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

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

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.

MR MILNE: And then pretty similar, slightly better for Option A and 35 Option X?

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: Sorry, Option A over Option X. 40 MR DUNLOP: The same call.

MR MILNE: And the next line, again very similar but slightly better for Option A and then the last line again much the same, slightly better for 45 Option A. So overall, and I think the report comes to this conclusion,

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1153

the options are pretty similar in terms of the travel time benefits from SATURN that were derived?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 5 MR MILNE: And the differences there, at least the small ones, would it be fair to say that they are probably within or they would be within the confidence intervals of the model?

10 [9.57 am]

MR DUNLOP: Yes, I mean there’s many factors, I mean you could do more work to get them to match up. You could easily get them to match up so they would be consistent. I mean I think the underlying point with 15 all this analysis was that the journey times were not the major factor at all in comparative terms.

MR MILNE: For comparative terms, yes.

20 MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

MR MILNE: But in terms of assessing the benefits of each of those projects, we are agreed that SATURN under represents journey time savings?

25 MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

MR MILNE: But going back to comparison between SATURN and Paramics, given the discussion we had yesterday around the fact that Paramics reversed some things and the numbers seemed to be hugely different 30 from SATURN, are you able to say that if you did the same comparison with Paramics that you would get the same outcomes in terms of being very similar?

MR DUNLOP: Well, the philosophy behind what you are trying to achieve is 35 very similar so, yes, highly likely you would get very similar numbers.

MR MILNE: Okay, I accept that, they are similar traffic solutions - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes, they are. They are grade separated solutions. 40 MR MILNE: And the point we have just been discussing is – well, some of it is reflected in the footnote 5 at the bottom of page 12, isn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 45 MR BAINES: It is 6 I think.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1154

MR MILNE: It is my eyesight or my printer or both. And there is a little summary which is at the top of page 13 and I assume that that goes back to the 2021 figures and then we move on to the 2031 figures in the 5 next table?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: And then there is a summary of that over the page. So looking 10 at 2031, Option A better on the first two?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: Option X better on the next two? 15 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: Option A better on the next two and both the same pretty much or very similar on the last two lines? 20 MR DUNLOP: That’s correct, yes.

MR MILNE: So again even at 2031 the outcomes are very similar?

25 MR DUNLOP: Quite similar, that’s correct.

MR MILNE: And the overall conclusion over the page at 14, “In general Option X results in improved journey times for State Highway 1 movements, however there are a number of instances of increased 30 journey time on the local road network which in turn is likely to impact on public transport journey times”.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

35 MR MILNE: Was there separate modelling of the public transport journey time?

MR DUNLOP: No, there wasn’t. That would need to be put through Paramics to do that. 40 MR MILNE: Paramics and the public transport model, WT - - -

MR DUNLOP: Well, if you wanted to go back that level but really to get the journey times you need to run it through Paramics. 45 MR MILNE: So why wasn’t this run through Paramics?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1155

MR DUNLOP: Because I don’t think transportation, in terms of traffic, was a big issue. That wasn’t the reason why this was not being promoted as such, it was more that it has very similar effects in terms of traffic and 5 there are a whole lot of other transport aspects that were of much greater concern than that.

MR MILNE: And the next paragraph where you say, “It should be noted…”, I won’t read it aloud, you say, “The true impact of these diverted trips on 10 other critical ICB intersections may also under represent the impacts on State Highway 1 westbound journey times”. Could all of that have been modelled?

MR DUNLOP: Of course it could have been modelled. So what that relates 15 to is that the Option X restrictions the movement from the Mount Victoria Tunnel to Cambridge Terrace which currently is utilising a corridor which has got lots of capacity in it at the moment, the Cambridge Terrace corridor. What this option displayed was that that traffic would be shifted to the Taranaki Street intersection, which we 20 have heard about, how critical that intersection is and how the model doesn’t actually represent how bad that is, the SATURN model. So that point is making that it could actually be much worse in terms of the Option X.

25 MR MILNE: Okay. So it could be but we don’t know because it hasn’t been modelled?

[10.02 am]

30 MR DUNLOP: Yes, that’s right, and I don’t think there was any need to model it.

MR MILNE: Right. Just so I am understanding, could repeat which is the traffic that is going to be diverted according to you? 35 MR DUNLOP: Yes, so at the moment about something in the order of about 5,000 or 6,000 vehicles go round the Basin Reserve and come down Cambridge Terrace as they come out of the Mount Victoria Tunnel in the a.m. peak city bound. 40 Under this option X, that was not a movement that was possible, it was a restricting movement so everything was forced to either take a diversion route, go round Oriental Bay when it split away at Evans Bay Parade, or come further into the CBD and go down along Taranaki 45 Street or down Willis Street.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1156

MR MILNE: Obviously that is perceived by you as being a potential issue with option X or a disadvantage, isn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Completely, I mean there is a flip side of it as well though, 5 there is an access point on from Kent Terrace, so there is some winners and some losers.

MR MILNE: Right, so there is a benefit, there is a disbenefit?

10 MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

MR MILNE: If the disbenefit was a concern, could option X have been adjusted to try and work out a solution to that issue and then further remodelled if time had of permitted? 15 MR DUNLOP: I think that is where it started - - -

MR CAMERON: Sorry, sir, I don’t wish to be difficult at all but there are two questions in the way that was put and I just want the witness - - - 20 MR MILNE: Okay, it is all right, I will break it down, I understand Mr Cameron’s point.

MR CAMERON: Thank you, I appreciate it. 25 MR MILNE: If that was perceived as being an issue as in an issue that could have been investigated, and if we go back to the – I will go back a step – if we go back to the fundamentals of option X, it involves extending the underpass under Sussex Street. 30 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: You then have achieved grade separation, haven’t you?

35 MR DUNLOP: Correct, assuming you run traffic both directions and both (INDISTINCT 2.35).

MR MILNE: So you have got a road going up over – or going over the underpass, I am not sure how much it goes up, and Sussex Street? 40 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: And you have still got a road around the other side of the Basin- - - 45 MR DUNLOP: Yes, there was some discussion - - -

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1157

MR MILNE: Not under option X, that’s right. Can you let me finish. If you take that as being the fundamental component of option X, there are a number of variations of option X that could be developed involving the other side of Basin Reserve, involving how that grade separation is 5 utilised in terms of public transport, the number of lanes that go through Sussex Street.

Do you agree that there are a number of variations of option X which could have been explored in an ideal world? 10 MR DUNLOP: I agree with that statement, I would actually say that a number of options were explored, so there was work done with the Architectural Centre, the actual scheme that originally came forward, had the movement we are talking about being restricted included from 15 my understanding.

It had that included and it was identified that that was actually problematic to deliver so therefore there was a refinement done and that is where this refinement ended up. 20 MR MILNE: So are you saying that this refinement addressed the issue, the disbenefit that you have just been talking about?

MR DUNLOP: It addressed an issue in another issue, okay. 25 MR MILNE: It addressed the Tasman Street, Tory Street issue, didn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

30 MR MILNE: And I am saying that is an example of one issue that was addressed by refinement back in 2011 - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

35 MR MILNE: - - - you have identified another issue, I am saying that is another issue that could have been addressed by requirement of that option, couldn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: In simplistic terms, possibly, but it would have been a very 40 different philosophy and a different scheme in front of us, it wouldn’t be like the one we have got.

MR MILNE: Option X was put up by the Architectural Centre, wasn’t it?

45 MR DUNLOP: that is my understanding, correct.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1158

MR MILNE: And it wasn’t developed by traffic engineers, it needed refinement and some refinement occurred in 2011, didn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 5 [10.07 am]

MR MILNE: Would you agree that what is more important is the concept, which was exploring an option extending the War Memorial Underpass 10 under Sussex Street and all of the possibilities that that option (which doesn’t seem to have been considered earlier) could give rise to?

MR DUNLOP: Well I think there were numerous options considered earlier. I think that is probably something you should put to Dr Stewart. Can 15 you just clarify your question again?

MR MILNE: Well, the fundamentals of Option X was extending the War Memorial Underpass under Sussex Street. If you just say that’s Option X and there are a whole lot of variations arising from that. 20 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: Is that a fair summary?

25 MR DUNLOP: That’s a fair summary.

MR MILNE: Really in terms, the only variation that was looked at was something to do with Tory Street/Tasman Street, otherwise in terms of the roading geometry issues Option X pretty much – or the transport 30 benefit side of it – Option X was pretty much left as developed by the Architectural Centre, wasn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: I don’t believe that’s the case at all, no. I think a lot of work went on to try and get an optimum solution. Sorry, I wasn’t party to 35 those meetings, however that is my understanding, that there was a lot of work.

MR MILNE: Okay.

40 MR DUNLOP: But it certainly looks like it’s come a long way from where it was when it was submitted in my reading of it.

MR MILNE: Those solutions all basically stuck with the concept of putting most of the traffic over Sussex Street, didn’t they? 45 MR DUNLOP: Correct. Yes, that was the philosophy.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1159

MR MILNE: So the philosophy was around, if I can use the word “tweaking” the Architectural Centre’s proposal rather than looking at complete variations to that proposal? 5 MR DUNLOP: Yes, well totally.

MR MILNE: That’s fine.

10 MR DUNLOP: Complete variation would be another proposal I guess.

MR MILNE: Well, another option or a variation.

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 15 MR MILNE: And isn’t that exactly what happened at earlier stage – enquiry by design, feasible options – there were a number of variations of each option developed - - -

20 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: - - - to try and look at solving problems with various options so they were all fairly considered on an equal basis. Is that fair comment?

25 MR DUNLOP: Correct. Yes, I think that’s probably a fair comment.

MR MILNE: And by the time Option A had got to 2012 it had been pretty much fully developed, hadn’t it? There was still some tweaking going on through the AEE process - - - 30 MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm.

MR MILNE: - - - but it had been pretty much fully developed, and then Architectural Centre puts its option on the table in 2011 and that got 35 developed to some degree and compared with Option X. Is that a fair summary?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, I think that’s a fair summary, and there was a fair amount of refinement on Option X. 40 MR MILNE: So in terms of what refinement was done from a traffic engineering transport benefit perspective who do I ask about that?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, I mean I can confirm some of the things. 45 MR MILNE: Okay.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1160

MR DUNLOP: So there was certainly some issues raised in relation to the Adelaide/Rugby intersection. They were agreed and resolved. The fundamental point that we touched on before is not something you can 5 design out with the solution unless you change the complete philosophy and retain traffic circulating around the basin, which was a very different proposition to what Option X put in front of it.

MR MILNE: Thank you. But it is a possible variation, isn’t it - - - 10 MR DUNLOP: Of course it is.

MR MILNE: - - - to look at still using the eastern side of the Basin for some purposes and to resolve some of the issues that are raised in this report? 15 MR DUNLOP: Correct, but then it would have all its own implications. You would have a very different proposition in terms of the buses - - -

MR MILNE: Yes, understood that. It would need to be assessed as an 20 alternative option.

MR DUNLOP: Correct. And I could almost guarantee you that it wouldn’t work.

25 MR MILNE: Well that is beginning to sound like we’ve made up our mind and nothing will work except the Basin Bridge.

MR DUNLOP: Well that is just me telling you now, based on my professional opinion. 30 MR MILNE: I will go back to my question. The report was prepared by Sarah Baxter, is that right?

MR DUNLOP: That is correct. 35 [10.12 am]

MR MILNE: And I gather a Mr McKay was involved as well, is that right?

40 MR DUNLOP: He was the project manager at the time.

MR MILNE: At this time or back in the time of the 2011?

MR DUNLOP: He was definitely in the 2011. I think he may have moved on 45 by this time.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1161

MR MILNE: At least in 2011 he was one of the key interaction points between the Architectural Centre - - -

MR DUNLOP: Correct he was. Correct. 5 MR MILNE: - - - and Opus. But in terms of understanding what modifications you looked at between when this option was put on the table and when it was considered and a final decision was made rejecting it. Where do we go to find out exactly what changes were made to the design? 10 MR DUNLOP: I think you should put that to Dr Stewart.

MR MILNE: Okay.

15 MR DUNLOP: And he should be able to answer that question.

MR MILNE: All right. I guess it gets back to a point I raised yesterday which is that’s why I need any relevant reports. What I don’t want is to be putting this question to Dr Stewart and he then says, well that was all 20 documented in this – just so my friend is clear as to what I need. So turning the page to page 15, economic assessment.

CHAIRPERSON: He looks like he - - -

25 MR CAMERON: Sir, I’m a bit like the ball of string and I’m being cast - - -

CHAIRPERSON: You’re not really. You’re like the thing on the end of it.

MR CAMERON: Really yes, and with the greatest of respect to my learned 30 friend we’re doing everything we can to facilitate this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I know, but he’s simply flagging the issue that he’s going to be asking questions on this and he’s expecting Dr Stewart if there is documentation on it to have it available. 35 MR CAMERON: I understand that, sir, and I also - - -

CHAIRPERSON: That’s not very difficult.

40 MR MILNE: I’m not asking for anything more than I’ve already asked for.

CHAIRPERSON: He’s just reiterating.

MR CAMERON: I understand the point. The way in which it’s being 45 reiterated is perhaps a little unnecessary with respect.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1162

CHAIRPERSON: He’s grating a little bit - - -

MR CAMERON: It is beginning to grate.

5 MR MILNE: Far be it for me to do that, sir. Page 15, Mr Dunlop.

MR McMAHON: Can I just ask a point of clarification. Is option X(b) the refinement option or is that something completely different?

10 MR DUNLOP: No, it is a refinement option, correct.

MR McMAHON: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: This is the one in here? 15 MR DUNLOP: Yes, it’s the one we’re looking at in relation to this - - -

MR MILNE: Although this report refers to it as being option X we established yesterday that it is in fact option X(b). 20 MR DUNLOP: Correct. That is correct.

MR CAMERON: Can I just make the point – I’m not raising issues of relevance in the context of what is a very lengthy cross-examination 25 and I’m not going to do that?

CHAIRPERSON: It is fairly, in matters of, while we have felt constrained by the statutory directions. It’s normally in these matters to allow quite a lot of leeway on option and cross-examination because it assists us 30 even in all matters and at the end of the day it may well be relevant. We don’t know.

MR CAMERON: On that basis I haven’t raised it but I’m raising it in the context of the ball of string point really I suppose. So it’s me having a 35 last word perhaps.

CHAIRPERSON: It depends how far we get with this.

MR CAMERON: I understand the point, sir. Yes I do understand that point. 40 MR MILNE: Right so moving back to you Mr Dunlop. Put the focus back on you. Page 15.

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 45 MR MILNE: In terms of economic assessment benefits - - -

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1163

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: - - - at the bottom there the total on the table the option X(b) as 5 it’s now labelled had slightly higher benefits than option A didn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: And you summarised that, or it is summarised in the next 10 paragraph as to the reason for that. So all of that highlights the benefits and they’re marginally better.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

15 MR MILNE: Then we come to the summary.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: And you say, “significant design work has been undertaken in 20 order to improve the design and assure this option is assessed in a consistent manner”.

MR DUNLOP: Correct. That’s my understanding.

25 MR MILNE: I think we’ve established that the design work that was done was transport redesigning you’re talking about here or that’s the context of the sentence. I asked you a question yesterday - - -

MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm. 30 MR MILNE: - - - and you indicated that what you were referring to was roading changes to address the transport issues?

[10.17 am] 35 MR DUNLOP: That is correct but I also understand there was other design matters that were not looked as well in a lot more detail around levels, geometrics.

40 MR MILNE: But in terms of the roading geometry, sorry, the roading issues in the terms of what this report is dealing with - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

45 MR MILNE: - - - the changes that were made were largely around the changes between option X and XB, is that right?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1164

MR DUNLOP: Yes, I understand so, however, my understanding was the intention was to try and optimise the solution as much as possible to get the best outcome. 5 MR MILNE: And you then refer at the next paragraph, first in assessment against project objectives?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 10 CHAIRPERSON: So we are looking at?

MR MILNE: Sorry, second paragraph, page 16. Just before we turn to that, we will come back to the safety issues in a moment, I realise the report 15 deals with those as well, or safety concerns.

Option X, like option A achieves greater separation, doesn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 20 MR MILNE: And we have heard from a number of witnesses that grade separation was considered to be a key requirement for the Basin Reserve improvements?

25 MR DUNLOP: Well certainly separation of traffic which this does achieve, correct.

MR MILNE: And in terms of the objectives, and before we go to the summary, I just want to take you through each of those. 30 We can agree, I assume, that option X will improve the resilience, efficiency and reliability of the state highway network?

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 35 MR MILNE: By providing relief from congestion on State Highway 1 between Paterson Street and Tory Street?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 40 MR MILNE: By improving the safety for traffic and pedestrians using this part of the state highway corridor?

MR DUNLOP: Well I would disagree with that statement. 45 MR MILNE: So put a question mark beside that one?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1165

MR DUNLOP: Yes, I think so, pedestrian safety is a big issue with this.

MR MILNE: By increasing the capacity of the state highway corridor 5 between Paterson Street and Tory Street?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, it certainly does that and potentially has the problem, as we have talked about, of shifting the problem to Taranaki Street.

10 MR MILNE: And the next two, it achieves both of those, doesn’t it, contributing to enhanced movement of people and freight?

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

15 MR MILNE: And improving access to the Wellington CBD, employment centres, airport and hospital?

MR DUNLOP: Well that is again, it improves in some senses but it also restricts a movement which is quite important movement. 20 MR MILNE: In this process, there was this – if we go back to the report, the appendix, so appendix 1 – there is this, I won’t say detail, but there is an assessment against each of the project objectives and not only an assessment as to whether they are achieved but relative achievement, 25 relative to option A, is that right?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct, and relative to – well, there still needs to be some comparative with the do-minimum.

30 MR MILNE: Right. I asked Mr McCombs earlier about his comparison, or his consideration of option A against each of the objectives and ability to achieve it, and the answers are on record.

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 35 MR MILNE: I have been looking and I may have missed, but I can’t see in the previous enquiry by design or feasible options report assessments, the same sort of – or in fact – that’s all right, I will leave it with those two documents at the moment, the same sort of assessment against 40 objectives as was carried out at this stage?

[10.22 am]

MR DUNLOP: Well, I’ll let you put that one to Dr Stewart. 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1166

MR MILNE: Okay. And so you know who was responsible for carrying out this assessment against objectives?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, it would have been Sarah and myself. 5 MR MILNE: So it was carried out from a transport perspective rather than using Mr Aburn or Mr McCombs or anyone like that?

MR DUNLOP: Completely. This is a transport assessment against these 10 objectives.

MR MILNE: So if I’m understanding, am I correct in saying that option X achieves all of the objectives but there are some items where it doesn’t achieve it as well as others. 15 MR DUNLOP: That is correct.

MR MILNE: As well as option A.

20 MR DUNLOP: Yes. That’s what I’ve followed.

MR MILNE: Turning then to the safety issues do you agree that again if more time had been available that the safety issues could have been explored to a greater extent and potentially some of them, or all of them, could 25 have been resolved by design?

MR DUNLOP: Potentially. However, there’s some underlying philosophy here around the scheme. For example if you wanted to get pedestrians across the state highway, where they’re actually going to use a facility 30 instead of having to climb up over a significant height to get across you’d have to stop the state highway at-grade which in turn would have an impact on the actual flow of traffic. So you’d win some, you’d lose some and it would be about balance and trade-off, like anything that’s transportation. 35 MR MILNE: I’d just take you to page 4 and a table there.

MR DUNLOP: Page 4.

40 MR MILNE: So this is looking at the number of crossings.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: I don’t mean this in a derogatory sense but it’s quite crude way 45 of looking at pedestrian benefits isn’t it, or dis-benefits.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1167

CHAIRPERSON: You’re looking at?

MR MILNE: Table 2.11 I think it is.

5 MR DUNLOP: 2.1.

MR MILNE: 2.1.

MR DUNLOP: 2.1. Crossing summary. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Of the transportation assessment?

MR MILNE: Sorry, option X, document (INDISTINCT 4.03). At page 4 there’s a table at the bottom of the page. So Mr Dunlop, that table 15 “crossing summary” is simply the number of crossings involved under do-minimum option X in Basin Reserve?

MR DUNLOP: Correct that is.

20 MR MILNE: So again line by line same for the first line, less for the second line, less for the next line and then coming to the next one, “controlled crossing, tunnel to Memorial Park” greater. But is it not correct that that particular route is not along the desire line?

25 MR DUNLOP: Correct, yes. It’s not a major desire line at the moment, correct.

[10.27 am]

30 MR MILNE: So where there’s a perceived significant – won’t use the word “disadvantage”, but an increased number of crossings. It’s not along a desire line is it?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, that is correct. It’s not a desire line at the moment I 35 think is the point here. And if you’re coming out Mount Victoria Tunnel and you’re walking across at the moment you don’t go into the CDB via Tory Street at the moment. Because you’d have to go down the valley and come back up and go through all of these intersections and all of these lanes. You walk down Kent Cambridge Terrace so 40 naturally you don’t do it.

MR MILNE: Okay. And the same point applies to lanes to cross tunnel to Memorial Park where there’s 11 versus zero.

45 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1168

MR MILNE: And the 11 is one more than current.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

5 MR MILNE: And then looking at the totals at the bottom, there’s a difference between 46, 52 and 66 under current. So there’s improvement against current - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 10 MR MILNE: - - - if you count it purely on number of crossings.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

15 MR MILNE: But it’s not quite as good as option A.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: And on page 6 under “Mount Victoria Tunnel to Memorial 20 Park” the last sentence there, “also introduces a longer deviation for pedestrians and cyclists travelling between Mount Victoria Tunnel and Memorial Park and the areas in the southern CBD” and again that’s not along a current desire line is it?

25 MR DUNLOP: A “current desire line” that is correct.

MR MILNE: Now I’d just at this stage like you to look at a document. Could it be provided to the Board, please. And obviously counsel and the witness. Mr Dunlop just looking at this document. It’s a document to 30 Mr Greg Lee of the Transport Agency and signed off by Gareth McKay who’s the gentleman we were talking about earlier. Are you familiar with this letter?

MR DUNLOP: I’m not familiar with this letter. 35 MR MILNE: But you can confirm it was a letter that was sent from Opus to the Agency back on 3 July 2012.

MR DUNLOP: Certainly looks like it to me. 40 MR MILNE: Okay, thank you. Sir, can that be produced by Mr Dunlop?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it will be Dunlop 4.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1169

MR MILNE: So 8/4. Mr Dunlop, there’s no great surprises around this. I‘m not trying to catch you out on anything. The letter provides useful context.

5 MR DUNLOP: Yes, that’s fine.

MR MILNE: Which is why I’ve had it produced to the Board and sir, I’m obliged to my friend for providing it to me. The document is dated July 2012 and would you agree – well, do you want to just familiarise 10 yourself with that document before I put some questions to you about it? Or – actually, sir, the questions can probably be put to Dr Stewart.

MR DUNLOP: It may be more appropriate, but if there’s any specifics around transportation - - - 15 MR MILNE: I’ll just come to that.

MR DUNLOP: There’s all sorts of matters in here I see. That are certainly not in my area of expertise. 20 MR MILNE: We’ve even got native fish I see. So if I just take you to the top of page 4.

[10.32 am] 25 MR DUNLOP: Yes?

MR MILNE: And here we are talking about Option X.

30 MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm.

MR MILNE: You raised a number of significant – so this is back in July 2012, so it’s before the study that we were just talking about - - -

35 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: - - - and presumably the conclusions here relate back to the preliminary assessment of Option X?

40 MR DUNLOP: That would be my understanding, certainly. It is consistent with the timing.

MR MILNE: And so the comment there, “It seems likely that to resolve these concerns...” – sorry, “Road safety concerns regarding the available 45 width on Sussex Street to accommodate four lanes of traffic. It seems likely to resolve these concerns there would need to be property

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1170

impacts along Sussex Street and Rugby Street. It is expected this property value may be between 15 to 38 million and the additional property requirement would increase the expected estimate of Option X between 160 and 185 million. On this basis Option X is unlikely to be 5 cheaper than Option H.”

And then we come through to Transport – so that’s dealing with the costing side of it.

10 MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm.

MR MILNE: We come through to Transport under the heading “Subsequently” - “So in summary, Option X is likely to be more expensive and offer less transport benefits than Option A”. 15 MR DUNLOP: At that time.

MR MILNE: At that time, but in fact by the time we get to the 2012 report it’s offering slightly more transport benefits. 20 MR DUNLOP: Correct, so we’d done work to try and improve it.

MR MILNE: Accepted.

25 MR DUNLOP: I think walking and cycling is also a transport outcome, which is the top of the list.

MR MILNE: Yes. And it says, “Further work is unlikely to show Option X is preferable to Option A”, but you would accept, wouldn’t you, that in 30 fact further work showed that in terms of transport benefits there were some benefits?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

35 MR MILNE: And then it says, “If the Agency wanted to confirm this we could undertake further design work to confirm whether it was an affordable solution”. So that seems to be referring to design work around affordability rather than design work around resolving traffic safety or transport issues, doesn’t it? 40 MR DUNLOP: Well I assume they would go hand in hand.

MR MILNE: And, “Undertake specialist assessment to enable a direct comparison with Option A”. 45 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1171

MR MILNE: And by that I assume we are talking specialists in terms of planners, urban design, heritage?

5 MR DUNLOP: Yes, that is something I think you should put to Dr Stewart.

MR MILNE: Okay, but that seems to be what it is referring to, isn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, would imply that. 10 MR MILNE: Then under, “Other Options”, it refers to Option E?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

15 MR MILNE: Is that because Option E was considered to be – well, why was Option E in the mix at this stage?

MR DUNLOP: Well Option E, I think - we’ve certainly heard an expert (I can’t remember whether it was Mr McCombs or Mr Aburn) talked 20 about it in relation to this option. I mean there are comparisons between the two in terms of the way that they’re grade separating, and to resolve some of the issues that I have talked about with this option you may end up with a very similar solution to Option E.

25 MR MILNE: Just reading that paragraph it seems that the reason Option E is referred to, but it sounds like it wasn’t specifically considered or revisited in any detail. Is that right?

MR DUNLOP: I think you would have to put that to Dr Stewart. I’m sorry, I 30 am - - -

MR MILNE: Well from a transport modelling perspective - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes? 35 MR MILNE: - - - you were asked to look at Option X, and that occurred at two stages (in 2011 and 2012).

MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm. 40 MR MILNE: Was the same reconsideration of Option E – did that occur from a transport, from your perspective, in terms of what you supervised?

MR DUNLOP: Not from my understanding, no. 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1172

MR MILNE: And then we’ve got some conclusions at the last page. So in terms of Option E the report or the letter says, “Though the assessment of a specialist 2009 Option A was generally preferred over Option E, with the exception being Built Heritage. Option E is not a viable 5 alternative to option A?

[10.37 am]

MR DUNLOP: That is my understanding. 10 MR MILNE: In turning to the inclusion at 2, option X is likely to be more expensive than option A while having no more and possibly less transportation benefits, it is unlikely that option X would prove to be preferable to option A? 15 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: So that is back in July 2012, and in fact, it turned out that option X would have probably have similar transportation benefits 20 except in the safety area. Is that - - -

MR DUNLOP: If you are looking at, yes, no, I mean the transportation benefits are not just the ones that can be quantified, they are a whole lot of aspects, much more than just those outputs from the SATURN 25 modelling.

MR MILNE: So this letter provides some context, the key context that comes from this letter and is obvious and is the whole reason why option X was reconsidered, is there had been a significant decision which 30 required things to be reconsidered which was the government’s decision to fund the National War Memorial underpass and all that followed from that. Is that right?

MR DUNLOP: That is my understanding, I mean, that is something you 35 should put to Dr Stewart.

MR MILNE: Well, from your perspective, in terms of your understanding of what you were doing or your team was doing in terms of the traffic modelling, that is why it was necessary to look at this option, wasn’t it? 40 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: Because it changed assumptions from what occurred during the feasible options report and earlier stages, it changed some of those 45 fundamental assumptions, didn’t it?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1173

MR DUNLOP: It did, yes.

MR MILNE: And the other reason is this option or something similar to it, hadn’t been considered at the feasible options report stage, that is, an 5 option extending the underpass under Sussex Street, had it?

MR DUNLOP: No, like I made reference to before, it was similar in part to option E.

10 MR MILNE: The other matter that has changed and I think Mr Blackmore told us the date of the change, is that sometime over the last few years, there has been a decision to bring forward the tunnel duplication, Mount Vic Tunnel duplication project so that it is now going to – intended to go to a Board of Inquiry later on this year. 15 Do you agree?

MR DUNLOP: That is my understanding.

20 MR MILNE: And the other key change which affects the assumptions around the modelling and the consideration of alternatives, is the public transport spine. We are now at a stage where there is a preliminary decision about options, a recommendation, and we are expecting a final decision in the near future, correct? 25 MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MR MILNE: If in a different world we were looking at options in the light of those three decisions, as if you were looking at them from a transport 30 perspective, - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: - - - do you agree that it would be useful but not essential to 35 look at tunnel duplication, the National War Memorial underpass, public transport spine outcomes, ie, whatever is decided and integrate those into one solution, preferred solution, and then compare that preferred solution against other options?

40 MR DUNLOP: In practicality terms, I don’t think that is physically possible, you should certainly look at how those projects interrelate to deliver an integrated solution. I don’t believe that you need to assume that you know all the answers from all of those projects.

45 [10.42 am]

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1174

MR MILNE: We do know the answers – well, we know the decisions, don’t we, we know we have got a National War Memorial, - - -

MR DUNLOP: Correct, that’s been built. 5 MR MILNE: - - - we know we have got tunnel duplication and their design is well advanced for that?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 10 MR MILNE: It will be possible to – sorry, and we will go back a step, we have got a corridor plan that is looking, focusing on the whole of the corridor and on public transport north south, haven’t we?

15 MR DUNLOP: Correct, that is correct.

MR MILNE: So we have now got a solution to the problem. The solution is a threefold solution, it is National War Memorial, it is Basin Reserve improvements whatever they may be - - - 20 MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm.

MR MILNE: - - - tunnel duplication and public transport spine?

25 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: From a modelling perspective, is it not possible to put all of those together into one package and model that against do-minimum to assess the benefits, first question - - - 30 MR DUNLOP: Yes, that is possible and it has been done.

MR MILNE: And is it possible also to compare that package, that redefined project against alternatives such as BRREO, option E, option XB, or 35 some variation of those?

MR DUNLOP: Completely.

LONG PAUSE 40 MR MILNE: Apologies, sir, I am just trying to find a reference. Maybe if I could deal with it this way.

Isn’t it the case that the – well, there is – sir, just trying to find a 45 reference, but – sir, I may need to come back to that point.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1175

[10.47 am]

MR MILNE: There is reference in the material to Wellington Airport Expansion Plans, growth nodes in Kilbirnie, do you agree that they are 5 in fact reliant on transport improvements, including in particular, the Mount Vic Tunnel duplication?

MR DUNLOP: Reliant – there is certainly a strong linkage between land use and transportation, yes. 10 MR MILNE: Do you agree that it could also equally be said that the proper realisation of the transport benefits of this project is dependent upon the public transport spine and the Mount Vic Tunnel duplication?

15 MR DUNLOP: This project?

MR MILNE: Yes, sorry, the corridor project.

MR DUNLOP: Not in its entirety, not at all, no, this project is certainly a 20 standalone project.

MR MILNE: But achieving the public transport components of this project, is dependent upon other things, isn’t it, in particular, the outcomes of the public transport spine? 25 MR DUNLOP: No.

MR MILNE: No.

30 MR DUNLOP: This project will achieve public transport outcomes and improvements for the buses that run down that corridor today.

MR MILNE: Sir, I apologise for the delay. I will have to come back to that point, I will move on to another topic. 35 LONG PAUSE

MR MILNE: Can I move onto a different topic which is growth projections. Yesterday you indicated that under the current do-minimum State 40 Highway 1 western journey times at a.m. peak were around seven and a half minutes currently, is that right?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, well there is a huge amount of variability as is displayed in figure, from memory, 9.46 of my technical report 4. There is a large 45 amount of variability in journey times – I will take you to the figure,

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1176

and as we talked through in much more detail last Thursday when I did my opening statement - - -

MR MILNE: You have got a figure of 14 minutes for 2021, - - - 5 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: - - - what is the comparable figure for currently?

10 MR DUNLOP: The number that we have got for an actual journey time in the document TR 4, using that data is displayed in figure 4.46 on page 72, and I acknowledge that it is not exactly the same route so that route runs from Evans Bay Parade through to Willis Street and that was the nature of the data that was collected. In that corridor in the a.m. peak 15 in 2009, the journey time was, it was about 670 seconds, an average journey time, which is about 11 minutes from my reading of it with a variability of about 150 seconds (INDISTINCT 4.43).

MR MILNE: So that is from Paramics? 20 MR DUNLOP: No, that is an actual journey time.

MR MILNE: And what does that go to in 2021 on that same corridor?

25 MR DUNLOP: Well, yes, like I’ve said, I haven’t got the same numbers - - -

MR MILNE: Fine, can we deal with it by just going back to what you said yesterday.

30 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

[10.52 am]

MR MILNE: You said yesterday that the current times are around equivalent 35 to the 7 and a half minute saving.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: That was my understanding of what you said. 40 MR DUNLOP: Yes, that’s right.

MR MILNE: So leaving aside 2021 how much will the National War Memorial, including Taranaki/Buckle Street improvements, cut off that 45 7 and a half minutes? Do we know?

MR DUNLOP: Well we have concluded that it takes six minutes off it.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1177

MR MILNE: Well, no, that’s 2021, isn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct. 5 MR MILNE: I am talking about the current situation.

MR DUNLOP: I can’t tell you that. I mean I would just be speculating. I haven’t done that analysis and I have no reason or need to do it. 10 MR MILNE: You indicated that under the 2021 modelling scenario using Paramics and medium growth the do-minimum journey would increase to 14 minutes?

15 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: We can then take six minutes of that off the National War Memorial/Taranaki/Buckle, which brings it back to eight minutes, doesn’t it? 20 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: The 14 minutes from 2021 seems to assume a near doubling of westbound traffic over seven years without Tunnel Duplication. Is that 25 correct?

MR DUNLOP: No, it definitely does not assume any growth in traffic - the very, very small growth in traffic on State Highway 1. Because the Tunnel is the constraint the growth is happening on the local road 30 network and it is the conflicting movements.

MR MILNE: How do we get from seven and a half minutes to 14 minutes between - - -

35 MR DUNLOP: We get there because of the conflicts that occur at critical intersections such as Taranaki Street, which I outlined in my opening statement I think.

MR MILNE: In terms of using the medium growth scenario - - - 40 MR DUNLOP: Yes?

MR MILNE: - - - in percentage terms what growth is that along Corridor?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1178

MR DUNLOP: It is about one percent per annum, but that doesn’t mean that it is just growing through the tunnel at one percent because we know that it is near capacity at the moment.

5 MR MILNE: Okay.

MR DUNLOP: So it is growing on other parts of the network. So one part might be growing at two percent, whereas this part of the Corridor might be growing at .2 percent. 10 MR MILNE: And does the modelling take that variability and growth into account?

MR DUNLOP: Completely, absolutely. 15 MR MILNE: So this may answer my next questions, but in terms of east-west movements to and from the eastern suburbs it seems to me that – well if I can put it this way, where is the additional traffic going to come from, from the eastern suburbs – to and from the eastern suburbs? 20 MR DUNLOP: Can you clarify your question?

MR MILNE: Well you have got a growth scenario of growing one percent per year. 25 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: Where is that growth going to come from in terms of movements to and from the eastern suburbs? 30 MR DUNLOP: From population change. For example if Shelly Bay gets developed, there’s a whole lot of development happening around the western side of the airport at the moment – all of those activities, and the Airport Master Plan itself has growth projections in it, and there is 35 growth occurring at the airport.

MR MILNE: There is also bulk retail established near the airport, isn’t there?

MR DUNLOP: There is, correct. 40 MR MILNE: There is, would you agree, virtually no vacant land in the eastern suburbs apart from you have mentioned Shelly Bay?

MR DUNLOP: I don’t believe that is the case at all. My understanding is that 45 Council (and you are probably best to talk to Council about this), there is planned infill development.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1179

MR MILNE: I will put it to another witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cameron? 5 MR MILNE: Can I just finish, sir? I will put this to another witness.

MR CAMERON: You need to answer the question, sir.

10 CHAIRPERSON: You wanted to say something else?

MR CAMERON: Thank you, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: You said (INDISTINCT 3.58) for the Council? 15 MR DUNLOP: I mean Council certainly have a lot of growth plans for this area. I mean, Kilbirnie is a growth node – they’ve identified it as a growth node so there is growth potential – and I will leave that up to Council staff to confirm that. 20 MR MILNE: So just moving on from that – well, no, I probably need to finish it with you.

The point I was getting to, Mr Dunlop, is you have used the medium 25 growth scenario and as I understand your previous answer that assumes one percent growth per annum along the Corridor or around that?

MR DUNLOP: No, not along the Corridor.

30 MR MILNE: Overall?

MR DUNLOP: Overall.

MR MILNE: Okay. Do we know what the figure is for what has been 35 assumed to be the growth in vehicle numbers along the Corridor between current, 2021, 2031?

[10.57 am]

40 MR DUNLOP: There is documentation in the report relating to that. I think you’ll find that it is in technical report 4 and it is relatively small growth on the state highway 1 corridor. I’ll try and find the reference for you. I mean you can work it out from the figures. If I take you to figures 4.40 and 4.41 and you look at the - - - 45 CHAIRPERSON: On page?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1180

MR DUNLOP: On page 64 and 65. You will see that the total AADT between 2009 and 2021 for Mount Victoria Tunnel changes from 19,300 in the westbound direction to 19,600. So that’s a growth of 300 vehicles over 5 a 12 year period. That to me equates to a very small number. But that doesn’t mean that’s there not growth happening in the eastern suburbs. The growth is happening and it’s using the likes of Oriental Bay, Evans Bay Parade and Constable Street.

10 MR MILNE: Okay. Moving to a different topic and I’m moving into – firstly in terms of grade separation and the benefits of the National War Memorial Buckle Street. We’ve already explored this, but I think you agreed or we can agree that the National War Memorial on its own in conjunction with Taranaki Buckle Street improvements and other 15 improvements at the intersections between there and the Terrace Tunnel have significant transport benefits.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

20 MR MILNE: And it also achieves grade separation at Tory Buckle Street doesn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: It does achieve that, whether you want that or not, yes it does achieve that. 25 MR MILNE: And it remedies the bottleneck at the Buckle Street Taranaki intersection to a degree.

MR DUNLOP: To a degree. I wouldn’t say it remedies the problem. 30 MR MILNE: It improves the - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

35 MR MILNE: - - - it has some benefits.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: So as I understand it and I’m moving into unfamiliar territory 40 here dealing with BCRs. You’ve confirmed in your rebuttal evidence that the BCR benefits for the project include $50 million that can be attributed to the Buckle Street and Vivian Street works.

MR DUNLOP: Correct, yes. 45 MR MILNE: Am I correctly understanding your annexure?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1181

MR DUNLOP: That is correct.

MR MILNE: So that’s annexure B, table 12. 5 MR DUNLOP: That’s right.

MR MILNE: Is it also the case that the $50 million does not include benefits from the grade separation of Tory and Buckle Street? 10 MR DUNLOP: That is correct.

MR MILNE: Turning then to public - - -

15 MR DUNLOP: Actually can I clarify that point. Sorry.

MR MILNE: Yes, you can.

MR DUNLOP: It does include benefits because if you didn’t – if you weren’t 20 doing that project then you wouldn’t be able to achieve that benefit. So yes it does include benefits from that.

MR MILNE: Is the Tory Buckle grade separation included in the do-minimum for that? 25 MR DUNLOP: It is included in the do-minimum but it’s only included with two lanes as we’ve discussed. So the assumption is that this would increase it from two to three.

30 MR MILNE: Turning then to public transport benefits and their role in the BCR.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

35 MR MILNE: The Basin Bridge project is said to be an integrated solution which will enable the delivery of a step change to public transport.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

40 MR MILNE: Public transport benefits in the original BCR which was the 1.2, the project BCR is that right?

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

45 MR MILNE: Were only $1 million of the then total $84.5 million. Is that correct?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1182

MR DUNLOP: That sounds correct.

MR MILNE: And that comes from the Basin Reserve SAR? 5 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: Economics technical note March 2012, page 1 of 1. And follows page 16. Would that be the correct reference? 10 MR DUNLOP: I can’t confirm that or deny it. I could look for it and find it.

MR MILNE: If the Board wants the figures.

15 MR DUNLOP: Do you want me to?

[11.02 am]

MR MILNE: If the Board wants the figures. 20 MR DUNLOP: I can look for it and find it, do you want me to?

MR MILNE: No, it is all right, it’s the reference really for the Board. Do you agree that this is a very modest benefit for a project which has been 25 portrayed as having major public transport benefits?

MR DUNLOP: It’s all about how you quantify it. So there are benefits, there are huge benefits, you can spend a lot of time trying to quantify benefits. 30 MR MILNE: Could the Wellington Public Transport Model have been used to assess the public transport benefits of the project?

MR DUNLOP: It could have been used. The change in isolation for this 35 project would be very small. The tools that have been used are appropriate, which is the Paramics Model to get the journey time savings out.

MR MILNE: So when you say the change would have been very small, the 40 1 million out of 84.5 million wouldn’t have been much different, is that what you are saying?

MR DUNLOP: I suspect it wouldn’t be much different to that. In fact it may not even get that 1 million. 45 MR MILNE: Why wasn’t that model used?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1183

MR DUNLOP: Well, I guess it’s about what’s the purpose of it, what are you trying to do, are you trying to push up the BCR? You could spend a lot of time trying to do that for little value. I mean you just need to use 5 some, you know, transport planning and engineering judgement around this.

MR MILNE: So am I right in understanding that the project BCR was updated in October 2013? 10 MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MR MILNE: It comes from your supplementary evidence?

15 MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MR MILNE: So it went from 1.2 to 2.2, is that right?

MR DUNLOP: Correct, yes. 20 MR MILNE: And you provided some explanation around that in your supplementary?

MR DUNLOP: Have indeed. 25 MR MILNE: So at that time you revised the vehicle benefits based on the new WTM SATURN model?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 30 MR MILNE: And you included the weekend (ph 2.09) model?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

35 MR MILNE: Then the other thing that occurred at that time was that the underpass benefits and the Vivian Street benefits were included into the project, weren’t they?

MR DUNLOP: They were included in the project in the 2012 analysis too but 40 they were in a different context. They were going from two lanes at- grade to three lanes at-grade in 2012. And in this scenario they were going from two lanes underpass to three lanes underpass.

MR MILNE: So in terms of the 2.2, the revised figure, are we agreed that that 45 has some potential issues with it in terms of the baskets we were talking about yesterday?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1184

MR DUNLOP: Completely, we have discussed this.

MR MILNE: We have discussed it. 5 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: So in October it was updated for vehicle benefits but it wasn’t updated in terms of public transport benefits? 10 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: We have got 1 million out of 84 million goes into the 1.2 project, does that figure stay the same or that is the 1 million 15 component?

MR DUNLOP: Stays the same, correct.

MR MILNE: Okay. And what is the relevant number in terms of the overall, 20 so the 84.5 goes to what?

MR DUNLOP: I would have to go to the report.

MR MILNE: 160, does that sound right? 25 MR DUNLOP: It sounds about right, correct. That’s roughly about that number.

MR MILNE: Are you happy, Mr Cameron? If you need to check the figure. 30 MR DUNLOP: No, that’s fine, I’m comfortable with that number.

MR MILNE: Where do we find the relevant number?

35 MR DUNLOP: It’s in evidence-in-chief, appendix C, and it is 162 million.

MR MILNE: Of which 1 million comes from public transport?

MR DUNLOP: Actually that’s the transport component of it, so that’s the 40 traffic component. Then the other components, which include the PT and the walking and cycling amount to 3.8 and then there is crash savings, so a total of 174.3.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1185

[11.07 am]

That was revised down, as I clarified in my opening statement, down to 160 million because the transport benefit component, the traffic benefit 5 component, was incorrectly reported in the do-minimum analysis. So that adjusts it from 2.2 to 2.

MR MILNE: Sir, is that a convenient moment?

10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it would, thank you very much. We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

ADJOURNED [11.08 am]

15 RESUMED [11.29 am]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Milne.

MR MILNE: Thank you, sir, I am going to do some more fumbling around on 20 BCR which I must say is not my area but.

Mr Dunlop, going back to public transport and where it fits in, am I right in understanding the way the BCR has been put together and that is the 2.2, that it includes benefits in the Basin Reserve projects which 25 depend upon future RoNS’ projects?

MR DUNLOP: We talked about this yesterday. There are benefits that relate to future RoNS’ projects in future years, correct.

30 MR MILNE: But when it comes to public transport you haven’t included in future public transport, have you?

MR DUNLOP: No, we haven’t.

35 MR MILNE: If in a brave new world we were considering this project in conjunction with all of the RoNS’ project tunnel duplication and public transport, whatever the decision is around that, wouldn’t that be what you would do, you would look at the public transport benefits, you would look at the State Highway 1 benefits, the north south benefits, 40 you would have it all there, wouldn’t you?

MR DUNLOP: If it was all available you would have it all there, correct.

MR MILNE: And then the Board could consider that overall benefit from that 45 combined integrated project, couldn’t it?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1186

MR DUNLOP: They could do that, correct.

MR MILNE: And if you thought the Agency could also compare those benefits doing nothing or doing minimum and various other options, is 5 that right?

MR DUNLOP: They could do that, correct.

MR MILNE: Am I right in saying that the BCR assesses benefits across a 40 10 year period out to 2053?

MR DUNLOP: It assesses out for a 40 year period, correct.

MR MILNE: In your rebuttal evidence at annexure B, you indicate that the 15 project BCR includes 50 million in benefits due to the Vivian Street and the Buckle Street, Taranaki works?

MR DUNLOP: That is correct.

20 MR MILNE: Does that 50million include the ongoing travel time savings for the three laning of Vivian Street?

MR DUNLOP: It does, correct.

25 MR MILNE: The joint witness statement of 5 February agreed that Vivian Street would be at capacity by 2021, didn’t it, didn’t the experts agree on that?

MR DUNLOP: There was an agreement – I can’t remember the words 30 exactly, it was certainly congested, whether it is at capacity, I can’t remember the wording.

MR MILNE: The wording is under issue 12, “NZTA and the peer reviewers agree that there is adequate capacity for the implementation of the 35 proposed works through to 2021, after which further capacity is likely to be required to cope with further traffic growth.”

MR DUNLOP: That is a fair statement, that is quite different to being ‘at capacity’. 40 MR MILNE: So the do-minimum assumes that the tunnels will be duplicated after 2021, both Terrace and Mount Vic?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 45 MR MILNE: And before 2031?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1187

MR DUNLOP: Yes, for analysis purposes it assumes they are done in 2031.

MR MILNE: Right, and is it correct that that can be expected to further 5 increase traffic on the State Highway 1 corridor after 2021?

MR DUNLOP: Correct, that would be my expectation.

MR MILNE: So has that increased traffic on Vivian Street due to tunnel 10 duplication, been reflected in the model?

MR DUNLOP: Correct, it has in the ’31 modelling.

MR MILNE: Did that modelling show Vivian Street congested after 2021? 15 MR DUNLOP: It certainly shows levels of congestion, I wouldn’t say I have gone in to look at it in that much detail to say whether it is congested or not.

20 [11.34 am]

MR MILNE: Well, the agreement – I may be misinterpreting it but the agreement seems to be suggesting that after 2021 the tunnel duplication is going to need to be – a need to do further works. Is that correct or 25 not?

MR DUNLOP: I think the tunnel duplication needs to look at the effects of the tunnel duplication. That’s a matter of fact. Okay? That’s completely different to this project. We’re looking at the effects of this project 30 here. That improvement that’s planned for that intersection will take it from where it is now which is not performing particularly well to performing somewhat better. The decision then is do you need to go further?

35 MR MILNE: So has that – the effect of tunnel duplication has in the overall benefit of this project in that context has been included in the 2031 modelling results hasn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Correct, yes, that is correct. 40 MR MILNE: And we’ve got a BCR which reflects that don’t we?

MR DUNLOP: We do.

45 MR MILNE: And is that the RoNS’ BCR? Or the project BCR?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1188

MR DUNLOP: Even the project BCR takes into account that.

MR MILNE: So getting to my question has the travel time dis-benefit from that additional congestion on Vivian Street Kent Terrace been taken 5 into account in the model and been netted off the BCR in terms of benefits?

MR DUNLOP: When you say “dis-benefit”?

10 MR MILNE: Well, the effect of – as I understand the evidence you’re claiming the benefits of tunnel duplication - - -

MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm.

15 MR MILNE: - - - 2020-31.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: It’s also got some dis-benefits. 20 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: So if you want to claim the benefits isn’t it right you’ve got to claim the dis-benefits? 25 MR DUNLOP: Of course you do and that’s why you take it from the SATURN analysis which is a network wide analysis.

MR MILNE: So the question is has that modelling taken into account the 30 effect of the additional congestion, the dis-benefit, in terms of Vivian Street after 2021 with tunnel duplication?

MR DUNLOP: In simple terms, yes. That’s probably the easiest way of answering that. 35 MR MILNE: So moving to the sensitivity tests which you describe in your supplementary evidence, you’ve provided a sensitivity test BCR which excludes those project benefits which are dependent on the duplicated tunnels. Is that right? 40 MR DUNLOP: Can you please take me to where you’re referring to?

MR MILNE: The reference I’ve got is in fact in Mr Copeland’s rebuttal evidence page 13, paragraph 9.4(c) and I’ll just read that to you. 45 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1189

MR MILNE: “The evidence in chief of Mr Dunlop contains the results of a sensitivity test for the project’s BCR estimate which assumes neither the Mount Victoria Tunnel nor the Terrace Tunnel duplication projects 5 are undertaken and there is no growth in benefits after 2021”.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: “Under these assumptions the BCR for the project is one”. Is 10 that correct?

MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MR MILNE: That’s Copeland rebuttal, page 13. 15 MR DUNLOP: And it’s also referred to in my annexure C of my evidence in chief.

MR MILNE: Okay. 20 MR DUNLOP: That’s where the tests come from and that’s where the analysis is recorded.

CHAIRPERSON: Copeland – what was his reference? 25 MR ……….: Page 13 of the rebuttal.

MR MILNE: At paragraph 9.4(c).

30 MR DUNLOP: And in my evidence in chief, annexure C, and it relates to test 1A which is a sensitivity test that’s talked about on page 3.

MR MILNE: So that BCR taking the tunnel duplications out is one is that right? 35 MR DUNLOP: 1.1 at this time it was assessed to be.

MR MILNE: Right. With the adjustments does that now drop from 1.1 to one? 40 MR DUNLOP: I can’t recall what I wrote. No, I think it stays at 1.1 from memory.

[11.39 am] 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1190

MR MILNE: Okay. So the full project BCR is two, not I have done my maths around the one but doesn’t that indicate that around 50 percent of the project BCR benefits are dependent on the Duplicated Tunnels which are not funded or consented? 5 MR DUNLOP: Not at all, no. I mean remember that test takes away any growth on the network. Growth contributes to benefits. So it is assuming that there is no population growth, no-one is using any more movement of traffic. It was purely done as a sensitivity test. 10 MR MILNE: Is it not the case that the difference between the two and the one BRCS, or 1.1, is substantially due to the other projects in the RoNS, the Tunnel Duplication projects.

15 MR DUNLOP: They certainly contribute a large component, that is correct.

MR MILNE: Well of the difference between 1.2 and two how much of that comes from the Tunnel Duplication?

20 MR DUNLOP: Well that would be speculation, I can’t tell you that.

MR MILNE: More than 50 percent?

MR DUNLOP: Probably about the 50 percent I would imagine, but that is just 25 speculating. I would have to go and break it out again into each component.

MR MILNE: Is part of the difference between the – I am just wanting to understand the 1.1 and the two. Is part of that coming from what we 30 discussed yesterday, which is the increased utility of the Bridge following Tunnel Duplication?

MR DUNLOP: Completely. Correct.

35 MR MILNE: So if a substantial proportion, and I think we have got to at least 50 percent, is that fair?

MR DUNLOP: It sounds reasonable to me.

40 MR MILNE: But perhaps quite a lot higher?

MR DUNLOP: Or perhaps quite a lot lower.

MR MILNE: Yes, okay. So whether it is 40 percent, 50 or 75 percent do you 45 agree that that shows there is a very substantial degree to which the projects are inter-dependent?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1191

MR DUNLOP: They are inter-related. Whether they are inter-dependent, that’s a decision for NZTA to make around funding. I mean the BCR is done for the purposes of NZTA’s funding. 5 MR MILNE: Well, is that right? I understand that the BCR is also being put in front of this Board in terms of the benefits of the project, as a measure of the benefits of the project?

10 MR DUNLOP: Yes, it does provide that.

MR MILNE: And doesn’t the BCR feed directly into Mr Copeland’s economic evidence?

15 MR DUNLOP: That is my understanding.

MR MILNE: And am I right in saying the BCR of one or 1.1 also includes the benefits of the Buckle Street third lane and the Vivian Street - - -

20 MR DUNLOP: That is correct.

MR MILNE: So if you exclude those benefits that reduces that 1.1 or one, whatever it is, even further, doesn’t it?

25 MR DUNLOP: It would indeed.

MR MILNE: And perhaps to below – depending on whether it is one or 1.1 – to below one?

30 MR DUNLOP: It may well do.

MR MILNE: So if we take those benefits (and we are getting back to the baskets here) out of the BCR and we take the Tunnel Duplication out do we know what the BCR goes down to? 35 MR DUNLOP: No. Like I said, no, I don’t know what it goes down to.

MR MILNE: So the tables in your supplementary evidence don’t assist us with that? 40 MR DUNLOP: No, they don’t. I mean, this is purely a sensitivity test, this one, 1.1 – is purely a sensitivity test. We could do lots of sensitivity tests on lots of different scenarios.

45 MR MILNE: You refer to it as a sensitivity test.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1192

MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

[11.44 am]

5 MR MILNE: In terms of this Board, the way this project has been presented, separate from tunnel duplication, it will be a submission that this Board has to set aside, tunnel duplication, so in that context if the Board accepts that, the RoNS drops to either or 1 or 1.1 and we will have to clarify that later, and as I understand it, it drops even further if the 10 Board accepts that you should take out the benefits from the War Memorial third lane, Taranaki intersection?

MR DUNLOP: If you wanted all that done in an absolutely correct way, you would have to then do tests in isolation, so you would take the 15 duplicate tunnels out and leave the growth on the network in and then take out the Vivian and the Buckle Streets, if that is what you really wanted done, which could be done, it is just more model running, and more calculations.

20 MR MILNE: How difficult is that to do, Mr Dunlop?

MR DUNLOP: Well, I guess it is relative to what is important. I mean, it is not hugely difficult, it could be done in about three days probably.

25 MR MILNE: Well perhaps I will leave it to the Board to decide whether it is important.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

30 MR MILNE: So moving off BCR, and I must confess it is with some relief, sir, lawyers and economists are never a good mix.

Going back to the topic of integration of projects, I have final made some sense of my notes here and found where my references were. At 35 paragraph 2.6 of your evidence-in-chief, which probably means we are getting towards the end because we have got back to the beginning.

CHAIRPERSON: So paragraph?

40 MR MILNE: 2.6. Make sure I have got the right reference here.

MR DUNLOP: 2.6 yes.

MR MILNE: I am struggling here. There is a paragraph – I have clearly got 45 the reference wrong.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1193

DISCUSSION

MR MILNE: Quoting from you, you may be able to help me here, Mr Dunlop, I need all the help I can get at this point. 5 Additional traffic and transport demands in the Basin area will be influenced by Wellington City Council’s plan growth nodes in Adelaide Road, Newtown and Kilbirnie. Further, the Wellington Airport expansion plans, the proposed duplication of the Mount 10 Victoria Tunnel and the plan public transport spine outcomes are all reliant on transport improvements at the Basin Reserve?

CHAIRPERSON: It is 2.6.

15 MR DUNLOP: Yes, 2.6, that is correct, it is indeed.

MR MILNE: Is it not the case that the duplication of Mount Vic Tunnel and the public transport spine are supposed to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. You have expressed them here as all being reliant 20 on doing the Basin Bridge Project?

MR DUNLOP: So what is your point, I can’t understand what your question is?

25 MR MILNE: Isn’t it a case that – you have said there that these things are all reliant on the Basin Reserve Project, but isn’t it the case that in fact, they are all part of the solution to an overall problem?

MR DUNLOP: They are part of an integrated package, yes, you are right, if 30 you don’t do the Basin solution or do something at the Basin to solve the problem, there is questions as to whether you would deliver those projects.

MR MILNE: Isn’t it the case that the Wellington Airport expansion plans, the 35 growth nodes in Kilbirnie, are in fact reliant on transport improvements including in particular the Mount Victoria Tunnel duplication?

MR DUNLOP: Completely, correct.

40 [11.49 am]

MR MILNE: Could you equally say that the proper realisation of the transport benefits of the project are dependent upon the Public Transport Spine and the Mount Victoria Tunnel duplication? 45 MR DUNLOP: This project, is that the question?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1194

MR MILNE: The proper realisation of the transport benefits of the project are dependent upon the Public Transport Spine and the Mount Victoria Tunnel, aren’t they? 5 MR DUNLOP: Certainly the full realisation of benefits certainly are linked. I don’t say they are dependent upon, they are linked to. This project is a standalone project, it has been identified as such in the Ngauranga to Airport Plan as well as integrating with those wider transportation 10 projects.

MR MILNE: We have already established the 20 percent/80 percent that were discussed yesterday and you have acknowledged this at 6.5 of your evidence that “The complete journey time and variability associated 15 with travel to and from Evans Bay Parade to Willis Street is not solely related to the problems at the Basin Reserve”, that is clear, isn’t it?

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you reading from?

20 MR MILNE: Paragraph 6.5.

MR DUNLOP: That is dead right.

MR MILNE: And at 8.11 you have noted the close relationship between the 25 Basin Reserve project and the Public Transport Spine?

CHAIRPERSON: Could you just slow down a minute.

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 30 MR MILNE: So I am just putting references to you where you have emphasised the integration or the relationship between the projects.

MR DUNLOP: For sure. 35 MR MILNE: 8.17 you have noted, “Anticipated increase in freight due to airport master plan”.

MR DUNLOP: 17. 40 MR MILNE: And the links to Mount Victoria Tunnel duplication and Terrace Tunnel duplication in terms of freight, haven’t you?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1195

MR MILNE: And at 8.28 you have linked the project to the Mount Victoria Tunnel duplication, you have said, “The proposed bridge together with the proposed second Mount Victoria Tunnel and stabilisation works will provide a resilient access route from the Hataitai side into the 5 city”.

MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MR MILNE: And then at 10.109 you have noted, “In addition planned future 10 works, in particular the duplication of the Mount Victoria Tunnel, will improve eastbound travel, however without grade separation of westbound State Highway 1 traffic at the Basin Reserve through this project the benefits associated with the Mount Victoria Tunnel duplication will be significantly reduced”. 15 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: Just on that last point, do we know how much they would be reduced by? That is and going back to something I raised with you 20 yesterday, if we take National War Memorial, Taranaki/Buckle improvements, other ICB improvement as a given, and we put in tunnel duplication but we leave out the Basin Bridge in the middle, do we know what the effect of tunnel duplication is?

25 MR DUNLOP: We know the effect, I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head and it certainly hasn’t been analysed through Paramics as we discussed yesterday, so I can’t give you an accurate journey time. That will be something that the – if this project was not approved then that would be something that the Mount Victoria Tunnel team would have to 30 consider.

MR MILNE: Or if this project had been put together with the tunnel duplication that would be something you would be considering?

35 MR DUNLOP: Oh, completely, correct, and that was at one point a consideration, so when it went to consultation in 2011/12.

MR MILNE: So going back to big picture, between Mount Victoria Tunnel and Terrace Tunnel, Basin Bridge 20 percent, other things 80 percent, 40 at least westbound AM peak. We have established that?

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: But we don’t know, do we, of the overall journey from Evans 45 Bay to the tunnels what Mount Victoria Tunnel and Terrace Tunnel duplications just to that without the Basin Reserve?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1196

MR DUNLOP: No, we don’t.

MR MILNE: So we don’t, the Board doesn’t understand the relative 5 contribution of the Basin Reserve benefits excluding War Memorial et cetera, relative to tunnel duplication/Ruahine Street benefits, does it?

[11.54 am]

10 MR DUNLOP: Well, I could get it extracted out for you because it is certainly documented in the economic analysis at a SATURN level. So that’s a network wide level and it has been analysed.

MR MILNE: So whose evidence do we go to to find that? 15 MR DUNLOP: It’s linked into this analysis which forms part of annexure C of my evidence-in-chief.

MR MILNE: I think, Mr Dunlop, unless you can point us to somewhere in the 20 evidence I am going to leave it there because it’s up to the Agency to decide what it wants to put forward in evidence.

MR DUNLOP: Yes, that’s fair enough.

25 MR MILNE: In paragraph 8.1 you state that there is a need to deliver an integrated solution at the Basin Reserve. In your view, as a traffic modeller, and in terms of the evidence you are giving here, do you believe that the Basin Reserve project considered on its own is an integrated solution? 30 MR DUNLOP: Completely.

MR MILNE: Considered on its own - - -

35 MR DUNLOP: Considered on its own.

MR MILNE: - - - as a standalone?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, it is an integrated solution from a transport planning 40 perspective totally.

MR MILNE: Notwithstanding all the references in your evidence to the relationship between the project and other parts of the RoNS project, that’s your view? 45 MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1197

MR MILNE: And notwithstanding the reliance that’s been placed through your evidence, in terms of the 2031 modelling and in turn on the BCR, on the tunnel duplication projects which form part of that? 5 MR DUNLOP: Correct, so it’s an adaptable and integrated solution so it has the ability to manage those changes that are put in front of us in future years.

10 MR MILNE: And there is also references to the integration with the Public Transport Spine?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

15 MR MILNE: Last week I think you illustrated how the lane changes might be made to facilitate bus rapid transport?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

20 MR MILNE: And you outlined, for example, some changes to the green lane at the stop line on Paterson Street?

MR DUNLOP: That could be an example, yes.

25 MR MILNE: Is it correct that bus rapid transport would also require changes at the intersection of Adelaide Road and Rugby Street?

MR DUNLOP: It could require, that would be an assessment that would have to be undertaken to determine. 30 MR MILNE: And the draft conditions DC21a states that the network integration plan will address the operation of the signals at Adelaide Road and Rugby Street intersection?

35 MR DUNLOP: Correct, it will indeed. Taking into account all of these factors.

MR MILNE: The application documents show Rugby Street with one lane as it crosses at Adelaide Road? 40 MR DUNLOP: That is correct.

MR MILNE: Would that need to be increased to two lanes with bus rapid transport? 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1198

MR DUNLOP: It may. That there may be a decision that by increasing it to two lanes, ensuring that you actually have to control that intersection in a traffic sense, could actually a more adverse impact than leaving it as proposed. So therefore there will be greater bus priority by leaving it 5 as it stands than putting in an additional lane which may be a green lane.

MR MILNE: When the Network Integration Plan is finalised is one of the outcomes which is possible that there will be two lanes? 10 MR DUNLOP: That is certainly an outcome that’s possible.

MR MILNE: If that’s the outcome what impact would that have on the flow of north-south traffic? 15 MR DUNLOP: It would have some impact on the flow of north-south traffic, primarily north traffic, very little impact on south traffic I would imagine.

20 MR MILNE: Would – sorry, carry on.

MR DUNLOP: However, it would be substantially better than it is now so it’s not competing with the 15,000 vehicles that are circulating around there now. So it gives you much greater scope from a public transport 25 perspective and a local road perspective.

[11.59 am]

MR MILNE: Is that also true of Option X(b)? 30 MR DUNLOP: X(b)’s another dimension. Especially at that intersection. Yes, so it is true of X(b). Definitely.

MR MILNE: Would bus rapid transport require substantial other changes to 35 the design of the Basin Reserve rotary component?

MR DUNLOP: I wouldn’t go so far as saying “substantial other changes”. Again it depends on what the solution is for Kent Cambridge Terrace and where the buses are located. If they’re on the curb side or in the 40 central median.

MR MILNE: The modelling hasn’t taken into account these changes because it can’t because the decision hasn’t been made.

45 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1199

MR MILNE: And the western side of the Basin Reserve is outside the scope of the project isn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: It is indeed. There is no changes to be made on that western 5 side.

MR MILNE: Is it still possible then to say, or is it correct to say that the Basin Bridge project will enable bus rapid transport if that’s the decision?

10 MR DUNLOP: It certainly will enable, correct.

MR MILNE: Could that enabling occur via other options?

MR DUNLOP: Completely. 15 MR MILNE: Mr Cameron asked you last week, on Thursday, if bus rapid transport could be accommodated in the southeast corner of the Basin Reserve and you said you believed it could but you’d not completed the analysis. Do you remember that? 20 MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

MR MILNE: So at this stage you’re not able to confirm whether or not bus rapid transport can in fact be accommodated? 25 MR DUNLOP: I’m of the opinion it can be accommodated. Again it will all depend on the outcomes sought by bus rapid transit. The type of vehicles that are going to be used, the locations in which the bus stops are. There’s a raft of factors that contribute to it which aren’t decision 30 that have been made yet.

MR MILNE: Mr Cameron also asked you if bus rapid transport could be achieved at the Basin Reserve without grade separation and you indicated that in your opinion it would not work. Do you recall that 35 discussion?

MR DUNLOP: I do recall that discussion, yes. When I say it won’t work I think there are ways of making it work if there was an intersection to the north of the Basin. However, I think it would be hugely 40 problematic and difficult to make it work. I don’t think it will work in the context of BRREO where you’re mixing modes.

MR MILNE: Leaving aside BRREO have you done the analysis to confirm that conclusion that some form of at-grade improvement at Basin 45 Reserve could not fit in with bus rapid transport?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1200

MR DUNLOP: I’ve done enough analysis to draw a conclusion based on what I know and what I understand.

MR MILNE: And both you and Mr McCombs have pointed out a number of 5 issues that would need to be considered in designing bus rapid transport and if I can just take you through some examples of those.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

10 MR MILNE: And you could confirm that these are all issues that need to be looked at. So dedicated bus lanes?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

15 MR MILNE: High levels of priority through the network?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: Continuous flow? 20 MR DUNLOP: Continuous flow being for the bus?

MR MILNE: Yes.

25 MR DUNLOP: Yes, I think that’s an important aspect. It’s probably not essential but it’s pretty important.

MR MILNE: Potentially fenced off lanes?

30 MR DUNLOP: That’s a potential opportunity I guess you could say.

MR MILNE: And if I understood him correctly, Mr McCombs was even suggesting that there might be a need for flyovers along routes which intersected with the bus rapid transport? 35 MR DUNLOP: There was a comment in that relation. I don’t think that’s essential. I think it can be achieved through other means.

MR MILNE: Okay. 40 MR DUNLOP: Smart technology exists that the bus rapid transit system can be managed and monitored the whole way through its journey and it’s integrated with the flow of traffic.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1201

MR MILNE: But at this stage because that project is not even decided upon, let alone at its design stage, we don’t know how it fits in with this project, do we?

5 [12.04 pm]

MR DUNLOP: That’s right.

MR MILNE: Or with alternatives? 10 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: Turning to the proposed east west bus, or the possible east west bus rapid transport, as I understand it the proposal was to run that 15 through the duplicated Mount Vic Tunnels, is that - - -

MR DUNLOP: That is my understanding, correct.

MR MILNE: What impact would bus rapid transport have on the design of 20 the duplication project?

MR DUNLOP: I think that is something you would put to that team, I mean, do you want my opinion – I would only be speculating from what I know - - - 25 MR MILNE: Well, maybe I will put it this way. It would need to be factored into the design of the tunnel duplication project, wouldn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Totally, and I understand it is being factored in. 30 MR MILNE: And if we were dealing with all of the projects together it would be here in front of the Board as to what the design is, isn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Well I would say it wouldn’t be, because I don’t think the 35 work has been done far enough to be in front of the Board.

MR MILNE: Well we understand there is going to be another Board of Inquiry later on this year or early next year, that will all have to be done for that Board, won’t it? 40 MR DUNLOP: That is correct, or it would need to display the flexibility that it provides in the same way that this project does.

MR MILNE: Do you agree that a more effective integrated solution might be 45 achieved if the tunnel duplication, bus rapid transport or whatever is

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1202

decided upon, and the Basin Reserve projects were all considered and developed as a single project, that is the question?

MR DUNLOP: My response to that, no, not necessarily at all. 5 MR MILNE: Do you agree that in terms of the transport effects and the BCR issues that your evidence addresses, that adopting that approach would allow the Board to see the full picture rather than a part of the picture?

10 MR DUNLOP: Yes, I acknowledge that.

MR MILNE: Changing topics back to another mode, modal shift, cycle and pedestrians.

15 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: You noted earlier and I can’t recall at what stage, that the project has significant benefits for cyclists and pedestrians, that is your view, isn’t it? 20 MR DUNLOP: Yes, that is my view most certainly.

MR MILNE: We talked at length about defining the problem and the solution and the difference between the two being the benefits? 25 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR MILNE: Where do we find the summary of what the current problem is in relation to each of pedestrians and cyclists? 30 MR DUNLOP: Technical report 4. I mean, in simplistic terms, the problem is the circulating traffic, the 15,000 odd vehicles that circulate with the local road traffic, so that is the problem, okay. So that is a very simple summary of what the problem is, and there are multiple references to 35 pedestrian and cycle movements within TR 4 and 5.4 is where it is summarised, what exists there at the moment, and as I discussed in my opening statement summary - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Page? 40 MR DUNLOP: Page 36. The lack of integration that exists at the moment, and the significant flows that are then presented in figure 4.22, and then we walk through what exists. Where people make these movements. And then some key observations. 45 [12.09 pm]

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1203

MR MILNE: If I’m cyclist coming from Adelaide Road and going to Kent Cambridge, do I face a problem at the moment? I’ve got lights, I can go through the Basin or around the Basin, come out the other side, 5 another crossing.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: Get onto Kent Cambridge and then we’re outside of the project 10 area. What’s the problem that you are trying or that the project is trying to solve in terms of cyclists or indeed pedestrians along that route.

MR DUNLOP: Okay, so at the moment the Adelaide Road intersection is 15 controlled purely by state highway traffic flows. It dictates everything at that intersection. So the majority of the time as we heard the other day when we looked at those diagrams 55 to 60 percent I think off the top of my head is allocated to the state highway in the heavy flow of which is heading through on three lanes at Rugby Street. That drives 20 the intersection. Not the cyclists. Not the pedestrians.

MR MILNE: Okay, so I understand what you’re saying is at that intersection - - -

25 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: - - - there is a wait time. Is that wait time documented?

MR DUNLOP: There is a wait time, correct. 30 MR MILNE: How much are pedestrians and cyclists delayed at that intersection?

MR DUNLOP: Well they’re delayed by – it’s an average cycle time of about 35 from memory off the top of my head 90 seconds and 55 percent of it’s been allocated to the state highway so they’re getting about 50 seconds on the state highway, 40 seconds on the local road. So you’ll be waiting for – so you’ll have to wait to get across to the middle and then you’ll wait again to get across the state highway. So you could be 40 waiting 90 seconds, you could be. It’s pretty unlikely. It’s probably likely to be less than that.

MR MILNE: That’s the maximum.

45 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1204

MR MILNE: But you could average that. Just as other things have been quantified - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 5 MR MILNE: - - - this problem can be quantified in terms of the extent to which pedestrians and cyclists are delayed at that intersection and the other intersection on the other side.

10 MR DUNLOP: It can certainly be quantified and it was quantified in the feasible options phase when there were comparisons between options at that time.

MR MILNE: And the same can be done in other directions - - - 15 MR DUNLOP: It can be done in any direction.

MR MILNE: - - - in terms of defining what the problem is in terms of delay if that’s an issue. 20 MR DUNLOP: If you’re so desired to quantify everything yes you can do that. Correct.

MR MILNE: And then another component of that would be, or could be, to 25 interview cyclists and pedestrians and find out whether that’s actually a problem.

MR DUNLOP: Yes, you could do that.

30 MR MILNE: And then you’ve decided whether there’s a problem, if there is problem you can compare that problem against the solution and look at the time for pedestrians and cyclists - - -

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 35 MR MILNE: - - - in relation to the solution.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

40 MR MILNE: But that hasn’t been done. It’s been very much a qualitative analysis hasn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Yes it has, correct. We know the numbers and we know where to put the attention and where to focus that attention. 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1205

MR MILNE: Isn’t it really the case that discussion – the difference between the discussions around pedestrian and cyclists in the evidence and all of the voluminous reports and the discussion around transport benefits is that firstly the discussion around pedestrians and cyclists is very much 5 qualitative rather than quantitative. Is that a fair summary?

MR DUNLOP: Well as you well know and you’ve referred to there has been a reasonable amount of counting of lanes, the number of vehicles that each pedestrian and cyclist is having to contend with or are in conflict 10 with. So that’s all quantitative in my mind.

[12.14 pm]

MR MILNE: The other difference, it seems to me (and again, tell me whether 15 this is a fair summary) is the vehicle and public transport evidence focus on travel time savings and benefits from the Project whereas it seems to me that the evidence on pedestrians and cycling is more about describing how the Project can deliver some improvements, rather than about whether there is a problem to be solved in the first place. 20 MR DUNLOP: Well I think there are numerous references to the fact that there are problems, both in this section and in my evidence-in-chief, and I think in my rebuttal.

25 An example is that Adelaide/Rugby intersection has one of the second worst crash records in Wellington City, so that is an issue. It has got huge numbers of pedestrians going through it relating to the schools and I think there is even a picture in one of these reports of all of the school kids that choose not to use that intersection because of the 30 location, the design line, the delays, various reasons. So they walk across the middle of the road which has a safety impact.

So there is lots of evidence out there to show that there is a problem.

35 MR MILNE: So I’m sure it is here somewhere but in terms of the accident statistics do we have the accident statistics for pedestrians and cyclists at that intersection?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, it is all certainly broken down, and in I think it is the last 40 appendix of TR4 from memory.

MR MILNE: Is it summarised in your evidence anywhere?

MR DUNLOP: It is not summarised in my evidence, it is summarised in TR4 45 – Safety Assessment on 3.3.1 (page 3.3.1). And then - - -

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1206

MR BAINES: The Road Safety Audit response form?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, just a second. There is certainly safety analysis in here. Okay, so it is summarised as to the existing problem in section 5.7.4. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Sorry?

MR DUNLOP: 5.7.4 on page 58 is the existing situation, which is characterised by the high traffic volumes circulating around the basin. 10 So that is the concentration of crash problems.

MR BAINES: Could I have that reference again, please? TR4?

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 15 MR BAINES: Section 5?

MR DUNLOP: 5.7.4.

20 MR BAINES: Thank you.

MR DUNLOP: And in this particular table, which is table 4.12 which summarises the crashes that relate specifically to pedestrians and cyclists. 25 MR MILNE: Page reference for that?

MR DUNLOP: That is on page 61.

30 MR MILNE: So these are at that intersection, is that right?

MR DUNLOP: No, they are across the network that we are looking at, which is the Project area.

35 MR MILNE: So they relate to the Project area.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: So does that include Vivian and - - - 40 MR DUNLOP: It does include Vivian, correct.

MR MILNE: So when we get back to the Basin Reserve itself do we know how many pedestrian and cyclist accidents there have been at the 45 intersections which are to be taken out by the solution?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1207

MR DUNLOP: They certainly exist and I think they are all in – a lot of detail in one of the appendices. From memory I think I made reference to it being the last appendix of this report. No, maybe it wasn’t. I thought there was one which had all the crash data in it, so maybe I am wrong. 5 It was certainly in one of the earlier reports anyway.

[12.19 pm]

MR CAMERON: Can I assist, your Honour, with regards to this? 10 MR DUNLOP: Sorry, it is appendix 4F.

CHAIRPERSON: Your assistance is welcomed. Sorry?

15 MR DUNLOP: 4F, appendix 4F has a full breakdown of all the crashes and where they exist, so you can go and look at that in a lot of detail.

MR CAMERON: And if you have a look at TR 4 at page 61 - - -

20 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have got that.

MR CAMERON: You have got that, all right, thank you.

MR MILNE: So to understand the problem that as being, or one of the 25 problems that is being solved by the solution, we need to go to – as I understand from what we have just said, we need to go to TR 4 and various appendices to understand the current issues around pedestrians and cycling?

30 MR DUNLOP: That is one mechanism, I mean, you could go to the consultation report that was undertaken and you will find in there lots of references to issues around the Basin Reserve relating to pedestrian and cycle movements. I was certainly involved in those consultations and received lots of feedback in this matter and I have been involved in 35 numerous meetings with Cycle Aware Wellington where they have highlighted the problems and the quantum of problem around the Basin.

MR MILNE: I understand that option X will address some of those problems 40 to some extent. Is that right?

MR DUNLOP: It will certainly fix some of those problems, correct. It will also exacerbate some others.

45 MR MILNE: In terms of defining the do-minimum, are there other things that could have been done within the scope of do-minimum, that is feasible,

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1208

things that could be done at the Reserve based on its current gyratory system to address some of the issues?

MR DUNLOP: Potentially. An example might be that you could convert the 5 existing Kent/Cambridge Terrace signals to being shared walking and cycling facilities, so you would have a push button for both modes, for each mode, sorry, so that is an example.

MR MILNE: There is some reliance on the benefits for pedestrians and 10 cyclists, isn’t there, in the evidence in terms of the benefits of the project?

MR DUNLOP: Just like all those other transportation aspects, yes, it is about getting an integrated balanced solution. 15 MR MILNE: Is there an expert on pedestrian and cycling needs being called by the Agency?

MR DUNLOP: I don’t believe so, I mean, I can certainly answer the questions 20 relating to the pedestrian and cycling needs.

MR MILNE: From a transport engineer’s perspective?

MR DUNLOP: From a transport planning perspective. 25 MR MILNE: And there is, I think, a national and a local cycleway efficacy.

MR DUNLOP: There is indeed, yes, and we have had numerous discussions with them as well as the regional council who also work actively in this 30 area, and the city council I might add.

MR MILNE: Given the qualitative nature of the assessment that has been used, are there not other tools which come from the social impact assessment area that could be used to quantify the problem and look at 35 the degree of benefits in terms of cyclists and pedestrians?

MR DUNLOP: There are many tools that could be used, correct. I could build a model specifically for pedestrians and cyclists if you so desired, but I think it is about whether it is going to add value. 40 MR MILNE: So am I correct in saying the dominant route is north south?

MR DUNLOP: You are correct.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1209

MR MILNE: And basically a significant majority of pedestrians and cyclists use the north south route, do we have that broken down into percentages?

5 MR DUNLOP: No.

MR MILNE: Or numbers?

MR DUNLOP: We have certainly got the numbers, so based on a daily survey, 10 2,100 pedestrians travel north south through the Adelaide Rugby intersection, and 350 cyclists, and that number for cyclists is growing rapidly as well as – pedestrians is also growing.

[12.24 pm] 15 MR MILNE: So that is both north and south movements?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

20 MR MILNE: So 2,450 in total?

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: But in terms of the projects, the most significant pedestrian and 25 cycle facility is a shared pathway, that is a pedestrian and cyclist bridge which doesn’t support that dominant route, isn’t that the case?

MR DUNLOP: That is correct, however, the removal of the traffic supports that route, and the fact that the actual traffic going over is a grade 30 separation in its own right, so it is like – instead of having to actually grade separate from the point of view of putting the pedestrians over or the cyclists over, you are actually putting them under in this case. That happens to be another corridor and another route that is an opportunity.

35 MR MILNE: It is an opportunity?

MR DUNLOP: It is an opportunity, correct.

MR MILNE: And we had a photo from Mr Bennion yesterday which explains 40 another constraint on that particular route.

MR DUNLOP: Correct, absolutely.

MR MILNE: We have got bruised shoulders to prove it. Turning back to the 45 dominant route, the current dominant route, north south, that is likely to remain the dominant route, isn’t it, because of the population on that

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1210

side and because of the growth aspirations of the council that are fed into the model?

MR DUNLOP: And the topography like I mentioned in my opening statement, 5 that people converge on a valley and walk up and down that valley.

MR MILNE: And the intersection under the project, it doesn’t get removed, there is still traffic going around it, there will just be less traffic?

10 MR DUNLOP: Absolutely, yes exactly.

MR MILNE: So again, in terms of both the safety and – well, in terms of the delay factor that can be modelled in, how much difference it will make to that intersection for pedestrians and cyclists before and after 15 removing some of the traffic?

MR DUNLOP: Large proportions of the traffic, so that will be a decision that has to be made by Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council, again it will become a local road and that local road 20 has to make decisions over public transport usage, walking and cycling demands and general traffic and all of those things are weighed up and there is a decision as to where the priority sits. But you don’t have to worry about state highway traffic.

25 MR MILNE: Returning to, well, focusing on the pedestrian component, - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR MILNE: - - - is there a summary diagram in TR 4 or anywhere else 30 showing pedestrian designer lines?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, that is summary document, I think, - I can’t remember, maybe I went through it with Mr Bennion yesterday.

35 Pedestrian design lines are shown in figure 2.3 on page 39.

MR MILNE: :Of TR 4?

MR DUNLOP: Of TR 4, correct, it was also referenced yesterday. 40 MR MILNE: So again, it is the case, isn’t it, that there is no pedestrian design line or cyclist design line along the path proposed for the shared pedestrian/cycle bridge?

45 MR DUNLOP: That is correct, I think we talked about that yesterday quietly.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1211

MR MILNE: Thank you, Mr Dunlop, I think we can both finish there and hand over to my friend.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Milne. Ms Andrews, have you any 5 question of this witness.

MR BAINES: Mr Cameron.

CHAIRPERSON: No, sorry, - - - 10 [12.29 pm]

MR BAINES: You were right.

15 CHAIRPERSON: I was right?

MR CAMERON: I never got the (INDISTINCT 0.10)

MS ANDREWS: If I become Mr Cameron we may then begin to have some 20 issues, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

30 I think you have heard probably previously explain my role as one of the legal advisors to the Board, so simply some questions and clarification from that perspective.

Beginning with the Feasible Options Report and going back to table 35 9.10 that you have discussed particularly with Mr Milne yesterday.

MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm?

MS ANDREWS: And the top row of that relates to State Highway 1 traffic 40 benefits?

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MS ANDREWS: That is on page 55 of Feasible Options Report. 45 MR ……….: Thank you.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1212

MS ANDREWS: And I think you agreed with Mr Milne that the 35 percent westbound traffic time reduction shown for Options A and B there - - -

5 MR DUNLOP: Yes?

MS ANDREWS: - - - it was derived from the Paramics modelling?

MR DUNLOP: That was my understanding. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Could you just wait a minute? Could we have that on the screen please?

MR ……….: And the page number? 15 MS ANDREWS: It is page 55.

CHAIRPERSON: Just before we move on I think Mr Cameron, you mentioned yesterday that you could provide us with a hard copy of 20 that?

MR CAMERON; Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: I wonder if I could have one? 25 MR CAMERON: Yes, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one for the Board.

30 MR CAMERON: I think you should have one. If you don’t I’m sure there is one here.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we haven’t got one. We have got electronic copies on our iPad but this document is very difficult to read on your iPad 35 because it only has a quarter of the page on it at a time. Madam Registrar?

MR CAMERON: I just better check that it has got no writing on it, sir. We have scribbled all over it with - - - 40 MR ……….: I didn’t want the comments on it.

MR CAMERON: I don’t think there is but we just better check that’s not an edited copy. 45 CHAIRPERSON: You can do it at lunch time.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1213

MR CAMERON: It appears to be unedited, sir, so I am happy to just happy to hand that forward. If there is any editing on it would the Board please be kind enough to return it without comment and I will replace it. 5 Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MS ANDREWS: Thank you, sir, and it is probably very useful to get the hard 10 copy because my question actually relates to the essentially foot note or side note beside that which has gone off the side of the screen for now. but there is a note 5 at the side there which refers to the traffic benefits having been based on SATURN modelling.

15 MR DUNLOP: Yes, that’s correct.

MS ANDREWS: Now, it may just be my misunderstanding in terms of reading the documents but could you explain that foot note reference to the SATURN modelling? 20 MR DUNLOP: Yes. I think it relates to economic benefits, I think. That is my understanding. However I would have to look at it in more detail because I thought when I looked at it yesterday that it related to Paramics modelling was showing that there was a 35 percent reduction. 25 MS ANDREWS: And certainly I think that is consistent with the numbers that are actually given in the table.

MR DUNLOP: That is right. 30 MS ANDREWS: Just perhaps if we can confirm the issue around that foot note and whether that is an error in the foot note or something else that is resulting in the reference to the SATURN modelling there.

35 MR DUNLOP: It certainly suggests that it is out 35 percent – well, it’s 33.9 percent out of the Paramics modelling. But it may well be very similar in the SATURN modelling at that time.

MS ANDREWS: Certainly, thank you. And that reference you were just 40 giving, was that out of your transport technical note - - -

MR DUNLOP: That’s right - - -

MS ANDREWS: - - - that you referred everyone to yesterday? 45 MR DUNLOP: - - - which is linked to this report.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1214

MS ANDREWS: Also in that table 9.10 right at the very bottom there we have the reference to economic efficiency, and obviously the BCR being one of the factors included in that. 5 MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm?

[12.34 pm]

10 MS ANDREWS: And I think you’ve been through both yesterday and again today that you’d agree that the BCR is an appropriate criterion to be using for the purposes of doing such option evaluation as was being undertaken in this feasibility options report?

15 MR DUNLOP: Correct, that is correct.

MS ANDREWS: And you’d agree that that would still remain the case even when there is a reasonably small .5 or certainly less than one difference between the BCRs for the various options being considered? 20 MR DUNLOP: Yes. I mean it’s of less significance probably when it’s close and I think that’s what is talked about in the feasible options report. That they are all quite similar in terms of BCR.

25 MS ANDREWS: Yes. Yes and that’s why as you may be aware that the feasible options report goes on in the overall evaluation to in fact fully discount the BCR as a means of distinguishing between the various options.

30 MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MS ANDREWS: And this may be something more for Dr Stewart but are you aware of any other further assessment being given to particularly options C and D from the feasible options report after they were 35 discounted as a result of that report?

MR DUNLOP: Not that I’m aware of, no. You could certainly put that one to Dr Stewart, but I don’t recall.

40 MS ANDREWS: Thank you. Now just turning to the discussions you had with Mr Milne regarding the do-minimum and what should be included in the do-minimum as opposed to what should be included in the project baskets as we now have them. And in particular obviously the key focus is around the third lane of the overpass, the Taranaki and 45 Buckle Street intersection improvements and the Vivian Street improvements and whether they should be included as part of the

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1215

project or as part of the do-minimum as well. And you’d agree obviously that there is currently a transport problem, or certainly that’s the Agency’s case before the Board to be addressed for state highway traffic east west around and along the Basin Reserve. 5 MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MS ANDREWS: And you’d also accept that as transport experts that the opening of the third lane in the underpass together with the intersection 10 improvements and Vivian Street improvements themselves provide the six minute travel times savings for westbound traffic between Goa Street and Boulcott Street in a.m. peak. We’ve been through that.

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 15 MS ANDREWS: And there would be a 44 second journey time saving for eastbound traffic in that same a.m. peak period.

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 20 MS ANDREWS: In terms of what should be included in a do-minimum as noted in section 3.3.3 of TR4. We don’t need to go to it just yet. We can if we need to, but that states there that the do-minimum scenario represents the minimum investment to maintain network operation. 25 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MS ANDREWS: And this I think largely reflects the explanation of do- minimum that’s provided in the Agency’s economic evaluation manual. 30 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MS ANDREWS: 2013.

35 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MS ANDREWS: And if we go to that economic evaluation manual and the explanation of do-minimum provided there it says, “for many transport activities it is often not practical to do nothing. A certain minimum 40 level of expenditure may be required to maintain a minimum level of service. This minimum level of expenditure is known as the do- minimum and shall be used as a basis for evaluation rather than the do- nothing”. Now you’ve agreed with Mr Milne that the third lane through the underpass and the Taranaki Buckle Street intersection and Vivian 45 Street improvements could have been included in the do-minimum.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1216

MR DUNLOP: Correct, yes.

MS ANDREWS: Obviously they weren’t in terms of your initial assessments or from the feasibility options report that we’re considering. 5 MR DUNLOP: I think just a point of clarification. The feasible options report everything was at-grade. So it was taking a solution that was at-grade, the two lanes, and having to widen the road which I wouldn’t say is probably possible within the bounds of an envelope that exists there at 10 the moment. So it’s a different scenario. Things have moved on and changed.

MS ANDREWS: Certainly with Memorial Street underpass being proposed.

15 MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MS ANDREWS: Certainly. So considering the current level of service at those locations, particularly along Vivian Street and at the Taranaki Buckle Street intersection and flow on implications that has for the 20 surrounding network, obviously evidenced by the improvements you get - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

25 MS ANDREWS: - - - from doing those projects alone, do you think they should be included in the do-minimum consistent with the explanation of that term that is provided in the economic evaluation manual?

[12.39 pm] 30 MR DUNLOP: Well, I think it’s quite complex because the underpass is not a small investment, it’s a big investment and it’s a very different solution than just trying to keep things running. So the economic evaluation manual reference talks about what might need to be done to keep things 35 operational. That’s a very different scenario here. I think it’s fair to say that it can certainly be included in the do-minimum and I have acknowledged that.

MS ANDREWS: Thank you. And then just finally having a look at the width 40 of the shared cycle/pedestrian way. You have identified in paragraph 8.47 of your rebuttal that the Transport Agency guidelines suggest a desirable width of between two and 3.5 metres for commuters for such facilities.

45 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1217

MS ANDREWS: So you would accept, as recorded in the transportation joint witness statement of 4 February, that the guidelines also provide that it’s important to leave an additional one metre clearance on each side to accommodate for recovery of cyclists? 5 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MS ANDREWS: So is it correct that the Agency’s pedestrian planning and design guideline indicates that the shared cycle/pedestrian way we are 10 considering here should have a width of five metres if we are going from an original proposed width of three metres?

MR DUNLOP: No, not entirely. If you go to that guideline, from memory, just remind where I was talking about it in my rebuttal. 15 MS ANDREWS: Rebuttal was paragraph 8.47.

MR DUNLOP: Yes, so it would be four metres based on that so anywhere between two and 3.5, so if you put a metre on either side that would put 20 you up to four metres.

MS ANDREWS: Certainly. And so with the three metres we have had proposed here as your base, if you are adding a metre to either side that would be five metres, so somewhere between - - - 25 MR DUNLOP: If that was the case, yes, you would do that.

MS ANDREWS: That’s right, somewhere between four and five.

30 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MS ANDREWS: And the Austroads guidelines indicate a minimum width for such a facility as 4.5 metres?

35 MR DUNLOP: That’s knowledge, and remember these are guidelines not standards.

MS ANDREWS: Yes, certainly. And you accept safety issues and allowing for the recovery of cyclists who have to swerve assumes an even 40 greater importance when the shared cycle/pedestrian path is on a gradient rather than - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

45 MS ANDREWS: Obviously that’s because you get an even greater speed differential between pedestrians - - -

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1218

MR DUNLOP: Potentially, that’s correct.

MS ANDREWS: - - - and cyclists? 5 MR DUNLOP: Indeed.

MS ANDREWS: And you would agree, and I think you acknowledge this in your evidence, that cyclists may be less likely to use the pathway, and 10 indeed perhaps pedestrians as well, if they don’t perceive it as being a safe environment?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

15 MS ANDREWS: Mr Dunlop, would you agree that if you were wishing to support mobility and modal choices within Wellington City and improve walking and cycling opportunities, as this project is seeking to do, safety should be a critical, if not a key factor, in designing the new shared pedestrian/cycle way? 20 MR DUNLOP: Certainly, should, yes.

MS ANDREWS: Thank you, Mr Dunlop. Thank you, sir.

25 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Ms Andrews. Now, Mr Cameron?

MR CAMERON: And just to follow that up, do you consider that the width of 30 the cycleway as proposed satisfies that criterion of safety or not?

MR DUNLOP: I am of the opinion that it can satisfy that criterion. That is my opinion and it is again about balancing and you then get the message across to the user that they need to be considerate of other 35 users of the space.

MR CAMERON: Does that occur elsewhere in Wellington?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, in my evidence-in-chief I provide numerous locations 40 around Wellington where we have large volumes of movement and similar guidance is given to users as to giving way to pedestrians as a cyclist user. So the priority sits with the pedestrian and the cyclists have to be respectful of that and that’s the nature of shared space.

45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1219

[12.44 pm]

MR CAMERON: And while we are discussing walking and cycling, my learned friend Mr Milne put a number of questions to you regarding the 5 manner in which the issue or the problem, as he put it to you, had been assessed?

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

10 MR CAMERON: From a transport planner’s perspective, which was the basis on which you told him you were responding.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

15 MR CAMERON: What are the problems for walkers and cyclists?

MR DUNLOP: In that specific location?

MR CAMERON: At the Basin Reserve. 20 MR DUNLOP: The Basin Reserve.

MR CAMERON: In summary.

25 MR DUNLOP: In summary, in relation to that movement from the Mount Victoria Tunnel - - -

MR CAMERON: No, I am talking generally.

30 MR DUNLOP: In general, okay.

MR CAMERON: Generally having - - -

MR DUNLOP: Generally it is the conflict between traffic and pedestrian 35 movements, that’s the primary problem in short. Then you have all the related problems with regards to how each intersection is designed and how each movement is designed.

MR CAMERON: Indeed. And do you think it necessary to adopt a 40 quantitative approach to analyse that problem in these circumstances? And if – sorry, that was the question.

MR DUNLOP: Well, it is quantitative I the sense of we know the traffic volumes, we know where they are going to go, so you can quantify 45 that.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1220

MR CAMERON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: You can also quantify the number of lanes that people are having to cross, so you know that. 5 MR CAMERON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: I don’t think there is any need to go any further than that level of analysis. We know where the dominant movements are. As long as 10 the design is cognisant of those main movements and where people are moving, that’s what matters. So the key desire lines, as we have talked about, are north-south through the Adelaide/Rugby intersection and then through at the north end of the Basin linking onto the local network, either crossing onto Cambridge or crossing onto Kent. And 15 the other main movement is also Paterson Street intersection. The high number of parents that transport kids between the St Mark’s School and also Wellington College across that intersection which, as a result of the project, will no longer have that state highway movement occurring at-grade, the state highway movement will be grade separated. 20 MR CAMERON: In terms of one’s consideration of the proposal is it necessary to distinguish between existing desire lines and what might be facilitated by the project?

25 MR DUNLOP: I think you have to be mindful of all, correct, both. And like I mentioned yesterday, from memory, the likelihood is and the expectation is that people’s behaviours and their routes would change as a result of the project. So there would be a greater desire to travel across the bridge and down Tory Street, which is a low traffic volume 30 street, a lower traffic volume street, and certainly consistent with Wellington City Council’s aspirations.

MR CAMERON: So that’s the east-west movements?

35 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: And likewise, yes, either direction. In a north-south the 40 movement pattern will remain largely the same. It will hopefully grow as a result of the project.

MR CAMERON: And are there any other projects which might contribute to that growth which are currently under consideration? 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1221

MR DUNLOP: Certainly. The City Council are working on a link between the CBD and Island Bay as a cycleway project which will run up and down this corridor, that is the current expectation. The growth spine itself is all centred around trying to encourage people to walk from 5 median density in the Adelaide Road area and the Newtown area to the CBD instead of having to jump in a car or use another mode such as public transport.

[12.49 pm] 10 MR CAMERON: And does that go back to your land use point that you were discussing with Mr Milne earlier?

MR DUNLOP: It certainly does, yes. 15 MR CAMERON: So on the basis of all that do you think it was necessary to build a model?

MR DUNLOP: To build a model? 20 MR CAMERON: Mm.

MR DUNLOP: For pedestrians and cyclists?

25 MR CAMERON: Mm.

MR DUNLOP: No, I don’t think so. I mean I think we can use enough judgment in this without having to build a model.

30 MR CAMERON: Thank you.

MR DUNLOP: And I think the experts agreed that in conferencing. In the conferencing statement.

35 MR CAMERON: Now if we turn to public transport. In terms of the public transport spine study can we please be clear about what that study is intending to connect please?

MR DUNLOP: My understanding is that it’s connecting the CBD with the 40 hospital area as well as consideration of a linkage through to Kilburnie. So they’re the two connections that are the focus of that study.

MR CAMERON: And in terms of the aspirations in that respect, in terms of that connection, that’s been contemplated by the Ngauranga to Airport 45 corridor plan.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1222

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: What does that contemplate?

5 MR DUNLOP: That contemplates a very similar level of connectivity. It considered this whole growth spine so it’s interrelated with the growth aspirations of the city. So that corridor of intensified land development up through Adelaide Road through to Newtown was one such corridor and the other node was Kilburnie which is why the study also looked at 10 Kilburnie as a linkage.

MR CAMERON: And in terms of what the Basin Bridge project facilitates in relation to public transport outcomes can you please summarise what that entails please? 15 MR DUNLOP: So as I’ve discussed in my opening statement it provides immediate benefit to the public transport users of this north south corridor. So that’s the current buses that run up and down this corridor will get improvement in journey time and significantly improved 20 reliability and very little variability in their journey. It’ll also facilitate improvements for users of school bus services through improvements associated with drop-off, pickup areas and the impact that those drop- off and pickup areas currently have on other bus users through this area. 25 The project then goes on to facilitate a change which has been termed a step change in public transport through the removal of the state highway traffic, the larger volume of traffic from this area and facilitating the ability to do what might be an outcome in the future. 30 Which may be having more space for bus rapid transit around the Basin Reserve. Both in an east west and also in a north south direction.

MR CAMERON: When discussing that point with my learned friend Mr Milne you said you’d done enough analysis to know whether or not grade 35 separation is required at the Basin Reserve to enable bus rapid transit. Do you recall that?

[12.54 pm]

40 MR DUNLOP: Yes, I recall that.

MR CAMERON: On what basis do you advance that proposition please?

MR DUNLOP: By retaining it or enhancing it we have a traffic dominated 45 solution. To do anything to the left that we are talking about with Bus Rapid Transit or if it should be tram would require much greater

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1223

priority for that public transport and it would move it away from being a traffic dominated solution to being a public transport dominated solution, which would be very difficult to achieve in the current environment, or more lanes put around the Basin. Does that answer 5 your question?

MR CAMERON: Just let me follow that latter point. To achieve it at-grade would require?

10 MR DUNLOP: It would require much greater levels of priority than are there now and even more than what we have proposed as part of this Project because you have still got the circulating traffic.

MR CAMERON: And what impact would that have on State Highway traffic 15 and other local traffic?

MR DUNLOP: Quite significant impact in my mind. It would impact on the variability of journeys through this area. It would potentially mean that people would stay away from this area as road users and they would 20 continue to travel around Oriental Bay, Evans Bay Parade and other routes such as Taranaki and Wallace Street, which have their own impacts because they impact on local public transport services.

MR CAMERON: So in terms of your assessment of what would be needed to 25 facilitate Bus Rapid Transit in this location can what is proposed, subject to network integration and final design outcomes being considered, can BRT be accommodated?

MR DUNLOP: That is my opinion, most certainly. 30 MR CAMERON: And what would your advice as a transport planner be if grade separation were not to occur in terms of the achievability of BRT?

35 MR DUNLOP: Re-think the whole plan.

MR CAMERON: Re-think the whole plan. Well I suppose I should clarify that – and by that you mean which plan?

40 MR DUNLOP: Well it stems from the Ngauranga to Airport Plan but certainly the PT Spine Plan, the study that has been undertaken. Re- think that plan and determine whether it really is feasible to achieve the outcomes you want to achieve with the conflicts that you have at this location. 45 MR CAMERON: You would have to start again, is that what you are saying?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1224

MR DUNLOP: You would certainly have to do a reassessment of this area and the implications in this area.

5 MR CAMERON: All right.

MR DUNLOP: I wouldn’t say you would have to start from scratch.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a convenient place to break for lunch? 10 MR CAMERON: I think if I could just have one more minute, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

15 MR CAMERON: Now, when you were discussing this topic with my learned friend again, Mr Milne, you responded to the proposition about integration across wider projects that this project is a standalone project.

20 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR CAMERON: What did you mean by that?

MR DUNLOP: It has its own merits that fit within the context of Wellington 25 as existing today. It then has the opportunity to integrate with a wide range of other projects, and the Project on its own merits is an integrated solution.

MR CAMERON: Because? 30 MR DUNLOP: Because it integrates with land use that exists there now, it integrates with public transport that exists there now and it integrates with a significantly high number of pedestrian and cycling movements that occur up and down this Corridor as we see it today. 35 MR CAMERON: Thank you. That is a convenient moment, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you very much. We will adjourn until 2 o’clock. 40 ADJOURNED [1.00 pm]

RESUMED [1.59 pm]

45 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well welcome back, we thought you might have been seeking an adjournment, I see India are 2 for 7 after 7 balls after lunch.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1225

MR CAMERON: I didn’t know that, sir, I really didn’t know that. I thought 302 and then two balls later was great, though, wasn’t it?

5 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that was.

MR CAMERON: Really fantastic, quite a moment really.

CHAIRPERSON: No-one is jumping to their feet to seek an adjournment for 10 tomorrow morning.

MR CAMERON: Well I will, sir, but I doubt that it will be granted so - - -

MR MILNE: Well, I have no interest in cricket whatsoever. 15 CHAIRPERSON: We could all do a combined site visit, of course.

MR CAMERON: Well I did suggest that 10 o’clock sir, and it didn’t get the traction that I thought it deserved, but anyway. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Cameron, let’s get down to serious things.

MR CAMERON: Mr Dunlop, you were asked a lot of questions by Mr Milne regarding the mitigation elements or the components of the project? 25 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON If we have a look at each of those components and if we start with the Vivian/Pirie Street intersection, whose idea was that? 30 MR DUNLOP: Certainly it came out of Opus as a form of mitigation to the changes that were happening at the Ellice, Hania Street intersection?

MR CAMERON As a consequence of? 35 MR DUNLOP: The project.

MR CAMERON And if we look at the Taranaki Buckle Street intersection, what was the genesis of that? 40 MR DUNLOP: The genesis of that was very much as I alluded to in my opening statement. It came about as a result of the scoping work that was undertaken for the project being the Basin Project before there was a decision on what option was being considered. There was an 45 identification that there were downstream issues that needed to be mitigated in order to deliver a successful project and a package.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1226

MR CAMERON And that intersection, or sorry, the upgrade of that intersection just so we are absolutely clear, - - -

5 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR CAMERON - - - how does that relate to the project in terms of the mitigation that you have identified?

10 [2.04 pm]

MR DUNLOP: Okay so the project provides a bridge which is two lanes and a single lane of traffic from Sussex Street. Two plus one equals three. Three ahead is a downstream constraint currently at two. So that’s 15 where it originates from.

MR CAMERON: In terms of the third lane in the underpass in the context of what we are discussing what do you say about that?

20 MR DUNLOP: I say that it is certainly there because of the context in which we’re looking at this project regarding the two lanes from the bridge and the one lane from Sussex Street adding to three. That is where it has come from.

25 MR CAMERON: Can you please describe to us the geometrics of the third lane as they relate to the bridge and Sussex Street please.

MR DUNLOP: So coming around out of Sussex Street you go around what is essentially a 90 degree turn in a westbound direction to head on state 30 highway 1 and as you come over the bridge you have two lanes across the bridge directly ahead. At that point they join just after the Sussex Street turn and that is the point where Mr Blackmore was talking about the safety issue that was being considered at the time and the history behind that. At one point - - - 35 MR CAMERON: Can you just pause there? Would it assist if I were up to put it up on a blackboard?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 40 MR CAMERON: Can we put up on the board please the plan, the plan number - - -

MR McMAHON: Mr Cameron just while you’re finding that could I just seek 45 a couple of points of clarification of the witness?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1227

MR CAMERON: Of course.

MR McMAHON: Mr Dunlop when you talk about a downstream issue in relation to Taranaki Buckle intersection are you referring to the north 5 or the south of that intersection?

MR DUNLOP: I’m referring to the east of that intersection ultimately. From a state highway perspective - - -

10 MR McMAHON: Yes, okay.

MR DUNLOP: - - - it’s definitely the east of it. The issue that was originally identified was Tory Tasman. That’s obviously been eliminated by the grade separation of that intersection and it’s now shifted to Taranaki. 15 Taranaki was still a problem under the Tory Tasman but now one’s been eliminated and now we have the Taranaki that is the downstream constraint. As are many of the other intersections on state highway 1 beyond this point.

20 MR McMAHON: Yes thank you. Mr Cameron, I’m not trying to interrupt your flow. I just wanted to - - -

MR CAMERON: Please sir, don’t apologise.

25 MR McMAHON: And there is one second matter if you don’t mind. The Vivian Pirie Street intersection improvements.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

30 MR McMAHON: That’s separate to the widening or work on Vivian Street itself is it?

MR DUNLOP: It’s all interrelated so it’s about getting more time allocation at that set of signals so that more green time could be given to Pirie 35 Street.

MR McMAHON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: So by putting in a third lane you get essentially a third more 40 capacity, slightly less because it’s shared with a left turn lane but it allows you greater flexibility to get traffic out of Pirie Street which are the core concerns that we were trying to address.

MR McMAHON: Thank you. Thank you Mr Cameron. 45 [2.09 pm]

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1228

MR CAMERON: Thank you, sir. I think if we turn to plan number – I’m trying to find the right one.

5 MR DUNLOP: I suspect what might help is one of the landscape plans that cover the whole area. 1A.01 if you guys could put that one up.

MR CAMERON: Yes. Thank you.

10 MR DUNLOP: 1A.01, yes this one. You might want to zoom in a little bit.

MR CAMERON: That is the one I’m looking for. Now we’re discussing the third lane. So if you could just walk us through that again, please, in terms of – I asked the question in the context of as I put it geometrics. 15 Can you now please start that discussion.

MR DUNLOP: I can indeed. So I’ll take you to the Sussex Street link which is this point here which I’m moving the cursor around. So you flow through here and as you can see it’s separated at that point. And at this 20 point it then joins the two lanes from the bridge coming up over along here.

MR CAMERON: Can you just blow that up again please, just a little bit more. Yes, that’s better I think. 25 MR McMAHON: The dark grey and the light grey is that the confluence of the bridge and the underpass?

MR DUNLOP: Correct, well no the bridge finishes here. So that’s the bridge 30 there. You then travel along a – well that’s dropping down into the underpass. That’s the start of the underpass here. And it finishes here. And that’s Memorial Park sitting on top of it.

MR McMAHON: At what point is the bridge at grade? Is right at - - - 35 MR DUNLOP: At this point it’s at grade. It’s essentially a flat alignment from about this point here I think. Right across.

MR McMAHON: Thank you. 40 MR DUNLOP: And it drops down through here into the underpass.

MR McMAHON: Yes, thanks.

45 MR CAMERON: Effectively almost opposite the Sussex Street Buckle Street intersection.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1229

MR DUNLOP: That’s correct, starts dropping.

MR CAMERON: Starts dropping there. 5 MR DUNLOP: That’s right.

MR CAMERON: Now if we just take ourselves further east from the underpass, sorry west from the underpass. 10 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR CAMERON: Can you please describe to us what is occurring at that intersection of Buckle and Taranaki Streets please, having regard to the 15 third lane and the number of lanes and the efficiency of that intersection?

MR DUNLOP: Okay. So what we have is the three lanes through the underpass leading to a three lane stop line which is the key issue we’ve 20 been discussing at length regarding the capacity of that intersection and how that helps deal with the demands that are placed on this intersection. So in the do-minimum scenario we’ve got a lot of growth happening on this corridor and a demand that is taking time from that state highway movement approaching that stop line which in turn has 25 an effect and that effect is the consequence of that increase in travel time in the do-minimum.

MR CAMERON: Yes.

30 MR DUNLOP: So that’s what occurs. What has also been identified is some other improvements at that intersection which include two right turn lanes at that point getting onto the state highway.

MR CAMERON: And what is all of that intended to ensure? 35 MR DUNLOP: To ensure that we get a more constant flow through from the project, being the bridge, through to the tunnel at the western end, being the Terrace tunnel. To smooth the flow.

40 MR CAMERON: To smooth the flow.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: Of those three lanes which is the third? 45 [2.14 pm]

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1230

MR DUNLOP: That’s a good question. My understanding is this one is the one that was going to be hatched out for a while and then traffic was going to be directed into these two lanes, that’s my understanding 5 MR BAINES: Can I clarify, do you mean as you are going along the road westward the left hand lane is the one you said would be hashed out for a while?

10 MR DUNLOP: It was going, that’s correct. That’s my understanding of it.

MR CAMERON: And if there was no bridge would there be the same need for the third lane?

15 MR DUNLOP: There would be a lesser need. There may be a need. That analysis hasn’t been done to confirm the need. If it was done it would be needed only a storage space not as a need from the point of view of a through route. So all you would be doing is sitting vehicles in it unless you came up with an option similar to BRREO which has three 20 lanes going into the underpass at this location, this location at Sussex Street. So BRREO has three lanes going into it.

MR CAMERON: So the fact that there are three lanes entering the section of road from the intersection of Sussex and Buckle through to Taranaki, is 25 that the determinant for the number of lanes within the underpass?

MR DUNLOP: Correct, is it indeed.

MR CAMERON: And my learned friend Ms Andrews put it to you that the 30 do-minimum, when one is considering that in the context of the economic evaluation manual, is what is the minimum to maintain the network operation?

MR DUNLOP: That is correct. 35 MR CAMERON: If one applies that definition, having regard to what we have just been discussing in terms of the purpose of the third lane, should that be included in the do-minimum or not?

40 MR DUNLOP: Well, my view is not because the decision probably would not have been made to create the third lane if there was only going to be two lanes going into it.

MR CAMERON: Yes, thank you. 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1231

CHAIRPERSON: But isn’t the issue not what is said in the manual but the legal definition of the existing environment is, that’s the issue, isn’t it, as far as we are concerned?

5 MR CAMERON: Sir, I am endeavouring to – my submission will be that that is absolutely correct but the two are distinct and one will - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Well, yes, for different purposes.

10 MR CAMERON: They are different purposes and that’s the point. That actually is the point.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

15 MR CAMERON: So one has to be careful not to confuse the two.

CHAIRPERSON: Absolutely, yes.

MR CAMERON: And that’s the purpose of the question. 20 CHAIRPERSON: That’s why I raised that point, yes.

MR CAMERON: And that’s the analysis which I am advancing.

25 CHAIRPERSON: There is two analysis, one is for integrated purposes or for enabling purposes for over the whole project, the Tunnel to Tunnel or including the tunnel projects.

MR CAMERON: Yes. 30 CHAIRPERSON: And the other is what we have to take into account so far as benefits of this project for the purposes of the RMA.

[2.19 pm] 35 MR CAMERON: Indeed, subject to part 2.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that is part of the RMA.

40 MR CAMERON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It is the engine room of it.

MR CAMERON I am not wishing to be argumentative about that, I think it 45 just comes back – I don’t want to lose the thread of my opening entirely. With respect, sir, that is my point.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1232

CHAIRPERSON: So the transportation engineers and transportation planners are looking at it from a transport point of view, - - -

5 MR CAMERON: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: - - - which can sometimes override or lay underneath, depending on which way you look at it from the RMA point of view?

10 MR CAMERON Yes, and then - I just want to keep that distinction, and I am accepting that distinction.

And in that context just to complete the point in terms of the tunnel to tunnel project, are there other mitigation works further east that are 15 currently being undertaken?

MR DUNLOP: West.

MR CAMERON West, I am so sorry, west, yes? 20 MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct, there are further works that are being undertaken as art of the inner city bypass improvements, correct.

MR CAMERON Yes, and are those works being done – Ill will ask you the 25 opening question. Why are those works being done please?

MR DUNLOP: For the very same reason that these works are being done, to the three lanes anyway, to improve the flow, and to safeguard for the future in terms of Mount Victoria duplication and the throughput of 30 traffic as a result of that.

MR CAMERON While we are on this subject, in the context of the bridge, what is that achieving in terms of managing throughput, if I can use that word, having regard to future proofing of that structure? 35 MR DUNLOP: What it is achieving is removal of two of the current conflict points, capacity constraints, whatever you want to term them, which are the Dufferin/Paterson and the Adelaide/Rugby for that flow of traffic, as it exits the tunnel in a single lane at the moment and in a duplicate in 40 the future.

MR CAMERON If we turn please to annexure – sorry appendix 4G in TR 4 please. Now I think my learned friend, Mr Milne, touched on this appendix with you yesterday, didn’t he? 45 MR DUNLOP: He did indeed.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1233

[2.24 pm]

MR CAMERON What is this appendix measuring? 5 MR DUNLOP: It is measuring network performance so how the changes are occurring both in terms of travel, travel time, travel delay, travel distance, average speed, total queue lengths and total demand and a fuel consumption, and they are outputs of the SATURN modelling. 10 MR CAMERON And when you say they are measuring network performance, - - -

MR DUNLOP: yes. 15 MR CAMERON - - - how are we to understand what that network constitutes in the context of this table?

MR DUNLOP: So that network covers the whole of the Wellington city 20 through to just north of Johnsonville and approaching Petone, and all the southern suburbs.

MR CAMERON And what does that table show us at the very end of that appendix, it is not numbered but it is at the very last page, what does 25 that show us in terms of the total travel time savings when the 2021 do-minimum and the 2021 bridge option are compared?

MR DUNLOP: So it is showing us the change in delay time of, if we take the a.m. peak for example, a delay time of 655 pcu hours dropping to 634 30 pcu hours over the network as a result of - the only change being the project.

MR CAMERON And the pcu is?

35 MR DUNLOP: Passenger, car, vehicle.

MR CAMERON And so passenger, car, vehicles per hour within the network?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 40 MR CAMERON And in the a.m. peak – sorry, yes, in the a.m. peak, when looked at in terms of the 2021 do-minimum and the 2021 option, is that change significant or not significant?

45 MR DUNLOP: Well I consider it to be significant, most certainly.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1234

MR CAMERON Why is that?

MR DUNLOP: Because what it is leading to is an overall solution that is helping to alleviate a problem that is growing. 5 MR CAMERON Within the network as a whole?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

10 MR CAMERON And if we have a look at other indicators in that table, can you just walk us through the significance of those between the two comparisons that we have been discussing please?

MR DUNLOP: So, if we go to travel time, the travel time on the network and 15 as you can see, again a reduction is a good thing, okay.

The next one is total travel distance, so this picks up on trips that are redistributed as a result of the project, so they are going a more direct route, therefore using less fuel and choosing a route that is likely to be 20 more cost effective for them.

[2.29 pm]

MR CAMERON: Just pause there please. So at that point you have now 25 introduced this concept of redistribution?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: How significant is this project in the context of facilitating 30 redistribution?

MR DUNLOP: Until such time as the tunnel duplication occurs it is not “that” significant. There is some significance to it but the significance is once the tunnel duplication occurs it will be significant. 35 MR CAMERON: And in the absence of the Basin Bridge project, can the Tunnel Duplication project effectively deliver on this outcome?

MR DUNLOP: Not on that westbound outcome, no, it’s greatly restricted. It 40 delivers on an eastbound outcome.

CHAIRPERSON: These 21 figures include the tunnel duplication?

MR DUNLOP: No, they don’t. 45 MR CAMERON: No, they don’t, sir.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1235

MR DUNLOP: The 31 figures do include the - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 5 MR CAMERON: I am sorry, sir, I should perhaps have made that clearer.

MR DUNLOP: Just to be clear, the total distance is also reduced by the 220 metre saving that you get by not having to travel around the Basin as 10 well by times 15,000 vehicles that are doing it.

MR CAMERON: Based on - - -

CHAIRPERSON: That’s 15,000 per day that figure? 15 MR DUNLOP: It is 15,000 per day, that’s correct.

MR CAMERON: And if we have a look at average speed, it goes up a fraction? 20 MR DUNLOP: It does indeed, which is what you would expect when you are removing some congestion. Bearing in mind this is across an entire network.

25 MR CAMERON: Yes.

MR BAINES: Which numbers specifically are you looking at there?

MR CAMERON: 25.2, 25.3. 30 MR BAINES: It becomes 25.3?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. I think the PM one is probably the most significant one, 29.3 to 29.9, 0.6 is quite an increase. 35 MR BAINES: What is your confidence in some of these, I mean plus or minus what?

MR DUNLOP: I couldn’t tell what you what the confidence level would be. I 40 mean as you can see the points we are dealing with are quite small but they are all statistics that we take into account in doing this analysis, so I couldn’t tell you.

MR BAINES: You couldn’t tell us whether there is a difference between plus 45 or minus 0.1 or plus or minus 0.5 or plus or minus 1?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1236

MR DUNLOP: No, I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head. No, I would have to go away and look at that and work that out.

MR BAINES: I mean if it is plus or minus 1 then these things were 5 indistinguishable, if it is plus or minus 0.1 then they are distinguishable, am I right?

MR DUNLOP: That is right.

10 MR CAMERON: Picking up on the point - - -

MR BAINES: Do you know something about that?

MR CAMERON: Picking up on the point that Mr Baines is making, in terms 15 of the expert conferencing, before we just come back to this table.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR CAMERON: What do the experts say about SATURN and their 20 confidence in SATURN as a model?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, there was general agreement that what it was showing was what would be expected to be ordinarily right using judgement, looking at the flows, looking at the outputs. 25 MR CAMERON: Yes. Now, there is also an outcome there for queuing?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

30 MR CAMERON: And if we depart from that particular table for a moment and turn to TR4 please at table 426 and 427 on pages 116 and 117.

[2.34 pm]

35 MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm.

MR CAMERON: Again these are 2021 figures aren’t they?

MR DUNLOP: They are indeed. 40 MR CAMERON: So we’ve got figures for the project when compared with the do-minimum. So we are TR4 at pages 116 and 117. And if we have a look at queue lengths and the percentage change for critical intersections within the project what does that tell us please? 45 MR DUNLOP: Generally there is quite an improvement.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1237

MR CAMERON: Which are the two critical intersections?

MR DUNLOP: Well the Dufferin Paterson is currently critical because that’s 5 where state highway traffic goes through.

MR CAMERON: Just pause there. So if we go down to 6 on table 4.

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 10 MR CAMERON: The western movement is the second movement isn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: It is indeed.

15 MR CAMERON: And that’s the Paterson Street intersection with Dufferin Street.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

20 MR CAMERON: And what’s the percentage change there in queue length, the maximum number of vehicles, sorry?

MR DUNLOP: Reduction by 76 percent.

25 MR CAMERON: And then is it correct that the next two in 7, namely Rugby Street and Adelaide Road and Adelaide with Rugby Street, are the next two critical intersections?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 30 MR CAMERON: And the percentage change in relation to both of those?

MR DUNLOP: Is significant.

35 MR CAMERON: 100 percent.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: For the record. 40 CHAIRPERSON: And that includes the whole of the project, including the third lane?

MR DUNLOP: Yes it does. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1238

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: Sorry, I just need to put that in the record. I don’t - - - 5 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it might be a good idea.

MR DUNLOP: It does.

10 MR MILNE: Sir, I do have a little concern here. My questions were directed at the issue of how much of these changes came from the project versus other elements. Whereas what’s really been occurring here is reiteration of the benefits of the projects as defined.

15 CHAIRPERSON: That’s the reason I asked the question.

MR MILNE: Thank you.

MR CAMERON: I submit that the question - - - 20 CHAIRPERSON: You don’t need to submit. I’m not saying your question’s wrong. You can carry on.

MR CAMERON: Thank you, sir. 25 CHAIRPERSON: It’s all part of the mix. I just wanted to make it clear in my mind that I was comparing apples with apples.

MR CAMERON: It’s quite right. So in terms of the 2021 figure, just so for 30 the record we’re all clear.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR CAMERON: The numbers that are represented in these tables reflects all 35 of the mitigation that we were discussing?

MR DUNLOP: It does indeed, correct.

MR CAMERON: Including the third lane. 40 MR DUNLOP: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1239

MR CAMERON: Thank you, sir. And if we were to have a look at the p.m. peak period for the same intersections we’ve got on westbound Paterson Street with Dufferin Street a reduction of 91 percent.

5 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: And again Rugby with Adelaide and Adelaide with Rugby, a reduction of 100 percent.

10 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: And reflecting the conversation we’ve just been having the Taranaki intersection with Buckle Street right turn also a reduction of 100 percent. 15 MR DUNLOP: Correct. It’s actually an increase.

MR CAMERON: Sorry, it’s an increase of 100 percent.

20 MR DUNLOP: It is an increase, that’s correct.

[2.39 pm]

MR CAMERON: And that’s due to what? 25 MR DUNLOP: It’s due to more demand coming through. In other words there’s more demand getting through the network as a result of the bridge.

30 MR CAMERON: Yes. And at that point, how is that to be managed?

MR DUNLOP: It will be about allocation of green time and ensuring there’s a balance as a solution and with that by putting the third lane in allows that opportunity and gives greater flexibility to deal with things like 35 that increase of the right turn.

MR CAMERON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So where there’s a minus figure it means it’s got worse? 40 MR DUNLOP: Minus is getting better.

CHAIRPERSON: Getting better?

45 MR DUNLOP: Yes. The worse one is where we’re talking about the Taranaki, the right turn.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1240

CHAIRPERSON: Fewer cars.

MR DUNLOP: Fewer cars, correct. Sitting in a queue. 5 MR CAMERON: And so can you achieve the improvements that we’ve discussed at Paterson, Rugby and Adelaide in the absence of the project?

10 MR DUNLOP: With great difficulty. You can achieve some improvements but certainly not the improvements to this level and certainly would not facilitate high amounts of bus priority at these intersections.

MR CAMERON: And if we return to 4(g). 15 MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm.

MR CAMERON: And we look at total queuing are the benefits that we have been discussing at this location reflected in the network outcome? 20 MR DUNLOP: Completely. They certainly are.

MR CAMERON: And the significance of that? Total queue.

25 MR DUNLOP: Total queue.

MR BAINES: Are you looking in the table with - - -

MR CAMERON: The same table that we were at. 30 MR BAINES: The table at the top. Total queue.

MR DUNLOP: Well ideally the one below on the second page. So the last page of (g) where you’ve got the do-minimum compared against the 35 option. And the significance of that is that this project is resulting in a significant improvement in queue time. Total queue time.

MR CAMERON: And what is the relevance of that to redistribution?

40 MR DUNLOP: If you’re reducing your queues in the subject area then you are dealing with some of those points that we talk about when we relate to congestion. Then you’re dealing with the congestion and you’re focussing the strategic trips on the strategic corridor and moving them off local roads. 45 MR CAMERON: And does this table reflect that outcome?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1241

MR DUNLOP: At a high level it does. Correct.

MR CAMERON: Now this table as we’ve discussed reflects or allows for, 5 describes, the network benefits which SATURN has modelled?

MR DUNLOP: That is correct. It does indeed.

MR CAMERON: And those benefits are facilitated by the bridge project. 10 MR DUNLOP: They are indeed.

MR CAMERON: Yesterday Mr Milne put to you a number of propositions relevant to the, as he put it, issue of deconstruction. 15 MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm.

[2.44 pm]

20 MR CAMERON If you deconstruct in the manner that Mr Milne suggested, what effect would that have on the overall network benefits or performance which we’ve just been discussing?

MR DUNLOP: Perhaps you might like to re-ask that question. 25 MR CAMERON All right.

MR DUNLOP: And remind me about deconstruction, I can recall.

30 MR CAMERON Mr Milne yesterday, took various parts of the project and said, look, you can do this bit or that bit- - -

MR MILNE: I think I said and, not or.

35 MR CAMERON You can do this bit and this bit - - -

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON - - - but not necessarily the bridge bit, I think is what he was 40 saying, to be fair, that is what the point was?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think to be fair he was trying to isolate the benefits from the bridge out of the project, that is what he was trying to do, I think, Mr Milne, is that right? 45 MR MILNE: For most of the day, but ---

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1242

MR CAMERON Well, in doing that exercise, or in undertaking that exercise, how does that – what effect does that have on the network benefits which we have been discussing? 5 MR DUNLOP: It certainly compartmentalises them into components that contribute to a wider benefit, so as we have heard, we go from being a project specific benefit to a tunnel to tunnel benefit to a total RoNS benefit and all of those components contribute to ‘the benefit’ for the 10 project.

MR CAMERON Over the network?

MR DUNLOP: Over the network, correct. 15 MR CAMERON And so therefore if you take bits and pieces out of it, - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

20 MR CAMERON - - - what then?

MR DUNLOP: It erodes the total benefit from the complete package once complete.

25 CHAIRPERSON: Unless you replace it with something else?

MR DUNLOP: Unless you replace it with something else, correct, that is right.

30 MR CAMERON And in this location, - I am not going to respond to that now, sir, I will leave that for a moment I think.

Having discussed this overall network performance which is discussed in TR 4, - - - 35 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON - - - if one considers the use of Paramics, what is that tool intended to model? 40 MR DUNLOP: Operational performance of the network in a specific area and that specific area extends from Evans Bay Parade through to The Terrace Tunnel.

45 MR CAMERON And why do you use it?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1243

MR DUNLOP: To ensure you develop up a design that is going to meet the needs of the project objectives and to better replicate the real world in operation terms.

5 MR CAMERON And in that sense, is it modelling specific links within the network for a purpose?

MR DUNLOP: Certain links it is modelling for a purpose, correct.

10 MR CAMERON And that purpose being?

MR DUNLOP: Either traffic links or bus links where appropriate and where bus lanes exist.

15 [2.49 pm]

MR CAMERON And what does Paramics model in an operational sense compared to SATURN?

20 MR DUNLOP: It models the interaction of the vehicle as it moves through the network, so that is the headway, manoeuvring that occurs on the network, the lane utilisation and it models the signals in great detail trying to replicate what is happening at each intersection throughout the network including subsections which are groupings of signals that 25 operate to get movement of traffic through the network. Green waves as they are known.

MR CAMERON So you are modelling to see if works?

30 MR DUNLOP: Correct, that is correct. To give certainty that what you developed up as a concept, is going to be deliverable and provide some outcomes that you would expect.

MR CAMERON If we could turn to annexure B please. 35 MR McMAHON: Is that in the evidence-of-chief?

MR CAMERON In your rebuttal evidence?

40 MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm.

MR CAMERON At B30.

MR DUNLOP: B30? 45 MR CAMERON Yes.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1244

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR CAMERON What is that modelling, or what is that table, sorry, telling us 5 about?

MR DUNLOP: It is telling us – you are talking about the first table, table 12?

MR CAMERON Table 12, sorry, yes. 10 CHAIRPERSON: On page?

MR CAMERON Page B30 of annexure B, sir.

15 MR DUNLOP: Or as we discussed with Mr Milne yesterday, it is telling us the breakdown of where the benefits come from in relation to the total that we call ‘the project’ sitting in front of us.

MR CAMERON Right, and those numbers are derived from? 20 MR DUNLOP: The SATURN modelling.

MR CAMERON The SATURN modelling?

25 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON And if you turn to table 15 at B33, three pages on, again we are comparing apples with apples, aren’t we because that is at 2021?

30 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What table is that?

MR CAMERON Table 15. 35 CHAIRPERSON: On page?

MR CAMERON B33. So on the basis of the table 15, is that giving us the network benefits from a traffic perspective based on the Paramics 40 model at 2021?

MR DUNLOP: It is indeed. It is giving us, over specific journeys, not the entire network.

45 MR CAMERON No, not the entire network?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1245

MR DUNLOP: Correct, over specific routes.

MR CAMERON Over specific routes approximate to the Basin Reserve?

5 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON And if we look at the right hand column, they depict or they demonstrate the project benefits, don’t they, for those routes?

10 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

[2.54 pm]

MR CAMERON: How significant are those benefits collectively in your 15 experience with reasons please or examples?

MR DUNLOP: I think we have touched on one of them already, so the 90 seconds we have talked about in relation to my experience with dealing with the Peka Peka to Ōtaki project. This is a significant 20 saving over a relatively short distance. Another linkage to that is the Inner City Bypass, also predicted a similar saving and that, certainly in the analysis that I have been involved in looking at, has achieved that. So that was again seen as a significant saving at the time. So 90 seconds is significant on any network. The smaller the network the 25 greater the level of significance.

So we then go down to the local road northbound. That number, as we discussed, is actually more like two minutes because if you take the 58 seconds away from the 176 seconds gives you two minutes. That is 30 a significant saving given the volume of vehicles that are doing it. So we are talking about 10,000 vehicles doing that movement over a day. So if they are all saving two minutes that’s a significant contribution to the network efficiency.

35 Then you move onto the buses and again each of these are contributing a significant proportion of what is a relatively short distance, as I talked about in my opening statement.

MR CAMERON: Yes. I don’t wish to be tedious about this but in terms of 40 overall significance, compared to other projects you have worked on, have you seen an outcome as dramatic as this achieved over such a short distance in your experience?

MR……….: Sir, that is a blatant leading question. (ph 2.52) 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1246

MR CAMERON: Well, not really. How significant is it, Mr Dunlop, so we can understand this?

MR DUNLOP: Well, I have worked on projects throughout New Zealand and 5 overseas. I mean any journey time saving is of benefit. Like I mentioned before the smaller the scale of the project, in terms of the coverage of the area, the greater the significance of it in terms of the saving you are getting from it. Certainly from a bus priority perspective a 30 second saving is significant. If you think of a journey 10 that’s over 30 minutes on a bus that 30 seconds is quite significant. And if every passenger saves that then there is a significant value in it.

MR CAMERON: And if we then turn back to your table 12 at B30, how are we to understand that table in the context of the discussion we have just 15 been having, in terms of the significance of the benefits?

MR CAMERON: Especially in relation to RoNS projects, big projects that are costing a lot of money these levels of benefit are significant. So it is hard to get big benefits out of big projects. So the quantum is 20 significant in my mind, in my experience.

[2.59 pm]

MR CAMERON: And just so we’re clear, these benefits are derived from the 25 2021 project outcome?

MR DUNLOP: The project outcome?

MR CAMERON: Yes. 30 MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct, but they also include the 2031 analysis, as we discussed with Mr Milne.

MR CAMERON: As you discussed with Mr Milne. 35 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: And so what does that tell us concerning the quantum of benefits that this project delivers at 2021 when compared to 2031? 40 MR DUNLOP: So what we can see, if we look at the bridge in isolation, total annual benefits for the bridge in isolation are 5.5 million. Once the duplicate tunnel happens that does result in an increase when the duplicate tunnels happen, of 8.38 million. 45 CHAIRPERSON: What are looking at now?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1247

MR CAMERON: Sorry, sir, we’re looking at the figure below the purple line, the two figures there.

5 MR DUNLOP: Yes, I think these guys have got black and white.

MR CAMERON: We’re on table 12.

MR DUNLOP: And we look at bridge only road. 10 MR CAMERON: And just pause because I think you need to all be on the same table. So table 12, B30.

MR ………..: B30. 15 MR CAMERON: So if we are looking at the line “total tangible benefits” that figure is based on the 2031 outcome.

MR DUNLOP: Total tangible benefits is based upon all outputs, 21 and 31. 20 MR CAMERON: Correct. And then we have a break down below that.

MR DUNLOP: The annualisation of it.

25 MR CAMERON: I annualisation of it.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: And that identifies the difference between the benefits 30 when annualised between the 2021 total annual benefits.

MR DUNLOP: Correct, it does indeed.

MR CAMERON: Yes, and the next line, the total annual benefits achieved at 35 2031.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: And the change annually is 2.87 million. 40 MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MR CAMERON: Now, when one looks at it when including the Vivian and Taranaki Street improvements, that adds in terms of the total tangible 45 benefits a further 50 million?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1248

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: And we can see below in the same way that we have just done that for bridge only, the annualised benefits. 5 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: And so on that basis, can the Board identify the total tangible benefits in 2021 and also for 2031? 10 MR DUNLOP: They can indeed.

MR CAMERON: And so we’re clear, those are network benefits because these figures are derived from Saturn. 15 MR DUNLOP: They are, correct.

MR CAMERON: And to that extent is it helpful to cross-refer to your appendix 4G to have an understanding of the overall network 20 performance issues, as we were discussing.

[3.04 pm]

MR DUNLOP: Yes there is a relevance to that, correct. 25 MR CAMERON: And just for completeness table 15 is identifying specific travel time savings relevant to parts of the route or links.

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 30 MR CAMERON: Relevant to the project.

MR DUNLOP: That is correct.

35 MR CAMERON: Now you have discussed and considered the effects, the transport benefits, the transport effects of the project in part 7 or section 7 of TR4.

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 40 MR CAMERON: As a whole.

MR DUNLOP: That’s right.

45 MR CAMERON: And of course TR4 as a whole forms a part of your evidence.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1249

MR DUNLOP: It does indeed.

MR CAMERON: So this analysis commences at page 91 of TR4 and 5 concludes at page 126.

MR DUNLOP: That’s correct. Well it actually continues on beyond that. Because the parking assessment is also - - -

10 MR CAMERON: Part of that.

MR DUNLOP: - - - part of that.

MR CAMERON: Sorry, through to midway down page 128. Double check 15 because I’m just trying to make sure that there are some good plans here for the Board. I suppose you really would say - - -

MR DUNLOP: Right to the end, to the end of section 8.

20 MR CAMERON: Yes right through to end. Sorry you’re going right through to page 145.

MR DUNLOP: That’s my opinion.

25 MR CAMERON: That’s your view isn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It’s what you call a succinct summary. 30 MR DUNLOP: The succinct summary is at the end. Summary of effects, 7.10.

MR CAMERON: You had a lengthy discussion with my learned friend 35 Mr Milne yesterday concerning the benefits analysis that you undertook.

MR DUNLOP: Indeed.

40 MR CAMERON: And did so with a particular focus on travel time. Savings. Is that fair do you think?

MR DUNLOP: I would question whether that was a particular focus. That was certainly an area of interest. 45 [3.09 pm]

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1250

MR CAMERON: Okay. Mr Milne canvassed with you the issue of benefits.

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 5 MR CAMERON: Now having had the benefit of that conversation with Mr Milne do you wish to amend your analysis as set out in part 7?

MR DUNLOP: In no way. 10 MR CAMERON: In no way.

MR DUNLOP: No, I don’t see any need to amend my analysis.

15 MR CAMERON: Thank you. So you’re saying that from your perspective - - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let him tell us what he’s saying.

20 MR CAMERON: He said it. I’m doing something with I shouldn’t do. I accept. Now just in the course of the conversation that you were having with Mr Milne the issue of travel time variability was discussed wasn’t it?

25 MR DUNLOP: It was indeed.

MR CAMERON: In the context of an appreciation of the significance of the problem how important is the issue of travel time variability?

30 MR DUNLOP: It is one of many important components. Variability in this area because it is a strategic link, being state highway 1, it is a bus corridor, being north south, it is an emergency services route to the hospital, all of those factors are important when it comes to variability. The more certainty you have about the time that you have to catch your 35 flight, knowing when you have to catch it, your appointment at the hospital, all of those factors are all significant. Linked to the fact that this is an important transport node. Full stop.

MR CAMERON: And if you take us please to that section of part 7 of TR4 40 which discusses variability.

MR DUNLOP: It discusses it at multiple points so it discusses it when we talk about buses.

45 MR CAMERON: Yes.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1251

MR DUNLOP: In relation to the PT assessment.

MR CAMERON: At 7.33.

5 MR DUNLOP: Well 7.21.

MR CAMERON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: It talks about it there. 10 MR CAMERON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: And then again it talks about it at 7.33 regarding both local road and state highway. And in specific terms it talks about it in 15 figure 4.72.

MR CAMERON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: And 4.73. Where the black bars represent the variability that 20 exists.

MR CAMERON: And I think in those sections of TR4 you discuss and describe the significance of the project in the context of addressing travel time variability. 25 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: And you conclude that the project does what?

30 MR DUNLOP: The project reduces, doesn’t eliminate, it reduces large amounts of variability at a point which, if you go back to the analysis I provided on Thursday in my opening statement - - -

MR CAMERON: Yes. 35 MR DUNLOP: - - - there are large amounts of variability in this area, specifically on state highway 1. But also if you did drill down and look at the bus journey time analysis you’ll see large amounts of variability through this area also. 40 MR CAMERON: And the cause of that variability is what?

MR DUNLOP: The cause of the variability is what?

45 [3.14 pm]

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1252

MR DUNLOP: The cause of the variability is the conflicts between all the different modes all using the same space in one area, so you have got pedestrians, you have got cyclists, you have got local road traffic, you have got public transport and you have got strategic state highway 5 movements all converging on one location. And you have got school activities and that is probably one of the biggest influences of variability in the morning peak and around 3 pm.

MR CAMERON And so if we turn to your annexure C which I think my 10 learned friend, Mr Bennion, discussed with you - - -

MR DUNLOP: Annexure C of?

MR CAMERON - - - of your rebuttal evidence. 15 MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm.

MR CAMERON And we discuss that please in the context of conflicts and volumes - - - 20 MR DUNLOP: Sir, I don’t have any intention of opening – (INDISTINCT 2.09) slide, I am not sure they are quite the same diagrams but I have got no flip board (INDISTINCT 2.10) - - -

25 MR CAMERON That is fair enough too. Okay, let’s go to the slides. As my learned friend was discussing with you, the slides at the back of your opening statement – sorry, of your summary of evidence, - - -

MR DUNLOP: It was indeed. 30 MR CAMERON - - - which is annexure A.

MR DUNLOP: It was.

35 MR CAMERON Can you take us to the slide which deals with the issue of resolution of conflict by volume?

MR DUNLOP: Yes. These highlight the problem, these slides here.

40 MR CAMERON Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Which are?

MR DUNLOP: Which are the purple numbers highlight the problem. 45 CHAIRPERSON: No, which slides are you looking at

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1253

MR DUNLOP: Sorry, we are looking at slide number 14.

MR CAMERON I am sorry, I’ve just got to take off my glasses to see it, 5 sorry.

MR DUNLOP: Is that the slide you are purporting?

MR CAMERON Yes, that is the one, thank you. So what does that 10 demonstrate to us please in the context of what we are discussing.

MR DUNLOP: Yes, that’s the slide.

MR CAMERON Yes. 15 MR DUNLOP: So what it demonstrates is that you have got a high demand if we take the Dufferin/Paterson Street intersection, you have got a high demand on the local road and a high demand coming out of the Mount Victoria Tunnel conflicting at this point which impacts on the overall 20 performance of the intersection.

It demonstrates that there is only one lane for it to go into down in Adelaide Road which means traffic chooses to utilise the one lane that means that it won’t need to merge or weave with the strategic state 25 highway traffic which impacts on the overall performance of that intersection, when we are talking about Paterson/Dufferin.

MR CAMERON Yes, and I am just trying to think of the slide or table, sorry, the slide which depicts the volumes of traffic that are removed. 30 [3.19 pm]

MR DUNLOP: This is just the do-minimum, so you then would need to go to the subsequent set which I reissued with all the other slides, so if you 35 scroll down in this set, it keeps going quite a way down, these slides, you then need to look at 2021 bridge - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, page 15?

40 MR CAMERON Page 15, slide number 30.

MR DUNLOP: Yes, there we go. So the next slide I think is the one you want which will show that – yes, that is the slide you want to be looking at. 45 MR BAINES: Slide 31.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1254

MR DUNLOP: Oh, we have lost it.

MR CAMERON Slide 31, yes. 5 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON And what does that slide demonstrate to us?

10 MR DUNLOP: It demonstrates that there is – I think you actually want to go to the next slide – sorry.

MR CAMERON That is all right.

15 MR DUNLOP: It demonstrates that the demands change so the focus of the Dufferin/Paterson Street intersection changes from being driven by state highway movements to being driven by local road and bus movements.

20 What it shows is a link that is still close to capacity which is the local road movement, but it shows a bus lane sitting next to it which allows buses to get to the stop line.

On the Paterson Street arm, it shows that that approach has got plenty 25 of capacity in it to facilitate the likes of a PT spine bus rapid transit coming through the Mount Victoria Tunnel should it choose to in the future.

MR CAMERON And you consider there to be sufficient capacity or tools 30 available, to manage the north south flow with a purpose of VRT into the future?

MR DUNLOP: Correct, I do.

35 MR CAMERON And can you just briefly give us your reasons for that opinion please?

MR DUNLOP: So in the future, the first phase of VRT as I understand it will be north south, so it will be bringing the bus rapid transit in that bus 40 lane that is highlighted in green on Dufferin Street to that stop line. It will then continue through around into Rugby Street and into Adelaide Road and what will essentially be a continuous bus lane, the opportunity for a continuous bus lane.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1255

The way it has been developed, as it stands at the moment, it doesn’t have a bus lane on the link between Paterson Street and Rugby Street off Dufferin.

5 In the future when bus rapid transit comes through the mount Victoria Tunnel, there will be a trade-off, there will have to be decision made as to how that traffic is – the flows at that intersection are managed such that VRT gets the allocation of time it needs to ensure it gets priority because you have got two conflicting VRT routes converging on one 10 location.

But what it does allow the removal of the state highway traffic involved in that conflict.

15 MR BAINES: Can I ask you, for example, to turn to your slide 36 which is 2031 bridge? After the tunnel duplication with bus prioritisation, - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

20 MR BAINES: - - - why is one of those lanes not green? Paterson Street.

MR DUNLOP: Paterson Street, because at this time we don’t know whether that is actually going to be an outcome that is certain. There is no certainty as to whether there will be a need for a green lane there, I 25 think I talked about this, I think, with Mr Milne, from memory.

[3.24 pm]

MR BAINES: Is there certainty about the one on Dufferin Street? 30 MR DUNLOP: Most definitely. I mean there’s buses that run up and down that corridor now carrying about 2,000 passengers in the evening peak.

MR BAINES: Yes, but do they have the degree of prioritisation that is 35 indicated by the green lane?

MR DUNLOP: In the way that this has been assessed most definitely. As I discussed in my opening I talked about the fact that it is certainly set back at that location but it doesn’t really make any difference whether 40 it is set back or not. In the road code you can pull in if you are turning left in any case.

MR BAINES: What you are saying is that this far out it’s not clear whether the bus prioritisation, as it would apply to the link through the 45 duplicated tunnel, how far that’s going to be pushed?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1256

MR DUNLOP: That’s correct and whether it – I mean we are assuming that it’s coming around this location. There could be further modifications made to adjust the Basin Reserve itself, for example.

5 MR BAINES: Right.

MR DUNLOP: To take it in a contraflow direction to avoid going around the Basin. These are things that will have to be looked at in subsequent phases of that project. 10 MR CAMERON: By that you mean going over the bridge?

MR DUNLOP: I don’t mean going over the bridge. I mean that could go over the bridge that would be another decision. My understanding is that 15 wouldn’t be consistent with the plan as it is at the moment.

MR CAMERON: In terms of the spine?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct. 20 MR CAMERON: Now, just because I think there is some uncertainty or lack of clarity around the point, the fact that the green line is not continuous, does that suggest an inability to provide for bus priority or BRT?

25 MR DUNLOP: It certainly does not. It’s been assessed as to the need and it’s determined that there is no need to put a bus lane through this section because of the fact that the state highway traffic has been taken off this link and there is no queuing in that area. The bus lane is essentially largely to deal with queuing associated with signals and the likes. So if 30 we eliminate the queuing we don’t need the bus lane so to speak. As long as the bus can be released from the signal and travel through into the green, which is highlighted here as Rugby Street and get into the bus lane that continues down Adelaide Road without any obstruction, then it’s not needed. It adds little value to painting the street. You 35 could put it in but all it would do was reduce the capacity of the Paterson Street arm coming out of the tunnel. So you would have to have one lane at point coming out.

MR CAMERON: Just so there is a complete understanding of this in the 40 round, this is what the relevance of the table we were discussing a moment or two ago around queue length was?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, it is.

45 MR CAMERON: And its connection with the outcomes that you have identified, in your opinion, to be available through the slide in

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1257

annexure A to your introductory evidence that we are currently discussing?

MR DUNLOP: That’s correct, yes, there is a linkage. 5 MR CAMERON: Sir, is that convenient moment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly, thank you. We will adjourn for afternoon tea. 10 MR MILNE: Sir, just before you do that, may I be excused? As much as I would like to stay for the rest of Mr Cameron’s, I need to attend to other matters.

15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly, you may be excused.

MR MILNE: And my understanding is that we won’t be getting to Dr Stewart until Thursday and that will be my next focus?

20 CHAIRPERSON: Thursday.

MR MILNE: Is that correct?

MR CAMERON: That’s what I understand. 25 CHAIRPERSON: We have got the Council witnesses, Mr Kelly and then the Council witnesses.

MR CAMERON: Yes, sir, we have, we have got Mr Kelly next, then Mr Troy, 30 then Mr Sargent and Mr Swainson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we have got plenty to keep us going.

MR CAMERON: We have got plenty to keep us occupied until we get to 35 Dr Stewart and I am wanting to start him on Thursday.

CHAIRPERSON: Thursday morning.

MR CAMERON: So it means we are wanting to Dr Stewart on Thursday, 40 Mr Milne.

MR MILNE: I am unlikely to be able to cross-examine any of the intervening witnesses. If my client does need to cross-examine it will probably be Ms Conner. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1258

MR MILNE: Thank you.

MR CAMERON: I am obliged to my friend, sir. 5 MR MILNE: Thank you.

ADJOURNED [3.29 pm]

10 RESUMED [3.51 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cameron.

MR CAMERON: Just before we depart from these slides, can we just put up 15 please slide number 13 of the summary of evidence in annexure A. So that slide depicts the 2021 do-minimum doesn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: It does indeed.

20 MR CAMERON: So in other words it includes with the project?

MR DUNLOP: No, it’s not - - -

MR CAMERON: Without the project sorry. 25 MR DUNLOP: Without the project. Correct.

MR CAMERON: And just we’re – if we have a look please at the volume of traffic at the Paterson Street Dufferin Street intersection. 30 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: That’s represented by the figure 1510 isn’t it?

35 MR DUNLOP: It is indeed. That’s the total demand on that link. It’s an actual flow.

MR CAMERON: It’s an actual flow.

40 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR CAMERON: And then if we turn to slide number 31 with the bridge that actual flow reduces from 1510 to 183.

45 MR DUNLOP: That is correct.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1259

MR CAMERON: And what does that mean in the context of being able to provide for bus priority and/or BRT?

MR DUNLOP: It simply means that there’s a lot less traffic circulating around 5 the eastern southern and western sides of the Basin Reserve.

[3.54 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: What do the figures represent? What does 183 represent? 10 MR DUNLOP: It’s 183 vehicles - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Per?

15 MR DUNLOP: Per hour. One hour period. Correct. And the 1500 – morning peak. Correct. That is correct.

MR CAMERON: And in fact if we were to go to the p.m. peak it would in fact be greater wouldn’t it? 20 MR DUNLOP: It’s roughly the same. It’s not that different.

MR CAMERON: It’s not so greatly different as to be - - -

25 MR DUNLOP: Not greatly different. They’re essentially – there is a capacity constraint in this area and the tunnel is a capacity constraint and it’s largely consistent almost throughout the day in fact.

MR CAMERON: And by releasing these constraints the mitigation work that 30 we were discussing previously is considered to be necessary.

MR DUNLOP: That is correct.

MR CAMERON: So that’s how it works. 35 MR DUNLOP: That is how it works, correct.

MR CAMERON: And just for completeness if we go back to slide 23 again.

40 MR DUNLOP: 23.

MR CAMERON: What does that tell us in terms of Adelaide Rugby and Rugby Adelaide?

45 MR DUNLOP: Okay so what it tells us is that you’ve got 1710 vehicles.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1260

MR CAMERON: Per hour.

MR DUNLOP: Per hour, circulating around the Basin.

5 MR CAMERON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: You’ve got 591 heading down Adelaide Road in a southbound direction and you’ve got 977 conflicting with that 1710 at that point. So the combining of those you’ve got 2600. 10 MR CAMERON: And if we turn to slide 31. What does that tell us about the number circulating?

MR DUNLOP: The circulating number drops significantly. 15 MR CAMERON: 1710 to?

MR DUNLOP: 356.

20 MR CAMERON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: What it also allows is more traffic to use Adelaide Road and you see an increase on Adelaide Road and some of that traffic is coming off Tasman, sorry Taranaki Wallace Street which it currently 25 utilises because of the constraints that exist at this point.

MR CAMERON: So that’s redistributed traffic.

MR DUNLOP: It is redistributed traffic, correct. 30 MR CAMERON: And is that also moving in a southerly northerly direction as well in the p.m. peak.

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 35 MR CAMERON: So would you consider that there would be an equivalent redistribution at that time as well?

MR DUNLOP: Correct there is. 40 MR CAMERON: In that period as well.

MR DUNLOP: That’s right. You can also see there’s a redistribution in the a.m. even. The number on Adelaide Road increased from 510 from 45 memory, or something in that order - - -

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1261

MR CAMERON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: - - - through to 779. Which means that - - -

5 MR CAMERON: We’ll just go back to slide 23 and just have a look at that because we need to be very careful with - - -

MR DUNLOP: Sorry, 591.

10 MR CAMERON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: Increases - - -

MR CAMERON: To 779. 15 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: And then - - -

20 MR DUNLOP: Because of the conflict being removed.

MR CAMERON: Yes. And if we go to slide number 31 we see the number going through the Basin Reserve increases from 977 south to 1216 south north. 25 MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MR McMAHON: I just wondered what the source of that increase was, Mr Dunlop? 30 [3.59 pm]

MR DUNLOP: The source of the increase is the reason that we don’t have the conflict here, so we have eliminated the conflict by removing the 35 circulating traffic which makes this a more attractive route to head north south.

MR McMAHON: Yes, so you said that the increase on Rugby Street was from redistributed traffic from Tasman and Wallace, where is the 40 source coming from for the increase on Adelaide from 977 to 1,216?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, so that is coming from Taranaki and Wallace.

MR McMAHON: Taranaki and Wallace? 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1262

MR DUNLOP: Yes, and it is choosing to use this corridor which is a more direct and more attractive corridor than the alternative which is Taranaki and Wallace which splits off at the southern end – well, it is by the Countdown Supermarket, John Street, - - - - 5 MR McMAHON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: - - - you make a choice at that point and a lot of motorists - - -

10 MR McMAHON: Are turning left and going - - -

MR DUNLOP: Correct, down what is quite a narrow road that runs past plenty of schools and a university.

15 MR McMAHON: Thank you, sorry, Mr Cameron.

MR CAMERON Not at all, so when we talk about redistribution, does this demonstrate that occurring?

20 MR DUNLOP: Very well, correct.

MR CAMERON And how would you describe the benefit of that?

MR DUNLOP: Well there is reduced delay through this area, so they are 25 choosing to use the most cost efficient route in which to make that journey, so it is the same journey happening from say, the hospital to the CBD, but they are choosing to take the least cost alternative.

MR CAMERON And in terms of, no sorry, beyond your expertise. 30 Right, so just as a transport planner, is redistribution of this kind seen or regarded as a favourable outcome or not?

MR DUNLOP: It is favourable as long as you can maintain a certain amount 35 of protection in this instance, on this corridor, for public transport. So it is certainly favourable because there is no protection on the alternative route, being Taranaki/Wallace, there is no bus lanes and yet there are bus services and a reasonable number of bus services on that corridor. 40 his corridor has the bus lanes and has plans for more bus lanes and more bus provision, yet it will also carry more traffic, so it is an overall better outcome for the network as a whole.

45 MR McMAHON: Just before you do, Mr Cameron, sorry to interrupt, just while we are on that point, I wonder if I could just ask your witness is it

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1263

possible, Mr Dunlop, that in addition to those increases being accounted through redistributed traffic, there might be some factor of induced traffic in there?

5 MR DUNLOP: No, well the analysis we have carried out suggests there is very little induced traffic, like point 1 percent induced traffic, it is pretty unlikely.

MR McMAHON: Thank you. 10 MR CAMERON When you say that, does 4G assist us with that?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, it does a little bit, yes.

15 MR CAMERON Because I thought it did.

MR DUNLOP: Yes, 4G does tell you that there is very little change between the option and do-min in terms of - - -

20 MR CAMERON So if we turn to 4G in TR 4?

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR CAMERON And the very last slide, if you like, or page in that annexure, 25 can you use that please to demonstrate or to respond - to assist in your answer to Mr McMahon’s question please?

MR DUNLOP: So what we can use is the total demand so what you see in the do-minimum is that there is a total demand of 27,476 vehicles on the 30 network in the a.m. peak, and in the option, it increases to 27,492 vehicles on the network. So that change of, what is it, 16 vehicles is that number that I am talking about- - -

[4.04 pm] 35 MR CAMERON: Okay.

MR DUNLOP: So it’s small when we are talking about 27,000 vehicles.

40 MR CAMERON: But the redistribution, which we are talking about, is reflected in which line?

MR DUNLOP: it’s reflected in travel distance because in theory they should be taking the shortest route. 45 MR CAMERON: Yes.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1264

MR DUNLOP: That’s not always the case because that short route could be congested so it’s got to be read in light of both travel distance and travel time as well as total delay. You could also look at the fuel 5 consumption indices as well and it showing that it’s heavily correlated with travel distance, fuel consumption.

MR CAMERON: And that drops?

10 MR DUNLOP: It does drop. I mean all of these indices show a positive outcome.

MR CAMERON: And all of that comes back into your benefits calculation that we were discussing earlier. 15 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: And in particular in relation to your annexure B, table 12 at B30? 20 MR DUNLOP: That’s correct, it does.

MR CAMERON: So that’s how we come back and around. And just so we are all absolutely clear it is also overlaid by table 15 to the extent that 25 that shows specific benefits by link?

MR DUNLOP: It does, correct.

MR CAMERON: So those are quite specific benefits relating to links and 30 table 12 is your overall network benefit based on the form of calculation that’s disclosed in that table?

MR DUNLOP: That is correct, that is the linkage.

35 MR CAMERON: That’s the linkage, isn’t it, and 4G assists you to understand the context?

MR DUNLOP: That is right.

40 MR CAMERON: Now, in terms of table 12 and a conversation that you were having with Mr Milne.

CHAIRPERSON: Table 12 of?

45 MR CAMERON: I am sorry, annexure B. I am sorry, I am going to rephrase the question if I may. In terms of the calculation of the BCR, having

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1265

regard to public transport, why is the benefit for public transport comparatively modest within the context of the BCR?

MR DUNLOP: There’s a number of reasons. The value of time for public 5 transport users is less.

MR CAMERON: Sorry, can we pause and just rephrase, I will make it clearer. Is it the economic evaluation manual that guides the way in which you value the benefit of public transport for the purpose of the 10 BCR?

MR DUNLOP: It is indeed, yes, the economic evaluation has the parameters within it in which to derive a benefit.

15 MR CAMERON: And in the context of this project, if we now turn to annexure B at B30, we can see what the benefits are for carbon dioxide, vehicle operation, travel time - - -

[4.09 pm] 20 CHAIRPERSON: Let’s get B30 up shall we?

MR CAMERON: Yes.

25 CHAIRPERSON: Page?

MR CAMERON: B30 of annexure of B, sir, of the rebuttal evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Page B30? 30 MR CAMERON: Yes, table 12. It’s the same table. Okay, so the travel time benefits have a certain figure of the bridge only and also for Vivian and Taranaki with the total.

35 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: And so we see there a significant, if I can put it this way, emphasis on travel time benefits within the context of the calculation of the BCR? 40 MR DUNLOP: Correct, it is indeed.

MR CAMERON: And CRV, which is the congestion relief value.

45 MR DUNLOP: That’s right.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1266

MR CAMERON: And for the bridge that has a value of $21 million and 20 thousand.

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 5 MR CAMERON: And at Vivian and Taranaki $7760.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

10 MR CAMERON: Sorry.

MR DUNLOP: $7 million.

MR CAMERON: $7 million 760 thousand sorry. And then you’ve got your 15 vehicle operating benefits of $13 million 300 thousand for the bridge and $1 million, and $1.52 million for Vivian and Taranaki and you CO2 benefit of $530 thousand for the bridge only and $60 thousand for Vivian and Taranaki.

20 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR CAMERON: Where are your public transport benefits in all of that?

MR DUNLOP: They’re not in any of that. 25 MR CAMERON: They’re not in any of this are they?

MR DUNLOP: No. They’ve been excluded. They’re just purely looking at traffic. 30 MR CAMERON: Okay.

MR DUNLOP: In all of this analysis. It’s purely traffic terms. No crash reduction. 35 MR CAMERON: No crash reduction.

MR DUNLOP: No walking and cycling, and no public transport.

40 MR CAMERON: And no public transport.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR CAMERON: And if we turn to the BCR which is distinct again if were 45 just to analyse the BCR what weight does that give to public transport?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1267

MR DUNLOP: As we discussed yesterday the value of benefits is not significant. However, it is recognised within it. So that was the figure that I was discussing with Mr Milne yesterday with regards to the $1 million and 60 thousand I think from memory. 5 MR CAMERON: Now if we were to do this, what would this do to the BCR? Just from a completely theoretical perspective. If we were to for example give to, ascribe to public transport benefits the same weight that you do for travel time benefits for traffic, what would that do to 10 your BCR?

MR DUNLOP: It would certainly push it up. Again it all comes down to the numbers of users and where those users are delayed and the amount of delay that they’re experiencing, relative to the amount of savings 15 you’re experiencing in relation to the project.

MR CAMERON: In this case what would you expect it to achieve?

MR DUNLOP: I could do some quick calculations. I mean I don’t think it’s 20 going to be anything like the quantum we’re talking about in terms of traffic to be fair.

MR CAMERON: Okay, but do you think if the weighting were shifted or changed to be similar to or equivalent to travel time benefits ascribed to 25 traffic - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR CAMERON: - - - that that would increase the BCR? 30 MR DUNLOP: It would certainly increase the BCR.

MR CAMERON: And what about for walking and cycling?

35 [4.14 pm]

MR DUNLOP: Again, yes, you could do a lot more extensive analysis to look at walking cycling delays and it would all contribute to an increased VTR. The thing with the BCR is it is relative how much we should put 40 the effort in and how much time you put your effort in to get those small amounts of economic return.

MR CAMERON: That is a matter from the Board’s perspective of judgement is it not? 45 MR DUNLOP: It is indeed, correct.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1268

MR CAMERON: Whereas from a BCR perspective it is a different tool for a different purpose is it not?

5 MR DUNLOP: It is indeed, correct. That is how it is generally utilised to make, to assist with making decisions and to help the Agency determine where they should fund and how they should fund projects.

MR CAMERON: You say assist it is just that is it not? 10 MR DUNLOP: It is just that. There are other factors as well.

MR CAMERON: Sorry sir, can I just have one minute please. Now I think in TR4 you considered the issue of future proofing and you did so by 15 conducting a range of sensitivity tests?

MR DUNLOP: That is correct, dead right.

MR CAMERON: Just so the Board can be clear about where that analysis can 20 be located that is at part nine is it not?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, part nine.

MR CAMERON: Pages 152 to 158 of TR4? 25 MR DUNLOP: That is correct.

MR CAMERON: My learned friend, Mr Milne, spent time discussing with you the integration of various future projects having regard to the issue 30 as he was putting it to you of integration?

MR DUNLOP: He did indeed. MR CAMERON: Have you considered that issue in the context of your analysis? 35 MR DUNLOP: I believe I certainly have. I believe the analysis is comprehensive based on an ever changing world and obviously things have changed since the TR4 was produced in terms of the likes of decisions around the RT and VT spine. 40 MR CAMERON: In your view has the project been assessed considering the wider strategy?

MR DUNLOP: That is my understanding. 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1269

MR CAMERON: Does that include a consideration of the interface of this project with other projects?

MR DUNLOP: It certainly does. 5 MR CAMERON: But has the effects of this project in the context of the assessment that you have undertaken been assessed alone?

[4.19 pm] 10 MR DUNLOP: In terms of effects of this project, yes, it has been given consideration to the effects of other projects in relation to transportation on this project.

15 MR CAMERON And is it on that basis that you were able to say to Mr Milne that this project stands alone?

MR DUNLOP: Correct, that is correct.

20 MR CAMERON And so if the Board wish to look for a further discussion of the point, this would be the part of TR 4 they would turn to?

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

25 MR CAMERON And then it has also been teased out in other parts of your evidence-in-chief?

MR DUNLOP: It has.

30 MR CAMERON And I think rebuttal evidence also?

MR DUNLOP: Rebuttal evidence and my opening statement from 6.9 in 6.9.

MR CAMERON I have no further questions, sir, thank you. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Cameron. Mr Collins.

MR COLLINS: Mr Dunlop, you will be glad to know you are in the home straight now. 40 MR DUNLOP: One would hope so.

MR COLLINS: It has been a very long time now. There are still a few matters that I think you can assist us with, and if there is anything that you feel 45 you can’t answer, just say so. I don’t expect you to have all the answers.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1270

I just want to go back to a bit more – back to basics really. We need to understand very clearly, what is the problem and in particular, things like what do you – how do you interpret the word ‘congestion’ and 5 there is a whole range of sort of questions around that and if just sort of kick off a wee bit.

Firstly, we are not interested in what the problems have been in the past, are we, we are talking about the future, it is a future thing? 10 MR DUNLOP: We need to look at the past to determine what is going to be a problem in the future, - - -

MR COLLINS: In terms of trends. 15 MR DUNLOP: - - - so you need a certain amount of analysis of the past in order to project for the future.

MR COLLINS: Yes, in terms of modelling and so on, you need to have data? 20 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR COLLINS: I sort of was wondering what is the relevance really of the first part of your opening summary when those slides, 5, 6, 7, and 8, 25 talking about existing – it said existing journey times 2009.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR COLLINS: That is the past and we know that is never going to happen 30 again because once that underpass is in, bridge or no bridge, some of those things have been helped?

MR DUNLOP: Some of them will be helped, yes, correct, that is correct, there is no doubting that. 35 MR COLLINS: Okay, and the problem is not just about the Basin is it, it would be superficial to think this is silver bullet that solves all the problems through the whole route?

40 MR DUNLOP: Completely, you are dead right.

MR COLLINS: And you have kept emphasising how this is a route issue and there are effects and every bit of work you do has upstream and downstream effects which is very useful, I found that very useful. 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1271

The other question is sort of how urgent is it to deal with the problem, and I should just by way of background here, I am from Christchurch and we have had three years of all the road being dug up to replace services and we haven’t even got depicting the surfaces yet, next the 5 cars, we have serious congestion but we know it is temporary.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR COLLINS: Actually I was surprised to see you have got a few cones here, 10 I thought we had the whole nation’s supply of cones in Christchurch. That is just by the by, but with that background, I am finding it hard to really see it as more than a problem at peak times. Is that fair, is it just a peak time issue?

15 [4.24 pm]

MR DUNLOP: No, I don’t believe it’s a peak time issue. I think it’s an issue at all times, probably not between 8 pm and 6 am but outside of those times it’s an issue. So there is certainly variability and certain degrees 20 of congestion and it’s really clearly highlighted in the weekends where not only do you have a tidal flow, when I term tidal it’s one directional all coming into the CBD or all going out. It’s a demand on a network and this area gets heavily congested during the weekend, right through basically from about 9 in the morning right through until 4, 5 in the 25 evening.

MR COLLINS: All right. And I think when you started, probably Mr Bennion I think was talking to you and you started talking about what you thought congestion meant, and one thing you said was when you can’t 30 go through the lights in one phase.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR COLLINS: And you said there was definitely congestion at the Basin 35 both east-west and north-south and that was as far as it went. Now, I understand, I think from others that there is no sort of agreed traffic engineer’s definition of congestion, it’s “when you see it you’ll know it” sort of thing.

40 MR DUNLOP: There’s multiple definitions, yes.

MR COLLINS: But when you say now that there is, you know, heavily congested at the weekends, what do you mean by that?

45 MR DUNLOP: It’s when you are travelling through there and you would expect it to take what you would typically expect to travel through

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1272

there at. An interpeak period is probably what I would term, largely, uncongested to a certain extent, outside of the school times. So that would be a good expectation of what you might want to experience travelling through this area. You travel through there in the weekend 5 and it is very different to that. You travel through there in the peak period and it is very different to that. So you would expect in the interpeak you would be stopped at a set of signals and you would probably get through in the next phase. In the weekend and in the PM and AM peak that is where you experience a greater degree of 10 variability and delay approaching the intersections.

MR COLLINS: Well, at the moment, but the thing I have observed, I have tended, over the years, to come in sort of in the peak hour mornings coming into an airport over the years and the taxis always seem to get 15 stuck going up Sussex Street and to turn left or whichever way they go?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, that is correct.

MR COLLINS: Now, that’s going to be largely resolved by the underpass? 20 MR DUNLOP: It will be largely resolved by the underpass and improvements to Taranaki Street.

MR COLLINS: But apart from that one there is still delays at 25 Paterson/Dufferin?

MR DUNLOP: Correct, there are.

MR COLLINS: Kent Terrace going east-west. 30 MR DUNLOP: As we have seen in the graphs that I presented on Thursday, that there are still delays and significant variability on those links.

MR COLLINS: Okay. But I am still trying to put those sort of in context of 35 the whole system because you have delays elsewhere, don’t you?

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR COLLINS: And I have just noted your paragraph of your opening 40 statement at 4.4. If you just find that, at 4.4 of your opening statement you talked about over this length, from the tunnel to the Taranaki Street intersection, an 1,100 metre length should take approximately 80 seconds in free flow.

45 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1273

MR COLLINS: But is it a reasonable expectation and within a built up area that you would have over a kilometre with free flow?

MR DUNLOP: No, I don’t think it is, it’s purely just an indication. 5 MR COLLINS: Okay. Because isn’t it the case that in an urban area there’s always going to be delays, like through lights, there has got to be lights everywhere or roundabouts, so we are not really trying to compare the sort of delays around the Basin with that sort of free flow, this is not a 10 motorway?

MR DUNLOP: No, that’s dead right.

MR COLLINS: It can’t be a motorway. So I am trying to frame a question 15 that sort of will get you to sort of think about it more. I think perhaps Mr McCombs touched on it when he said we may be back here again in the future and talking about after 2021 at the Vivian/Pirie intersection, or some other solution there.

20 [4.29 pm]

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR COLLINS: So this isn’t really going to be a sort of silver bullet that 25 solves everything.

MR DUNLOP: Across the entire network certainly not.

MR COLLINS: There’s always going to be more, there’s going to be the next 30 stage and the current improvements to the ICB, there’s always going to be that sort of incremental things required all the time.

MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

35 MR COLLINS: So is that a good context? This is just part of this whole system.

MR DUNLOP: That is dead right.

40 MR COLLINS: But you’re saying it is a very important junction in the system.

MR DUNLOP: I think it’s a very important junction because it’s where all of those different modes converge into one point. I think that’s the 45 criticality of it. So we spend a lot of time focussing on state highway 1 and westbound travel but that can be managed, and it is currently

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1274

managed, to get that high volume through. Albeit there is a reasonable amount of variability associated with it, but it’s at the expense of the public transport and the north south local road movements.

5 MR COLLINS: Right. Can I just turn to the operation of the Basin as a roundabout, as a drive through system?

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

10 MR COLLINS: This is your rebuttal, page 14. And you make the point that there’s an existing operational problem at the Basin and I guess that’s to do with the size of the roundabout isn’t sufficient to allow weaving, the lane capacity is not sufficient for the volumes, too many legs coming in and out. Is that the sort of thing you’re talking about there? 15 MR DUNLOP: Yes, in part. It’s more about the origins and destinations as to where people are going and how we get good utilisation out of the lanes. And that point we talked about in my opening extensively around the inside lane on Dufferin Street approach it is very difficult to 20 get any greater utilisation out of that lane which would make it more efficient. I mean roundabouts are efficient if you can get consistent flows on each of the arms coming in and good utilisation of each of the lanes. That’s an efficient and effective roundabout operation.

25 MR COLLINS: Right and your evidence is that the BRREO tinkering if you like isn’t sufficient, certainly in the longer term.

MR DUNLOP: That’s my view. Certainly.

30 MR COLLINS: Yes. Now that’s interesting and that’s your view because that just reminds me that it seems to me that this branch of engineering, traffic engineering, is different from something like structural where engineers know the strength of materials and you can predict quite accurately. 35 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR COLLINS: This seems to require a lot more judgment and assessment and so on. 40 MR DUNLOP: Yes, dead right.

MR COLLINS: So I take it we can then put a lot of weight on the joint witness statement where a number of pretty senior experienced people 45 have largely agreed on things.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1275

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR COLLINS: But it is still a matter of judgment. It’s not like calculations.

5 MR DUNLOP: It is certainly a matter of judgment and it’s a matter of balance.

MR COLLINS: Yes.

10 MR DUNLOP: We could get the state highway to run very efficiently around the existing corridor but it would be at the expense of all other users coming through this area. Primarily the public transport users which would then mean that you’d get everyone wanting to travel in a car which then just has a combined effect. 15 MR COLLINS: Right and just again looking at the scale of the problem that’s been identified.

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 20 MR COLLINS: And the kind of solutions that could be put towards that, bearing in mind that’s it’s not our job to pick the best solution at all, we just need to understand the kind of things that could be done, I’m wondering what more could be done even if it was only suitable for the 25 next few years, to optimise the resource you have? One of the objectives I think somewhere is to make best use of the roading resource. I forget where it was from, but – say for example do you have real time optimisation of the signal phasing in parts of the city?

30 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR COLLINS: That’s the SCATS thing is it?

[4.34 pm] 35 MR DUNLOP: That’s the system, and pretty much the whole system, the whole Wellington network is setup to be linked to that.

MR COLLINS: Right. 40 MR DUNLOP: And to optimise.

MR COLLINS: And so you’ve got cameras at the Basin observing.

45 MR DUNLOP: Yes, there is definitely cameras at the Basin monitoring it.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1276

MR COLLINS: Interesting. Yes, because I used to live in Christchurch when I was consulting to look at things like pedestrian desire lines and you can get them to run off through (INDISTINCT 0.28) and we count the pedestrians and where they cross and notice how many go against the 5 lights, as here, so I’m surprised you haven’t done that in this case, haven’t you used that to count bicycles and people walking around

MR DUNLOP: Unfortunately, the cameras aren’t in the best positions to do that. 10 MR COLLINS: Okay.

MR DUNLOP: Cameras have been used in some instances for counting of vehicles and of pedestrians. 15 MR COLLINS: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: The only issue with that is that they are regularly used to be moved, so you have to balance the needs of them as function versus 20 setting them in one place to count a particular movement.

MR COLLINS: All right. So they’re moved.

MR DUNLOP: So they on a manoeuvring head to look at east, west, north, 25 south.

MR COLLINS: Okay, to looking at different, yes.

MR DUNLOP: So they’re moved around during the peak periods, so you get 30 a better understanding.

MR COLLINS: Yes, I understand. They’re somewhat easier in Christchurch I guess, which is a straight good system.

35 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR COLLINS: Okay, and just a final question, you’ve mentioned just towards the end of Mr Cameron’s re-examination about having analysed induced traffic. 40 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR COLLINS: And we were pointed to a table, but I’m wondering what the basis of that is, because I understand about the diversion of traffic, that 45 everyone has a route to come, those will be more attractive.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1277

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR COLLINS: But the question of whether people will make additional trips is quite interesting, because that again goes to some of the policies that 5 we’re looking at.

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR COLLINS: As a driver myself, I can imagine if the route is made, if this 10 route in particular is made more attractive I might perhaps do two trips, where at the moment I might only take one, it such a nuisance, isn’t that the way it works.

MR DUNLOP: That’s correct, it is how it works, that’s one aspect of how it 15 works.

MR COLLINS: So you don’t both combining two trips, two messages and things to do in town, you can take two trips.

20 MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MR COLLINS: But you’re saying there’s very little induced traffic.

MR DUNLOP: That’s based on the analysis that - - - 25 MR COLLINS: Yes, but what is the analysis based on?

MR DUNLOP: So they’re based on the use of the WTSM, which is the regional model. 30 MR COLLINS: Right.

MR DUNLOP: And that regional model allows us to get the OD Matrix that is then fed into those other models, so that model tells us how many 35 trips change from public transport to car as a result of the project, and any other changes that occur because this route becomes more attractive.

MR COLLINS: And what data is that based on? 40 MR DUNLOP: It’s based on a whole lot of modal choice and demographic data that goes into the model. Mr Sergeant will talk more extensively about that.

45 MR COLLINS: Okay.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1278

MR DUNLOP: He does talk about it in his evidence-in-chief.

MR COLLINS: Right, well we’ll come back to that point then. Good, thank you. 5 MR DUNLOP: Yes, but in terms of induced traffic my belief is that it will be relatively small as a result of the project.

MR COLLINS: It will be useful to explore what that is sort of based on, 10 because I can’t quite see how you get it out of the Census data, so there must some assumptions being made about that.

MR DUNLOP: Yes, there are a lot of assumptions around the model.

15 MR COLLINS: And it’s also very relevant to this question of modal choice, whether you’re going to get a move towards public transport. Okay.

Sorry, there was something else. The report we had about the re- evaluation of the Option X, you referred to one of your colleagues 20 doing some further work, and I think the point came up and then we sort of moved on and before I could ask the question, but it would be useful to know, perhaps Mr Cameron, what exactly that person did – there’s a phrase in here about “we had a look at it and we sort of tried to make it work”, but exactly what was done, you know, did that person 25 try this and that and how much was that tinkered with to try and make it work.

So if, before we’re finished, if that could be provided, that will be useful, even just a simple statement. 30 MR CAMERON: Yes, Dr Stewart - - -

MR DUNLOP: I think, yes.

35 MR COLLINS: He will cover that?

MR CAMERON: He is giving evidence, and he is the person who has been assigned to it.

40 MR COLLINS: He’s ultimately responsible.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR CAMERON: And that was actually the reason why I didn’t engage with 45 Mr Dunlop on the point of because frankly it’s Dr Stewart’s area really.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1279

[4.39 pm]

MR COLLINS: Great, okay. This witness I think was he signed it off I think on this report. 5 MR DUNLOP: I prepared it and signed it off correct. I can summarise what I know, but I think it is probably better to let Dr Stewart to it in totality.

MR COLLINS: Great, let’s do that. Very good, thank you. 10 MR DUNLOP: A topic I have omitted to ask about and it is brief and I think in the interest of just making sure that it is on the table, I should ask the question.

15 CHAIRPERSON: It is in the record you mean?

MR CAMERON: Yes, I am sorry, needs to be put in the record I think to avoid any debate.

20 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR CAMERON: Now, the second lane on the bridge is that necessary in advance of the Mount Victoria Tunnel duplication?

25 MR DUNLOP: My opinion is no based on the analysis I have been involved in. It feeds into a wider package of improvement.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry can you repeat the question?

30 MR CAMERON: Yes, the second lane on the bridge is that necessary in advance of the Mount Victoria duplication.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see.

35 MR DUNLOP: No, that is correct and that is consistent similar.

MR CAMERON: The Basin Bridge, does it need two lanes rather than one?

MR DUNLOP: Does it need two lanes? 40 MR COLLINS: Does it need two lanes?

MR DUNLOP: It could certainly be built as one lane.

45 MR CAMERON: It can be built as one lane?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1280

MR DUNLOP: Yes, it would just mean coming back for another one of these hearings or going through and applying as part of the Mount Victoria Tunnel for an additional lane.

5 MR CAMERON: Yes, and the reason for it not being strictly required is because?

MR DUNLOP: The demands do not increase such until the tunnel is duplicated so you have got one lane feeding two lanes with a small 10 portion diverting off. You have got about 3,000 diverting off, 3,000 per day out of a total volume of about 19,500.

MR CAMERON: Is it nonetheless desirable obviously that the bridge be built with two lanes? 15 MR DUNLOP: It is completely, yes, absolutely desirable thinking about that bigger package. Correct.

MR CAMERON: Thank you, and the cost of that second lane is that included 20 in the cost of the project for the purposes of the calculation?

MR DUNLOP: It is indeed. The cost is included.

MR CAMERON: Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Mr Baines?

MR BAINES: Thank you. Thank you Mr Dunlop, it has been an interesting couple of days. Most of my questions actually will refer to your 30 evidence-in-chief where I want to ask you some questions about the analysis for cycling and pedestrian, but before that I just want to pick up on that point that I raised with you before when we were discussing appendix 4G to TR4 and you remember we had this table?

35 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR BAINES: And at that stage I was struggling to, even though I consider myself reasonably numerous, I was struggling to sort of figure out how should I be trying to interpret this table but I think I have worked it out 40 since then. But at that time I asked you what the confidence limits were on those numbers because I see in the, when you look at the table across the top everything is given to one decimal place and in fact, in some cases you are talking six significant figures.

45 MR DUNLOP: Yes, you are.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1281

MR BAINES: There's a little voice in my head that says six significant figures, is it really that significant. I think you know what I am talking about, that is why I am interested to know because I notice when you come to the percentage figures down below I think you quite correctly give 5 them to one significant figure and that makes a lot more sense to me.

[4.44 pm]

MR DUNLOP: Exactly, yes. 10 MR BAINES: So in terms of being able to interpret some of these, I can’t really put a lot of weight on the detail of those numbers - - -

MR DUNLOP: No, that is fair. 15 MR BAINES: - - - because as I said, I don’t know whether it is plus or minus two, plus or minus 20, plus or minus 200 or whatever.

Similarly, we were shown another table – I think it is page B33 which 20 had – it was a comparison table - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes, it was a comparison, yes.

MR BAINES: It said – you know the one I am talking about? 25 MR DUNLOP: Yes, I know the one you mean, the travel times.

MR BAINES: In a sense I have got the same question you know, what are the confidence limits around those, you know, if there is a 90 seconds 30 improvement for the bridge, for that particular route, are we talking 90 plus or minus two, 90 plus or minus 10, 90 plus or minus - - -

MR DUNLOP: So for those ones, what I can tell you is that there are multiple runs done. 35 MR BAINES: Right.

MR DUNLOP: And that number is an average, it is not for …

40 MR BAINES: So I would assume that that is the sensitivity testing, is it?

MR DUNLOP: Correct, well, essentially when you are doing a real life situation, it is not the same at any one time, so what you are trying to simulate in Paramics is the real world and every time it runs it runs 45 slightly differently because the signals change and optimise differently. So what you do is that you run a series of runs, normally five to 10

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1282

runs, and you take an average of those five to 10 runs, and that is how you get that variability as well within that. So that number is an average of five runs, I think from memory, in the distances.

5 MR BAINES: Okay, let me understand that, that is how you get your variability as well?

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

10 MR BAINES: As I understand what you are saying is, I mean, you put your assumptions in, you run the model, the model will probably have a number of kind of sort of randomising bits that won’t be identical from one run to the next?

15 MR DUNLOP: Correct, and that is in a simulation world.

MR BAINES: In a simulation world.

MR DUNLOP: Not in this world, in the SATURN world it is a - - - 20 MR BAINES: Okay, I understand that, so that is how you can get that variability?

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 25 MR BAINES: And I use the word ‘variability’ there, is that using it in the same sense that it is used in terms of travel time variability?

MR DUNLOP: Not entirely no, because you obviously don’t have the same 30 level of incidents that might occur on a network.

MR BAINES: So there would be other factors that increase peoples’ experience of travel time variability?

35 MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

MR BAINES: But the model variability over five to 10 runs, would be in a sense, here is the level of confidence we can assess?

40 MR DUNLOP: Correct, that is correct.

MR BAINES: So I presume we have all that information.

MR DUNLOP: It is certainly all available. 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1283

MR BAINES: Right, and I am not, you know, I know that these tables will become inordinately complex if we didn’t have all the (INDISTINCT 2.53) but nevertheless, I think it is useful, particularly in these comparative ones, some key comparative ones, to be able to say if we 5 are comparing – and I will just use off the top of my head – 90 seconds with six minutes as it is a comparison that we have heard a lot about - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes, we have. 10 MR BAINES: - - - it would be useful to know what the confidence limits are, I think you know what I am talking about?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, I do know what you are talking about, yes. 15 MR BAINES: Is it possible to get a quick response on that?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, I will arrange for a quick response, especially once my cross is finished, I can easily get it. 20 MR BAINES: That would be useful, and I want to know in a sense how much to believe in the numbers?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, yes. 25 MR BAINES: And I think that would help to those sorts of things. Okay, thank you.

MR DUNLOP: That’s fine. 30 MR CAMERON Well the way that that can be dealt with by a supplementary brief rather in any other informal sense, I think we will do it that way, and then recall the witness if necessary.

35 MR BAINES: Are we agreed on that, sir, is that okay?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MR CAMERON It will be pretty short. 40 DISCUSSION

MR DUNLOP: I understand the significance of the questions from your point of view, sir, and I think the best way to deal with it, is to respond 45 formally in that way, and then you can test that.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1284

MR BAINES: Fine thank you. Because that in a sense helps me – when you say, you ask a number of questions, is this is a significant difference, and I’m saying, well, tell me, what does it mean, you know - - -

5 MR DUNLOP: For sure.

MR BAINES: Because your judgment about significance must take into account your known variability anyway.

10 MR DUNLOP: It does.

MR BAINES: And it has to be to be significant, I presume it has to be more than that, do you agree with me?

15 MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

MR BAINES: Okay, on the question that Mr Collins was asking you about, redistributed versus induced, tell me – I want it to be a little bit more specific about that, and ask you and you might want to direct me to Mr 20 Sargent, but really what I wanted to ask you was what factors influence driver behaviour when it comes to redistribution, and what factors influence driver behaviour when it comes to redistribution. And what factors influence drive behaviour when it comes to induced traffic. Are they different factors? 25 [4.49 pm]

MR DUNLOP: They are different, well there is an overlap but certainly with regards to redistribution it’s really around the total cost of the journey 30 because in the transport models there is a cost equation.

MR BAINES: Right.

MR DUNLOP: Okay. And the route is chosen based on that cost equation. 35 MR BAINES: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: So it’s based on a distance travelled. So ordinarily you would take the shortest distance with the least amount of delay occurring. So 40 that’s what you’re seeking. As an optimum route in a network.

MR BAINES: Okay. Just help me with this one because as a driver I’m aware of making choices. Should I take that shortcut through there or not? But I don’t say what’s the total cost of doing this route and I 45 venture to suggest that there would be very few drivers who do a very quick cost calculation and say, that’s the one to go for.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1285

MR DUNLOP: Dead right.

MR BAINES: So at that level in terms of driver behaviour that’s what I’m 5 trying to get at because I can understand how from a model optimisation point of view you say well, the rational thing is cost minimisation which is to do with time saving blah blah blah. And we’ve got a very clever algorithm here that does that.

10 MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MR BAINES: My question is does that adequately and appropriately reflect people’s behavioural choices?

15 MR DUNLOP: That’s a very good question and no, not entirely. Take for example you getting in the cab out here – well, actually getting in the cab at the airport. And the taxi driver very often says, which route do you want to go? Do you want to take the scenic route or do you want to sit in congestion? That is a choice that you make in that seat at that 20 time. So you’re happy to pay more to go a more scenic route. And that has been taken into account in the modelling believe it or not. So it’s something that has to be put into the equation to take account of people wanting to do that. Otherwise you just get a massive influx of trips onto this state highway 1 corridor when in reality that won’t happen. 25 MR BAINES: Right.

MR DUNLOP: So that has been considered and taken into account.

30 MR BAINES: Okay so if I wanted to sort of articulate a simple list of the kinds of factors that influence should I ask Mr Sargent about that?

MR DUNLOP: He could certainly expand on it I’m sure. But the factors are really – amenity is certainly one. 35 MR BAINES: Right.

MR DUNLOP: In terms of enjoyment of your journey. Stop starts, another. So for example you take a freight route. A truck driver is likely to go a 40 longer journey if it doesn’t mean stopping and starting. At every second light.

MR BAINES: Mm’hm.

45 MR DUNLOP: So there are a multitude of factors that contribute to the choice.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1286

MR BAINES: But for example if you take Mr Collins example of saying I could try and do everything in one trip to town today but it’s got so quiet out there it’s a good road. Everyone’s going over the bridge. I 5 won’t bother, I’ll take two trips.

MR DUNLOP: That’s right.

MR BAINES: The propensity to do that is sort of influenced by one’s 10 perception of the normal experience in that route is actually much better now and I’ll go that way.

MR DUNLOP: That’s right. Yes. And that’s your inducing. Your inducing is an additional trip over and above what you wouldn’t have done 15 previously.

MR BAINES: Yes, I understand that.

MR DUNLOP: Or it’s due to a modal shift away from PT onto car because it 20 becomes cheaper or faster.

MR BAINES: Right.

MR DUNLOP: To travel. And that’s inducement. 25 MR BAINES: Okay so those will all be factors that would be taken into account in the modelling that indicates very low levels of induced traffic.

30 MR DUNLOP: Correct to the best of the abilities of the tools that we’ve talked about.

MR BAINES: Okay. Thank you for that. As I said there’s a number of questions that’s to do with pedestrian and cycling so if I could ask you 35 to go to your evidence in chief.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR BAINES: Let me see. Page 17. Got that right? Sorry no. What have I 40 got, page 17, paragraph 6 – whoops, have I got the wrong statement. I’ve got the rebuttal statement sorry, no wonder I couldn’t find it. Sorry, I was looking at the wrong statement. Page 17 - - -

[4.54 pm] 45 MR DUNLOP: Of my evidence, was it?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1287

MR BAINES: Of your evidence-in-chief.

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 5 MR BAINES: “In general traffic and public transport demand has remained largely constant” – okay, that paragraph there, “there’s been increase in pedestrian and cycle demand in the north/south”.

10 MR DUNLOP: So which, sorry, just clarify, which paragraph are you - - -

MR BAINES: Paragraph 6.12.

MR DUNLOP: 6.12, yes. 15 MR BAINES: 6.12.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

20 MR BAINES: Now, okay, so we’re talking there about demand.

MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm.

MR BAINES: Firstly, what’s the proposed lifetime of this piece of 25 infrastructure we are talking about? Roughly.

MR DUNLOP: That’s a good question. I mean, obviously the way the BTR is worked out, it is worked out over a 40 year period.

30 MR BAINES: 40 years.

MR DUNLOP: But I can almost guarantee you it is going to be around for a lot longer than 40 years.

35 MR BAINES: Right. Okay. So it’s quite a long time, anyway?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

MR BAINES: Where would I find – what would you expect demand for 40 cyclists and pedestrians using the various bits of infrastructure – whether it’s footpaths, shared footpaths, whatever – 10 years out, 20 years out, 30 years out?

MR DUNLOP: Yes. I mean, I haven’t done that level of analysis. 45 MR BAINES: Okay.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1288

MR DUNLOP: This is just an example of how it is growing on this corridor.

MR BAINES: Because, I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but when I say to 5 myself, we’ve been told that this is an integrated solution - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR BAINES: - - - so therefore it is providing for vehicles, for local and State 10 Highway, it’s about public transport, it’s about cycling and walking, and in a sense I’m thinking, “well, all of those are informed by considerations of capacity and congestion and conflict and so on and so forth”. And if I look at what is being proposed as part of this project - - - 15 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR BAINES: - - - for cycling and pedestrian, it seems to me that the new things are threefold. The actual new infrastructure is threefold. One is 20 the bridge bit - - -

MR DUNLOP: The bridge (INDISTINCT 2.34)

MR BAINES: - - - the bridge (INDISTINCT 2.34). 25 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR BAINES: Two is that network of paths coming down from the National War Memorial down the slope to the top end of it. 30 MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct.

MR BAINES: And if I might think of it, the third one is the connection between Ellice and Dufferin, although maybe that’s substituting for the 35 existing - - -

MR DUNLOP: yes, I would say that is substituting for the existing

MR BAINES: Substituting for the existing, okay. 40 MR DUNLOP: The other things that are really being contributed are the crossing points.

MR BAINES: The crossing points. 45 MR DUNLOP: Yes. So there’s a number of crossing points.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1289

MR BAINES: Right.

MR DUNLOP: Kent and Cambridge. 5 MR BAINES: Right.

MR DUNLOP: Where at the moment as a cyclist you come out at the north end - - - 10 MR BAINES: Right.

MR DUNLOP: - - - where all the cyclists come through, and they are essentially faced with no way of getting out of the central island – they 15 just have to mount the – jump off the kerb and ride down the road.

MR BAINES: Okay.

MR DUNLOP: So there is provision to get them across into the wider 20 network.

MR BAINES: Okay.

MR DUNLOP: There is also provision, if you choose not to travel on the 25 bridge, you travel down past St Joseph’s Church on a cycle, and you can cycle around the edge of the Basin at-grade.

MR BAINES: Right.

30 MR DUNLOP: And likewise a shared facility on the eastern side of the Basin - - -

MR BAINES: Yes.

35 MR DUNLOP: - - - if the Basin’s closed like it is today for a test match.

MR BAINES: Right. That goes round the outside.

MR DUNLOP: Correct. 40 MR BAINES: Now let’s come to that then. That at the moment is a dedicated pedestrian pathway?

MR DUNLOP: It is. 45 MR BAINES: And it’s going to become a shared one.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1290

MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MR BAINES: Is it going to be any wider than it currently is? 5 MR DUNLOP: Sorry, would it be divided?

MR BAINES: Would it be wider than it currently is?

10 MR DUNLOP: That is not the intention, no.

MR BAINES: It will use the existing space?

MR DUNLOP: You utilise the exiting space, you make sure that you sign 15 post it and provide it so that people understand how to use it as a shared space.

MR BAINES: People understand how to use it as a shared space?

20 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR BAINES: It’s an interesting proposition that.

MR DUNLOP: It is. 25 MR BAINES: Can I ask you, I don’t mean to be personal, do you ride a bike?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, I do.

30 MR BAINES: Right. You’ll probably know the experience then of riding on shared pathways?

MR DUNLOP: I do. I’ve got a shared pathway right outside my house that I use regularly. 35 MR BAINES: Right. Great. Okay. So I think well that’s useful to know that, because I think that it’s a worthwhile perspective to have.

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 40 MR BAINES: So I guess I’m thinking about this question of capacity.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

45 MR BAINES: And you know, we talked about a durable solution.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1291

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR BAINES: Particularly in relation to traffic.

5 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR BAINES: We’ve had some debate about whether the new shared, elevated pathway is wide enough to be safe.

10 [4.59 pm]

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR BAINES: I know what has been said about that. It seems to me there is a 15 serious question to be asked about that and we obviously have to make some determination about that.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

20 MR BAINES: I am wondering whether due consideration has been given to what that capacity, or what the demand might be in the long term, let alone when it has first opened.

MR DUNLOP: Well certainly that shared bridge, the consideration has taken 25 an assumed growth of two percent per annum up until such time as the tunnel is duplicated. That two percent per annum is about what we would expect where you have got a hideous constraint at the moment being the tunnel and the pathway within it.

30 MR BAINES: A two percent growth over which - - -

MR DUNLOP: Per annum.

MR BAINES: I know the time period but actually a two percent growth along 35 what stretch of?

MR DUNLOP: Oh, sorry this is for the link out of Mount Victoria tunnel.

MR BAINES: Through the tunnel in other words? 40 MR DUNLOP: Yes, from the tunnel across what will be the bridge.

MR BAINES: You are assuming that everyone that comes out of the tunnel will go over the bridge? 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1292

MR DUNLOP: No, we have assumed that 65 percent will go over the bridge. At the moment obviously everyone comes down, they go down Kent and Cambridge Terrace, they choose either one of those roads to go down. One has assumed that 65 percent will utilise the bridge and go 5 down Tory or they will go down Taranaki or one of those alternatives they have the opportunity to go down.

Once the tunnel is duplicated it has been assumed that that volume will double and that number has been based on some analysis around the 10 demands currently from the Newtown area relative to the population base of Hataitai and the fact that they are very similar in distance from Wellington CBD and the expectation that there is a significant portion of people that current do not use that facility because of that constraint that exists there at the moment. 15 MR BAINES: The tunnel?

MR DUNLOP: The tunnel yes. That is how that analysis has been derived.

20 MR BAINES: Right, okay, so that gives you an essentially an overall growth trajectory for demand for pedestrians and cyclists?

MR DUNLOP: Correct, pedestrians and cyclists.

25 MR BAINES: Now, help me a bit, I have seen the maps that show the pedestrian counts and at the moment it would indicate that no one goes from Cambridge Terrace up to Tory Street, there is a gap in every single map.

30 MR DUNLOP: There is a gap, yes, correct.

MR BAINES: So the percentage growth on zero is kind of zero?

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 35 MR BAINES: It seems to be that the Wellington City Council might be wanting to encourage people to walk and ride, but that presumably means they want to tap into their desire to walk and ride where they want to walk and ride and at the moment people do not seem to walk 40 and ride all the way from St Joseph’s where the take-off point is up to Tory Street. They are much more inclined to go down and head for Kent and Cambridge Terrace.

MR DUNLOP: Because they want to stay in the bottom of the valley. 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1293

MR BAINES: You have made that point very well yourself. That is the kind of tendency we go downhill when we can and we only go uphill if we have got to sweat it. I mean I am really wondering about this elevated shared pathway. Is it really going to be used, who is going to use it? 5 MR DUNLOP: I think that is a good point. I mean there has been an assumption that more people will use it. They will choose, but again it is influenced by the factors, other factors. If for example Tory Street became a very desirable, it is set up so that when you are walking down 10 Tory Street you get a nice environment to walk in. You have less pollution, there is an atmosphere going on down there then it will be used. It is a little bit like crystal ball gazing.

MR BAINES: It is a bit of a unknown is it not? 15 MR DUNLOP: It is a bit of an unknown. It is very hard to get an absolute answer to that.

MR BAINES: It just puzzled me a little bit because it is a major piece of 20 infrastructure is it not?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, it is. I totally agree and it was a clear direction that came out of Wellington City Council and GWRC. I do not think if the Transport Agency were asked would they put that on in isolation 25 without the influence of the local authority and the Regional Council, I would say probably not. And it’s not because they don’t want to provide a facility.

[5.04 pm] 30 MR BAINES: No, I think I am clear, the intention is positive.

MR DUNLOP: Yes, that’s right.

35 MR BAINES: I am just saying, well, you know, $6 million I think we heard the other day, didn’t we?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, and if it was my money I wouldn’t be spending it.

40 MR BAINES: Well, okay, I think that answers my question.

MR CAMERON: Can I just interrupt briefly to say that if it were my money I’m not going to put any bets on it. I just wanted to interrupt to say that this is a topic that Megan Wraight can properly and really address with 45 you.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1294

MR BAINES: Okay, I am happy.

MR DUNLOP: There are other aspects to it.

5 MR CAMERON: I will tell her that this is an issue that you specifically wish to address and she can then ensure that she is well prepared to give you a well-considered opinion around these issues.

MR BAINES: That’s good. 10 MR CAMERON: Because they are matters that she has had to consider in the context of the connections between Memorial Park, Tory Street and the contribution this shared path makes in that sense.

15 MR BAINES: Because as you will appreciate, I mean, we are talking about the potential utility of a piece of infrastructure but that piece of infrastructure has other effects as well which we are going to have to consider.

20 MR CAMERON: We are very alert to that and we are very alert to the fact that this is a significant question in that sense.

MR BAINES: Yes, okay.

25 MR CAMERON: But I wanted to put a flag in the ground for you to note that your questions can be meaningfully considered and answers given, sir.

MR BAINES: And I have one more question really on the pedestrian/cycling thing. If I rightly characterised a few moments ago that the new things 30 were the elevated pathway and the network over towards Tory Street, everything else in a sense is adapting current infrastructure. I mean it’s improving and enhancing crossings. Crossings are in the same place but they are being improved.

35 MR DUNLOP: Correct, yes.

MR BAINES: And the existing pathways around, they are being turned into shared pathways and so on.

40 MR DUNLOP: Where appropriate.

MR BAINES: Where appropriate. Now, those are all improvements, are they really dependent on the Basin Bridge project or are they the sort of improvement that would be expected over time as city infrastructure is 45 renewed by the City Council?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1295

MR DUNLOP: I would say some of them are not dependent, however fundamental ones, such as the Adelaide/Rugby Street intersection improvements, are heavily linked to the significant reduction in traffic flow. So you can change the emphasis at that intersection from being, 5 like I mentioned earlier, I can’t remember who was crossing me, but from being a traffic driven, state highway driven intersection to being an intersection that is either driven by public transport or driven by walking and cycling movements.

10 MR BAINES: Right, but I guess I am - - -

MR DUNLOP: So you can change the management system, the philosophy around how you manage it. It shifts from being traffic to being local.

15 MR BAINES: Well, that presumably makes it easier to make the change, doesn’t it?

MR DUNLOP: It does.

20 MR BAINES: But if, for example you – let’s set the bridge aside for a moment.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

25 MR BAINES: What you have said is that at the moment the way pedestrians and cyclists, what they encounter at the end of Adelaide Road, is quite a barrier.

MR DUNLOP: Well, it’s high volumes of traffic. 30 MR BAINES: High volumes of traffic and so on. And if you, or if the Wellington City Council were of a mind to say, “Well, we want to do something about this for pedestrians and cyclists”, they could actually make changes. They could increase the amount of time, couldn’t they? 35 MR DUNLOP: They could certainly do all of those things, yes.

MR BAINES: Right.

40 MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR BAINES: Okay.

MR DUNLOP: It would come at a cost. 45 MR BAINES: It would come at a cost, right.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1296

MR DUNLOP: And it’s a balancing thing and that’s transportation.

MR BAINES: Okay. Mr Dunlop, thank you very much. 5 MR DUNLOP: No worries.

MR BAINES: I must appreciate it.

10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Baines.

MR McMAHON: Mr Dunlop, I am going to be quite brief, it is not my field of expertise and I am just really wanting to seek some points of clarification from you mainly arising from cross-examination from 15 Mr Milne.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

MR McMAHON: And look I apologise in advance as my questions are 20 simplistic.

MR DUNLOP: That’s all right.

MR McMAHON: The question of the third lane, is that in relation to both the 25 underpass and the Taranaki/Buckle Street intersection, is there a third lane for both of those components?

[5.09 pm]

30 MR DUNLOP: Yes, correct. So it stems from the underpass and then continues through into the intersection and then through the intersection.

MR McMAHON: What’s the distance from the underpass portal to the 35 intersection?

MR DUNLOP: I think it’s about 110 metres, 150 metres may be.

MR McMAHON: Okay. Thank you. 40 MR DUNLOP: Yes, something of that order. The total distance from Taranaki right back to Sussex is 300 metres.

MR McMAHON: Yes. 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1297

MR DUNLOP: And I understand the underpass is 140 metres so it would be about 100 metres.

MR McMAHON: The distance from exiting the underpass, travelling in an 5 east direction - - -

MR DUNLOP: Heading?

MR McMAHON: Towards - - - 10 MR DUNLOP: Towards the Taranaki Street intersection.

MR McMAHON: Yes, what’s that distance?

15 MR DUNLOP: It would be about 100 metres.

MR McMAHON: Okay, thank you. So what – if the bridge project is consented and built and at that stage the Memorial Park project will be finished in 2015. 20 MR DUNLOP: One would expect.

MR McMAHON: And presumably the Taranaki Buckle Streets works will have been undertaken by that point too. 25 MR DUNLOP: That would be my expectation that they would have been undertaken. That wasn’t the case at one point.

MR McMAHON: No, I understand that. 30 MR DUNLOP: It’s happening faster than - - -

MR McMAHON: So if the bridge is built what happens to that third lane prior to tunnel duplication? 35 MR DUNLOP: Prior to tunnel duplication?

MR McMAHON: Yes.

40 MR DUNLOP: Well this is this point that we’ve been discussing - - -

MR McMAHON: Yes, what’s your understanding?

MR DUNLOP: It could be used. My understanding was that it wasn’t going 45 to be used initially until the bridge was built. Not tunnel duplication, the bridge was built.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1298

MR McMAHON: Yes. What was the basis of your understanding?

MR DUNLOP: It was to do with the point that I think Mr Cameron examined 5 me over which was around there’ll be two lanes feeding it rather than three lanes once the bridge is built.

MR McMAHON: Yes. Sir, the reason I’m asking these questions there’s still some uncertainty in my mind and I’m not sure whether Mr Cameron’s 10 going to come back to this issue later on about whether it’s a safety issue or an operational issue regarding the third lane and how are you going to do that?

MR CAMERON: I’m going to have to file a supplementary brief of evidence. 15 MR McMAHON: From?

MR CAMERON: From Mr Blackmore I think to make it absolutely clear just what the NZTA position is. 20 MR McMAHON: Okay.

MR CAMERON: And I’m in the throes of having that prepared.

25 MR McMAHON: Thank you and that’s as far as I want to take that point.

MR CAMERON: Yes and if I knew the answer I’d tell you.

MR McMAHON: Okay, no that’s good. 30 MR CAMERON: In the sense that I don’t have current instructions so I’m leaving it for the brief of evidence to speak.

MR McMAHON: Okay. I was largely going to leave it at that point 35 Mr Dunlop, but you did say in answer to a question earlier, I think it was on your re-examination from Mr Cameron, that you could actually build the bridge with one lane.

MR DUNLOP: Correct, you could build the bridge with on lane. 40 MR McMAHON: Would there be a disconnect then with the three lanes at (INDISTINCT 3.24)

MR DUNLOP: There would be. Exactly. Yes there would and like I said I 45 think earlier all it would be is the underpass would purely be a storage capacity space for waiting traffic to get through the lights.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1299

MR McMAHON: Yes, I was going to ask you that. What do you meant by “storage” it’s not just - - -

5 MR DUNLOP: It’s an area to have traffic sitting in a tunnel which is an expensive piece of kit.

MR McMAHON: Wasn’t a facility for Wilsons parking or anything?

10 MR DUNLOP: No it’s not. Could well be. Not a good outcome I don’t think.

MR McMAHON: I’ll move onto the second of five questions. Mr Milne started to take you through an assessment of option X or X(b) against 15 the objectives and he got to the end of the objective 2. And he didn’t complete it and I wonder whether you’re in a position to complete it in terms of objectives 3 and 4. And just so that I’m right in terms of objective 1 there are three sub-objectives or methods.

20 MR DUNLOP: Subcomponents.

MR McMAHON: And I had a tick on the first one, a cross on the second and a tick on the third.

25 MR DUNLOP: Putting a cross is probably not a fair assessment. It’s a lesser.

MR McMAHON: Lesser. Or neutral.

MR DUNLOP: Yes. It’s got some pros and it’s got some cons. 30 MR McMAHON: Okay.

MR DUNLOP: So if we go now to I think the third one.

35 MR McMAHON: Just on the second one, I had a tick and a cross in that order.

MR DUNLOP: That’s correct.

MR McMAHON: Yes. 40 MR DUNLOP: And then we go to - - -

MR McMAHON: And I appreciate this is very simplistic.

45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1300

[5.14 pm]

MR DUNLOP: It is indeed. And the next one is around - - -

5 MR McMAHON: Mobility and modal choice.

MR DUNLOP: - - - yes, it is.

MR McMAHON: The first one was public transport, cycling and walking. 10 They are in front of you now.

MR DUNLOP: Yes, they are. So what – it will contribute, certainly, to public transport, but to a lesser extent than A. It really is let down by the cycling and walking. So the major issue with Option X in relation to 15 cycling and walking is that you come out of the north side of the Basin Reserve and you’re confronted with State Highway traffic – that high volume – in front of you.

The proposition is that people would go over a green bridge which 20 would sit above the local road traffic on the Sussex Street arm. That is a wonderful concept, however knowing people’s behaviours, it is very hard to change a desire line and it’s very hard to push them up a significant elevation to then come back down.

25 MR McMAHON: Okay.

MR DUNLOP: As we talked about before with this issue around coming out of Mount Victoria Tunnel and wanting to congregate and stay down in the valley. 30 MR McMAHON: What about bus travel in terms of that?

MR DUNLOP: Yes. I think the bus traffic one is an interesting one. Actually quite a positive, running buses up and down on the same corridor. 35 There is quite a lot of merit in that. There are still quite significant issues that you would have to work through if that was to be the solution chosen though, because of the geometry of it all.

MR McMAHON: Yes. The second bullet point on objective 3 is that we’re 40 not constraining opportunities for future transport developments.

MR DUNLOP: Yes. I - - -

MR McMAHON: Is that future proofing? 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1301

MR DUNLOP: It is future proofing. Yes. And to be fair, I think, you know, it doesn’t too badly on that in that sense. However, what it would – like we’ve talked about – it would put increased pressure on that Taranaki Street intersection that we identified as being an issue. 5 So Taranaki Street is already an issue, it just put s whole lot more pressure on it because traffic can no longer turn right to travel down Cambridge Terrace. It is forced to go, continue on on State Highway 1 and turn right at Taranaki Street. 10 MR McMAHON: And the last objective relating to the local transport network?

MR DUNLOP: Yes. I think from a local perspective it, again has a lot of 15 positives. I think it doesn’t have quite as many positives as Option A, but it still has to be recognised that it has positive, certainly.

MR McMAHON: Okay.

20 MR DUNLOP: And it is certainly more legible from a road user perspective to run up and down the same corridor.

MR McMAHON: Thank you. And I appreciate that is a very high level - - -

25 MR DUNLOP: Yes, pretty high level.

MR McMAHON: - - - yes, okay. Thirdly, and this is another point of clarification that I am seeking from your counsel, I’ll just go to my reference. Mr Milne asked you quite a few questions about the BCR. 30 MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm.

MR McMAHON: And where he seems to get to was he said something along the lines that he didn’t know exactly the contribution that the Basin 35 Reserve Project benefits were providing, as including the other projects, and relative to the Tunnel Duplication Project.

MR DUNLOP: Yes.

40 MR McMAHON: And where he talked about a stripped down project, and he asked you about your views on that stripped down project and what the BCR might be for that.

MR DUNLOP: Mm’hm. 45

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1302

MR McMAHON: And the stripped out project would take out the duplication, it would take out the intersection improvements - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes. 5 MR McMAHON: - - - You responded by saying you weren’t sure, but you said that you would need to leave the growth in. You would leave the growth in. I just wondered what you meant by that and what the possible implications of that might be. 10 MR DUNLOP: Yes. Well that’s a good question. So what we expect and what is certainly happening in Wellington is there is still growth happening in terms of population growth, more so than the likes of the Hutt Valley where you’ve got it pretty stagnant. There’s not a huge 15 amount of growth occurring, and Wellington has that growth and it has that projected growth. So as a result of that projected growth and a whole lot of other factors such as employment, the airport master plan and all those sorts of things, they contribute to what’s considered to be the growth on the network. Okay, so that sensitivity test that was 20 undertaken stopped that growth between 2021 and beyond that point.

[5.19 pm]

My feeling would be that you would still consider that growth should 25 occur if you were to analyse, and if you wanted to purely understand the effect of the duplication in isolation you would take just that out, not the whole shooting game, Basin (ph 1.00).

MR McMAHON: What impact, and without doing the calculations, are you 30 able to comment on what impact that might have on the BCR for the project, a stripped down project?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, so if you take it from the 2.0 where it sits, we’ve already had a discussion around what that might drop it to if you take out the 35 Taranaki and the Buckle Street, it drops it to about 1.4 is my calculation of that. It probably would drop it down to about 1, I would suspect.

MR McMAHON: Okay. So leaving the growth in doesn’t take the BCR in a 40 more positive direction?

MR DUNLOP: Leaving the growth in certainly helps in a positive sense, yes.

MR McMAHON: Okay. With taking the intersection improvements out 45 reduces it?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1303

MR DUNLOP: Correct.

MR McMAHON: Yes, but you don’t know the quantum?

5 MR DUNLOP: No, I would have to go away and carry out that piece of individual analysis.

MR McMAHON: Yes. Where do we leave that, Mr Cameron? Mr Milne expressed some dissatisfaction that he didn’t have that information, that 10 the Board didn’t have that information in front of them, but is that something that you’re going to address us on?

MR CAMERON: Well I think that’s something that can be done in the sense that – sorry, may I start again. 15 MR McMAHON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So was that the one that he was going to leave to us.

20 MR McMAHON: Yes.

MR CAMERON: Yeah.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we should discuss that, I think, and come back to 25 you on that.

MR CAMERON: I think my answer to that is, yes of course, yes I’ll provide it.

30 MR DUNLOP: We can certainly do it.

MR CAMERON: But because it comes back to the point that I was discussing with your Honour - - -

35 CHAIRPERSON: Well one of the Board members wants it all ready, so I think we should have it, yes.

MR McMAHON: It’s an unknown at this stage.

40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CAMERON: Well it comes back to the discussion we were having a little earlier, sir, I think around the difference between the BCR and the existing environment. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well I’d like to see it as well.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1304

MR CAMERON: Yes, so I think - - -

MR DUNLOP: Yes, I mean you can sort of see it, and if I take you to - - - 5 CHAIRPERSON: Well, no we’ll come back and get it done properly rather than spend time.

MR DUNLOP: Okay, yes, speculating. 10 MR CAMERON: I think what Mr Dunlop is saying, just in the interests of balance in the conversation, is that - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it doesn’t matter what you think he was saying. 15 MR CAMERON: Thank you, sir. The answer is yes, I’ll get it done.

MR McMAHON: Look I’m nearly there. In terms of option XB, Mr Dunlop, you said that there were some State Highway benefits and they were 20 similar to option A.

MR DUNLOP: Very similar, almost identical.

MR McMAHON: Yes. You qualify that by saying there was, if anything, 25 differentiated them, there was perhaps an issue with the distribution of traffic from Mount Victoria, around the Basin onto Cambridge.

MR DUNLOP: Yes, that’s right.

30 MR McMAHON: Which I don’t quite understand that, I wonder if you could just take us through that.

MR DUNLOP: Yes, well perhaps we might be able to get a drawing of Option X up and I can explain it. So basically what the Option X restricts is 35 your ability to get off and circulate round the Basin.

MR McMAHON: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: But you’re talking about Paterson Street. 40 MR DUNLOP: That’s right, use Paterson Street as an off ramp and come around, and utilise the local street for what is now a local movement when you’re – yes.

45 MR McMAHON: Yes.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1305

MR DUNLOP: So that is something that restricts but what it adds is another dimension, which is to be able to go directly from Kent Terrace onto State Highway 1, which currently you have to travel round the Basin to do, and you will have to under the project. So there is some pros and 5 some cons.

MR McMAHON: Okay.

MR DUNLOP: What it is just so happens, is the one that it adds to is already 10 a very busy link – Kent Terrace is very busy because you’ve got local roads, you’ve got State Highway and you’ve got public transport all in that corridor, you’re just putting more pressure on an a corridor that’s already busy, and you’re losing – you’re not putting any more demand on a corridor that’s got heaps of capacity, which is Cambridge Terrace. 15 [5.24 pm]

MR McMAHON: Cambridge Terrace.

20 MR DUNLOP: Which has got three lanes which are barely utilised.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the – excuse me, do you mind if I just clarify on this. What is the area between the Paterson Street intersection and Adelaide Road intersection going to be used for under option X? 25 MR DUNLOP: A public sort of green space.

CHAIRPERSON: So there is going to be no traffic at all?

30 MR DUNLOP: Just school traffic and government house is my understanding of the discussions that have gone on.

CHAIRPERSON: But no local through traffic?

35 MR DUNLOP: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I thought so.

MR DUNLOP: That’s right, and that was part of the concept. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and what is why they can’t access the Basin Reserve to get through into Buckle Street?

MR DUNLOP: Correct, yes. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1306

MR McMAHON: Final question, Mr Dunlop, relates to bus rapid transport. Mr Milne asked you some questions about that, my recollection is that you said that option A could accommodate it? 5 MR DUNLOP: That is right.

MR McMAHON: But how is unknown at this point?

10 MR DUNLOP: Yes, the full extent of how is unknown and that will need to be worked through with the detail of the design of the buses and the outcomes that are being sought.

MR McMAHON: Yes, you went on to talk about BRREO, and you said it 15 would be problematic but I can’t recall what you said in relation to option X or XB in relation to bus rapid transport.

MR DUNLOP: well it would be hugely problematic to the point of being fatal in that you couldn’t go through the Mount Victoria tunnel and then get 20 on to Cambridge Terrace, you would have to use Taranaki Street, so you would have no option, unless of course, that space was changed that was a green space around Dufferin Street, but then before you know it, you have got back to a concept that is essentially similar to what we have got in terms of the project here in front of us. 25 MR McMAHON: Okay. I did say – I actually have one further question and you have described the problem in terms of congestion extensively. If the Board, I mean, we don’t have any reason to disbelieve you, but if the Board wanted to experience and see that congestion first hand in 30 terms of the different modes, the public transport, the local and the state highway, how would we go about doing that in terms of those three modes, and at what times and on what days would we do that?

MR DUNLOP: Yes, I think it would be a good idea if you could hang around 35 in Wellington in a weekend, that would be a good experience, you know, probably - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Can we leave that with a suggested site visit program.

40 MR DUNLOP: Yes, probably 11 o’clock on a Saturday is a good time.

CHAIRPERSON: Rather than doing it off the cuff.

MR DUNLOP: Yes, that’s fine. I will certainly assist with that. 45 MR……….: Are we able to tell Tim about that?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1307

CHAIRPERSON: We already have had a – not a request but we have heard rumours that we were wanted to be here in the weekend so as we could do such a visit but we haven’t had any request as such, but perhaps a 5 formal request with an itinerary would be helpful for us to consider.

MR McMAHON: Sounds like a good idea, thank you, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr McMahon, Mr Dunlop I think you have 10 equalled if not bettered our erstwhile cricket captains, with the last efforts.

MR DUNLOP: Four days.

15 CHAIRPERSON: Well, I don’t think he was two full days, was he, almost. Yes, on the stand, and I don’t really want to keep you here any longer. There is only one matter that I would perhaps like to discuss with someone and it probably would not be you, but I just want to check.

20 MR DUNLOP: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We have had a submission, although a tentative one that the Northern Gateway Building is outside the powers of NZTA. I don’t know just why but I wanted to explore that with someone and just how 25 it has been treated by the team from its inception to now so as I can follow it. Would you be the person to explore that with, or someone else?

MR DUNLOP: I would suggest I am not the person to explore it with. I 30 mean, it has very little interrelationship with transport.

[5.29 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I realise that, you’re the transport manager, not the – 35 perhaps Mr Blackmore was the person we should have discussed it with.

MR DUNLOP: Mr Blackmore or one of the planners I would suggest.

40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DUNLOP: Mr Daysh might be a good option.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well, well I won’t explore it with you, so – but 45 thank you, Mr Blackmore, thank you – sorry, Mr Dunlop, thank you

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1308

very much for your assistance and you can be released from your cross- examination rule.

MR DUNLOP: Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DUNLOP: I appreciate it.

10 MR CAMERON: Tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CAMERON: I was expecting that Mr Kelly was next, followed by Mrs 15 Troy and Sergeant, and I was not aware until advised by Mr Cooper from the EPA that it was intended that others be interposed tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought they’d been in the interpose list for some time.

20 MR CAMERON: I have to say that that’s my – I did acknowledge that that was my error - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

25 MR CAMERON: - - - I mean I wasn’t aware of it. I must confess I’m trying to maintain a - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

30 MR CAMERON: We’ve had balls of string, well now I want to talk about threads. I do want to maintain a thread through this and quite – Mr Kelly has been waiting to give his evidence now for nearly a week. We’ve got Dr Stewart for Thursday - - -

35 CHAIRPERSON: So who are these ones that are – I think, Glen, I think the - - -

MR……….: Sir, I expect one – I think one is Ms Genter - - -

40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR……….: And I would have thought that her time – I just don’t know the detail, but she may be quite constricted for time, I don’t know, I don’t know about Mr Burgess who I think is for Cycle Aware, that’s - - - 45 CHAIRPERSON: What were their reasons, did they give reasons?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1309

MS……….: Ms Genter’s availability is limited to when she’s in Wellington, and tomorrow her availability is by voluntary question time, so she would prefer to be in the morning. As it stands we have scheduled - - - 5 CHAIRPERSON: Well she – has parliament stopped sitting or something, is it, or - - -

MR COOPER: Sir, we don’t - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: Will she be here later in the hearing?

MS……….: We can check her availability but we understand that she is available on the 18th, 19th and 20th, so she is available for the rest of the 15 week.

MR BENNION: Sir, I mean I haven’t liaised with her, but - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Well could you find out, all this - - - 20 MR BENNION: - - - order of the case I don’t – and our approach I don’t think that they’d put any basis - - -

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Burgess, why is he - - - 25 MR……….: (INDISTINCT 2.39)

MR BENNION: Okay. I don’t know about Mr Burgess.

30 CHAIRPERSON: Who’s Mr Burgess?

MR DUNLOP: He’s the Cycle Aware person.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 35 MR DUNLOP: And he’s a local gentleman.

CHAIRPERSON: He would not be very long I would expect.

40 MR CAMERON: He wouldn’t be long, although the issues are not unimportant and it may be better that they are actually later in the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you check with him overnight and just see how, how 45 urgent their requests are and if we can put them off to later in the week or – well that won’t happen, it can be till next week, won’t it?

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14 Page 1310

MR……….: I think Ms Genter, if she could be late next week and I think that would be preferable and then - - -

5 CHAIRPERSON: Can you check that, Mr Bennion?

MR BENNION: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Cooper could you check with Mr Burgess tonight? 10 MR COOPER: Yes, I can, sir, we do have an indication that he is available on Wednesday and Thursday and then available on the 27th which is next Thursday, so we - - -

15 CHAIRPERSON: Well, then we’ll get him.

MR COOPER: We can check that.

CHAIRPERSON: See if we can have him next Thursday. 20 MR DUNLOP: That would work well.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m really conscious of the transportation evidence being a block and we’ve got all these transportation witnesses sitting around 25 and we shouldn’t interrupt them any longer than we have to, so I’m going to rule, unless it’s exceptional we're not going to have any more interspersing of witnesses during the transportation block.

MR CAMERON: Thank you, sir, I’m obliged. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Because we're just – it’s getting quite lengthy.

MR BENNION: I think I can indicate, it looks like – I’m not sure of – there’ll be some questioning of course from other counsel, but in terms of I 35 think the case for opponents it looks like I’m the person questioning some of these remaining witnesses and I’m not going to be – we're not going to be nearly as extensive in time I think it is, sir, Mr Dunlop, so if that helps out.

40 CHAIRPERSON: That helps.

Thank you, we’ll adjourn till 9.30 tomorrow morning.

MATTER ADJOURNED AT 5.34 PM UNTIL 45 WEDNESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2014

Amora Hotel, Wellington 18.02.14