of the travel time component that we explored yesterday and it seems quite important in terms of assessment, my 25 understanding is that here you were reliant on SATURN in terms of travel time savings? MR DUNLOP: Yes, that’s correct. 30 MR MILNE: And I think we are agreed that at a network level that that is likely to under represent travel time savings for both options? MR DUNLOP: Yes, as long as you are comparing like for like in, you know, comparative terms, correct. I mean it’s pretty fair to say that this 35 option, being Option X in front of us, you would expect to have a very similar travel time saving from a state highway perspective to Option A. MR MILNE: And the whole 90 seconds versus six minutes debate, that would 40 to a large extent apply in a similar way to Options X and A, wouldn’t it? MR DUNLOP: Totally, completely. The only difference would be the traffic coming on from Kent Terrace coming on to the state highway in 45 Option X may impact on the throughput of the traffic coming through on the state highway, so reduce the state highway journey time. Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1152 MR MILNE: And just turning to the report now at pages 12 and 13, so I am referring to documents and I have called 8/40. 5 MR DUNLOP: Yes. MR MILNE: So looking at the first table on page 12 and just going through those numbers. Now, I am assuming Taurima Street is the street coming from Hataitai just before (INDISTINCT 3.15) 10 MR DUNLOP: It is indeed, correct. MR MILNE: I should know it I pass it every day but I have never quite got to know Wellington. So looking at the first line there, am peak, the 15 numbers are very similar, aren’t they? MR DUNLOP: They are very similar, correct. MR MILNE: The next line, Option X actually provides slightly greater 20 benefits, PM peak? MR DUNLOP: Yes. MR MILNE: Looking at it in the other direction slightly better for Option A 25 and then on the next line slightly better for Option X? MR DUNLOP: Yes. MR MILNE: The next line, John to Elizabeth better for Option A than X by a 30 margin of around 5 percent, is that about correct? MR DUNLOP: Yes, about that or less.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • COMPILATION Report Wellington Public Transport Spine Study
    COMPILATION REPORT WELLINGTON PUBLIC TRANSPORT SPINE STUDY CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 9 2. Public Transport in Wellington 15 3. Study Engagement 21 4. Study Approach 25 5. The Problem and Desired State for Public Transport 29 6. Future Development and Transport Trends 33 7. The Options 37 8. The Option Results 59 9. Staging of options 71 10. Supporting Policy Interventions 75 11. Treasury Better Business Case 79 12. Conclusion 89 Appendix A International Review Case Studies 91 Appendix B Mode Description and Application 93 Appendix C Option Costs 99 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 | Compilation Report | Wellington Public Transport Spine Study Background The process The Public Transport Spine Study (PTSS) is The PTSS approach has progressively narrowed about determining what a future public transport down the number of options (long list, medium solution for Wellington might be. The study list, short list), with each stage providing a more was commissioned by Greater Wellington detailed analysis of those options. Regional Council, Wellington City Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency. These The option assessment was underpinned by three agencies have worked in partnership findings from an international review of public throughout this study to ensure it is aligned transport systems which informed the study of with the economic and transport needs in the characteristics of different transport modes, Wellington City and the wider region. success factors, design issues, constraints, available technology and procurement processes. A key action from the Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Plan (2008) was to provide major improvements to Transport modelling, using a suite of regional public transport to provide a high quality, reliable models and the latest land use and transport and safe service between the Wellington Rail forecasts, has informed the assessment, along with Station and the regional hospital.
    [Show full text]
  • Let's Get Wellington Moving
    Let’s Get Wellington Moving: Time To Re-focus © Copyright Karori Residents’ Association Author Bill Guest 2 March 2021 Introduction In 2001 the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) began considering how to connect the Wellington foothills motorway to the planned second tunnel through Mount Victoria. The new tunnel was to be located slightly north of the present tunnel, and parallel to it. 14 years later, after years of bickering and court cases, the proposed bridged highway on the north side of the Basin Reserve was defeated by the decision of the High Court not to overturn the decision of Commissioners to decline the resource consent required to proceed. While the Mayor of Wellington at the time, and several Councillors expressed pleasure at the decision, the only positive solutions suggested seemed to be “mass transit/light rail” and “cycleways” without a clear strategy or justification for either. In 2016 NZTA reached an agreement with Wellington City Council (WCC) and Greater Wellington City Council (GWRC) to form a joint planning group to devise and implement solutions to the growing congestion problems in Wellington City. The group became known as Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM). Karori Residents Association is concerned about LGWM and believes that it is urgent that WCC asserts its position as the planning authority for the city and seeks a significant re-focus of the work of LGWM. Background When the Wellington foot-hills motorway was built in the late 1960s, the intention was to swing eastwards after passing through the new Terrace tunnel, and to cross over Aro Flat to meet the both the old (1931) and a new Mt Victoria tunnel.
    [Show full text]
  • Wp2 - Background Trends and Issues (Final) Page 1 of 89
    Wellington's Regional Land Transport Plan Working Paper 2 – Background Trends and Issues Data & Analysis Team For more information, contact the Greater Wellington Regional Council: Wellington PO Box 11646 January 2015 T 04 384 5708 F 04 385 6960 www.gw.govt.nz www.gw.govt.nz [email protected] Contents 1. Introduction 5 1.1 Policy context for RLTP working papers 5 1.3 Outline of this working paper 8 2. Population 9 2.1 Recent trends 9 2.2 Population projections 12 2.3 Wellington City’s CBD intensification 13 2.4 Population age structure 13 2.5 Trip rates by age group 15 2.6 Employment trends and forecasts 16 2.7 Summary 21 3. Vehicle ownership 23 3.1 Light vehicle ownership per capita 23 3.2 Access to a motor vehicle 24 3.3 Vehicle ownership and VKT 26 3.4 Vehicle licence holders by age group 27 3.5 Summary 28 4. Wellington region’s transport network 29 4.1 State highway network 29 4.2 Local road and bus network 31 4.3 Rail network 32 4.4 Freight transport 33 4.5 Access to the airport 33 4.6 Summary 33 5. Census travel patterns and trends 35 5.1 Regional journey-to-work trips by origin (local authority area) 36 5.2 Regional journey-to-work trips by destination (local authority area) 37 5.3 Intra- and inter-sector journey-to-work trips, by origin and destination 38 5.4 Regional journey-to-work trips to Wellington City CBD 39 5.5 Total regional journey-to-work trips 42 5.6 Summary 44 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Let's Get Welly Moving
    Scenario Costing Wellington City Council 13-Nov-2017 Let's Get Welly Moving Scenario Costing P:\605X\60508819\6. Draft Docs\6.1 Reports\Final\Inner City Routes Report Final.docx 13-Nov-2017 Prepared for – Wellington City Council – ABN: N/A AECOM Scenario Costing Let's Get Welly Moving Let's Get Welly Moving Scenario Costing Client: Wellington City Council ABN: N/A Prepared by AECOM New Zealand Limited Level 3, 80 The Terrace, Wellington 6011, PO Box 27277, Wellington 6141, New Zealand T +64 4 896 6000 F +64 4 896 6001 www.aecom.com 13-Nov-2017 Job No.: 60508819 AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to ISO9001, ISO14001 AS/NZS4801 and OHSAS18001. © AECOM New Zealand Limited (AECOM). All rights reserved. AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements and AECOM’s experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional principles. AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of which may not have been verified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.
    [Show full text]
  • Wellington Town Belt Management Plan
    Wellington Town Belt Management Plan JUNE 2018 Version Date Description 1.0 August 2013 Major review of the 1995 Wellington Town Belt Management Plan 1.1 April 2017 Updated to be consistent with the Wellington Town Belt Act 2016 1.2 June 2018 Addition of Abel Smith Street land to the Wellington Town Belt ISBN: 978-0-947521-05-9 Wellington Town Belt Management Plan Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 The Town Belt Concepts ................................................................................................. 4 1.2 What is the Wellington Town Belt? .................................................................................. 5 1.3 The Wellington Town Belt Management Plan .................................................................. 6 1.4 Key guiding policies and plans ....................................................................................... 11 2 Wellington Town Belt legislative and policy framework ....................................... 19 2.1 How is the Wellington Town Belt managed? .................................................................. 19 2.2 Wellington Town Belt principles ..................................................................................... 20 2.3 Wellington Town Belt legal status .................................................................................. 22 2.4 Wellington Town Belt Protection and Enhancement ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Programme Business Case Report DRAFT Released 21 June 2019
    Programme Business Case Report DRAFT Released 21 June 2019 This report and supporting LGWM technical documents are being released in draft on Friday 21st June 2019 for the purposes of public information and to inform LGWM partner decision making processes. This programme business case has not been approved by the NZ Transport Agency, the Wellington City Council, and Greater Wellington City Council, nor has funding approval for any further stages been given. The contents of this draft report may change and do not necessarily represent the final position of LGWM or its partner organisations. Copyright information This publication is copyright © NZ Transport Agency on behalf of the LGWM partners. Material in it may be reproduced for personal or in-house use without formal permission or charge, provided suitable acknowledgement is made to this publication and Let’s Get Wellington Moving as the source. Requests and enquiries about the reproduction of material in this publication for any other purpose should be made to: Manager, Information NZ Transport Agency Private Bag 6995 Wellington 6141 The permission to reproduce material in this publication does not extend to any material for which the copyright is identified as being held by a third party. Authorisation to reproduce material belonging to a third party must be obtained from the copyright holder(s) concerned. Disclaimer The NZ Transport Agency, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and Wellington City Council have endeavoured to ensure material in this document is technically accurate and reflects legal requirements. However, the document does not override governing legislation. The NZ Transport Agency, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and Wellington City Council do not accept liability for any consequences arising from the use of this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-40 Approved September 2010
    Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-40 Approved September 2010 Quality for Life Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-40 Approved September 2010 For more information: Greater Wellington Published October 2010 142 Wakefield Street GW/CP-G-10/157 PO Box 11646 Manners Street [email protected] Wellington 6142 www.gw.govt.nz T 04 802 0301 F 04 385 6960 Contents Executive summary .......................................................ii 8. Policies .................................................................37 1. Introduction ...........................................................1 8.1 Network management ........................................ 37 8.2 Travel demand management ............................. 38 2. Vision .....................................................................2 8.3 Safety ................................................................ 38 3. Regional transport network – 8.4 Environment and public health ........................... 38 pressures and issues ..............................................3 8.5 Integrated planning ............................................ 41 3.1 Current transport network performance ............... 4 8.6 Securing transport funds .................................... 41 3.2 Key transport pressures ........................................ 4 8.7 Implementation .................................................. 41 3.2.1 Growing and aging population .................4 8.8 Programme prioritisation and funding ................ 42 3.2.2 Growing economy .....................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Wellingtonʼs Transport History
    Wellington’s transport history April 2016 Executive summary plans did recognise public transport as a transport option, no specific action was recommended at the time. Wellington’s geography has dictated the location and form of transportation links, from the earliest Māori settlements through to the first land surveys in the 1840s From the 1990s onwards, transport thinking evolved. Public transport was and later European settlement. Many of the original routes continue to influence the championed and invested in. A compact and contained city was achieved, which transport planning efforts to shape the city. It is a contained city, developing up from intensified the land use and encouraged walking. Environmental sustainability the valleys to hills – its road network is constrained by this topography – and there became more prevalent in decision making and is further helping to achieve the is an extensive public transport network. However, the capacity of the transport city’s goals. network to meet current and future demands is limited. Most recently, the focus has shifted to cycling, accessing the key Port and airport This paper will look at the history of Wellington transport planning. Of particular ‘gateways’, and the interface of the CBD urban form with major transport corridors. interest is the Ngauranga to airport corridor. This review provides context for what Cycling requires limited road space (compared to private vehicles or public transport) was, is, and could be planned to further develop the transport network. and has significant public health and environmental benefits, if safety issues can be addressed. The port and airport trips have particular needs in terms of reliability and The context of Wellington nature of traffic accessing them.
    [Show full text]
  • Global-Research-Full-Analysis-Report
    Global Research 150 Office Rd Merivale Christchurch 8014 New Zealand +64 3 355 4562 www.globalresearch.nz 2 | Page Let’s Get Wellington Moving – Public comment analysis 3 | Page Let’s Get Wellington Moving – Public comment analysis 4 | Page Let’s Get Wellington Moving – Public comment analysis 5 | Page Let’s Get Wellington Moving – Public comment analysis Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) is a joint initiative between Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and the New Zealand Transport Agency. We’re working with the people of Wellington to develop a transport system that improves how the city looks, feels, and functions. Our focus is the area from Ngauranga to the airport, including the Wellington Urban Motorway and connections to the central city, port, hospital, and the eastern and southern suburbs. In 2016 we talked with people around the region to learn what people like and dislike about Wellington and how they get around the city. Using feedback from more than 10,000 people, we developed a set of urban design and transport priniciples to guide our work. We then collected extensive transport data, and used the principles and ideas from the public to develop scenarios to improve Wellington’s transport and support the city’s growth. In November and December 2017, we released four scenarios for Wellington’s transport future and promoted these in a region-wide public engagement programme. The scenarios were presented in the document Have Your Say…on Let’s Get Wellington Moving and on the website yourvoice.getwellymoving.co.nz. As a result, LGWM received 1,994 online and hardcopy-form responses, 147 letter/report style responses (including 55 from stakeholder groups), and 35 Facebook posts.
    [Show full text]
  • Before a Board of Inquiry Basin Bridge Proposal Statement of Evidence Of
    Before a Board of Inquiry Basin Bridge Proposal Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) In the matter of a Board of Inquiry appointed under section 149J of the Act to consider the New Zealand Transport Agency's notice of requirement and five resource consent applications for the Basin Bridge Proposal. Statement of Evidence of Peter Terence McCombs for the New Zealand Transport Agency (Transportation) Dated 25 October 2013 BROOKFIELDS / KENSINGTON SWAN Solicitors acting: A F D Cameron / Level 9 A M B Green / F R Wedde 79 Boulcott Street PO Box 25-306 Contact: F R Wedde Featherston Street DDI: +64 4 498 0847 Wellington Email: [email protected] Ph +64 4 499 9824 Fax +64 4 499 9822 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF PETER TERENCE MCCOMBS FOR THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY Contents 1 Introduction 1 Qualifications and Experience 1 Previous involvement 2 Code of Conduct 3 Scope of Evidence 3 2 Executive Summary 4 3 History of the Project 5 Strategic Role 5 Key Previous Studies 6 Associated Improvement to Public Transport at Basin Reserve 8 4 The Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-40 8 Forward Vision and Purpose 8 RLTS Objectives and Outcomes 10 5 Implementing the RLTS 12 Corridor Studies 12 Giving Effect to the Ngauranga to Wellington Airport Corridor Plan 13 Project Timing 15 6 Proposed Basin Bridge and Associated Improvements 16 Project Objectives 16 Scope of Works 16 7 Wellington City District Plan 19 Road Network 20 Central Area 23 8 Adelaide Road and the Wellington Urban Development Strategy 25 Adelaide Road Precinct 25 9 Traffic Patterns 27 History of Traffic Growth 27 Before and After Traffic Patterns 28 10 Provisions for public transport 32 11 Cyclists and pedestrians 32 12 Response to Submissions 34 13 Conclusion 44 1 Introduction Qualifications and Experience 1.1 My full name is Peter Terence McCombs.
    [Show full text]
  • Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study Technical Report III: Recommended Strategy
    NGAURANGA TO AIRPORT STRATEGIC STUDY Technical Report 3: Recommended Strategy Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study Technical Report III: Recommended Strategy Contents Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................... i 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Project.................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Previous work................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Scope and Purpose of Technical Report Three: Recommended Strategy................................... 2 2 Strategic Planning Framework............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 New Zealand Transport Strategy (2002)....................................................................................... 5 2.2 Regional Policy Statement ............................................................................................................ 7 2.3 The Regional Land Transport Strategy ......................................................................................... 7 2.4 Wellington City Transport and Urban Development Strategy ....................................................... 8 3 Approach...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Before a Board of Inquiry Basin Bridge Proposal Summary Of
    Before a Board of Inquiry Basin Bridge Proposal Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) In the matter of a Board of Inquiry appointed under section 149J of the Act to consider the New Zealand Transport Agency's notice of requirement and five resource consent applications for the Basin Bridge Proposal. Summary of Evidence of Peter Terence McCombs for the New Zealand Transport Agency (Transportation) Solicitors acting: A F D Cameron / A M B Green / Level 9 F R Wedde 79 Boulcott Street PO Box 25-306 Contact: F R Wedde Featherston Street DDI: +64 4 498 0847 Wellington Email: [email protected] Ph +64 4 499 9824 Fax +64 4 499 9822 1.1 The evidence I have prepared in this matter is focused on the strategic need for and transportation purpose of the Project. This includes: A detailed review and appraisal of the project in terms of the need for and strategic purpose of what is proposed, Its fit with other related parts of the transportation network, The associated traffic patterns and forward expectations, and The manner in which the project will serve the wider community and the region. 1.2 The following provides an overview summary of these principal points. 2.1 The principal objectives for the Project are set out as follows: Objective 1: To improve the resilience, efficiency and reliability of the State highway network: by providing relief from congestion of State Highway 1 between Paterson Street and Tory Street; by improving the safety for traffic and persons using this part of the State Highway 1 corridor; and, by increasing the capacity of the State Highway corridor between Paterson Street and Tory Street.
    [Show full text]