TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF INQUIRY
Ara Tūhono - Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance: Pūhoi to Warkworth Section Proposal
HEARING at NORTHRIDGE COUNTRY LODGE, SILVERDALE, AUCKLAND on 09 April 2014
BOARD OF INQUIRY:
The Honourable John Priestley CNZM QC (Chairperson) David Chandler (Board Member) Michael Parsonson (Board Member) Bronwyn Hunt (Board Member) Alan Withy (Board Member)
Page 250
APPEARANCES
Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 251 [10.05 am] CHAIRPERSON: Counsel, before we re-swear the witness and continue where we left off yesterday, there are two matters which we want to 5 inform you about. The first is an inquiry or request which may have been relayed to you, Ms Brosnahan, from the Board member Mr Withy, but I am just going to ask Mr Withy to explain what it is he has requested you to do and then you can respond, and also why. 10 MR WITHY: It was definitely a request rather than a direction but if by the close of business tomorrow we were able to have a word document of the latest set of conditions proposed by NZTA, including the various concessions that have been made by witnesses and which are acceptable to NZTA, that would give us the long weekend just to see 15 the conditions in totality and as they are at that moment, if that is possible, it would be helpful. MS BROSNAHAN: Certainly, sir, we can certainly give you the set at close of business tomorrow. There are a number of discussions still going on 20 so we won’t put those ones in but the ones that are agreed between all parties, certainly, sir. CHAIRPERSON: So that timeline doesn’t cause you any difficulty? 25 MS BROSNAHAN: No, it’s an ongoing process for us so of course we can. CHAIRPERSON: Because the Board are hugely aware, once a hearing starts, the hearings take on a dynamic and a life of their own and counsel in particular who are having to sort of brief and rebrief and juggle 30 witnesses and think about things are often quite stretched for time, so we don’t want to put any counsel in this room under sort of pressure. But are you comfortable with that timeline? MS BROSNAHAN: Thank you, sir, yes, one of my colleagues is actually in 35 charge of the conditions so it takes the pressure off me, sir. CHAIRPERSON: So this is my mantra about juniors having their use. MS BROSNAHAN: Especially when he is my boss. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Now, is there anyone here representing DOC, Ms Crossen, you can just - - - MS GLASSIE: (INDISTINCT 3.13) 45 CHAIRPERSON: You can just listen and note for this. I will get the Board member, Mr Chandler, to add to this if I miss anything out but one of Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 252 the issues which has clearly been raised is the issue of kauri dieback, and that is one issue which we will have to think very carefully about, particularly in respect to the Perry Road neighbourhood, but generally along the whole route of the proposed highway. And, of course, 5 terrestrial changes and the current NZTA proposal to put this eco viaduct over a kauri grove are matters of acute environmental interest. But we have reason to believe and this is getting into the physiology, if I can put it that way. and the cause of kauri dieback. We have reason to 10 believe that one of the vectors of kauri dieback are wild pigs and it could well be that substantial stands of kauri, including the one on Perry Road are populated by wild pig. Now, I have resisted the temptation, Ms Brosnahan, to make a direction that NZTA go out and catch two wild pig and subject them to forensic analysis but I think it 15 would be helpful if some of the witnesses which are going to be addressing this issue were aware of that the fact that the Board is interested in this and if we could have some further explanation about the methods by which kauri dieback are carried and whether, indeed, our supposition is correct or fanciful that wild pig can be carriers and, if 20 so, what can be done about it. [10.10 am] But we do believe that in the Waitakere Ranges, for instance, on the 25 western side of Auckland that wild pig infestations are one of the issues which has to be done. So whether this needs eradication or what but it might not just be the tyres of vehicles and the boots of construction workers which carry it. Mr Chandler, have I covered that adequately? 30 MR CHANDLER: Yes, thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON: And for the representative for DOC, I mean your counsel made it very clear that kauri dieback was an issue that they were concerned about and it may well be that the DOC team has got cross- 35 examination on this already prepared but if they haven’t and it’s fallen through some departmental gap, you are on notice now that we want it to be properly explored. So can you convey that to Ms Crossen as soon as you can? 40 MS GLASSIE: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Or whoever her senior is. MS GLASSIE: I will do, thank you. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 253 MS BROSNAHAN: And certainly, sir, the ecologists have been talking about this and are very close to agreement on it. Dr Waipara may appear before you, he is one of the experts from the Council and experts in New Zealand on kauri dieback, and we understand it goes even smaller 5 than the pig. The snail is also a problem so one of the proposed conditions is to keep snail out of the kauri because they also can populate the kauri dieback disease. So the concern is totally understood by the Agency. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Well, it may well be, I mean this Board I don’t think is going to have power eradicate kauri dieback in the mid north but the best we can do is to mitigate the risk as much as we can. MS BROSNAHAN: Certainly, sir. 15 CHAIRPERSON: All right, that is helpful. All right, can we swear in the witnesses, nothing else counsel want to raise before we continue? Swear in the witness please. 20 CHAIRPERSON: And just so I don’t get this wrong, Mr Williams wants to cross-examine and then you, Ms Vella, is that right? Is anyone else wanting to cross-examine this witness? 25 MR LANNING: Yes, sir, I am for Auckland Transport. CHAIRPERSON: You do. 30 MR LANNING: You granted me leave. CHAIRPERSON: That’s right, well, you will go in front. Yes, I did, thank you for bringing that to our attention. You will go in front of Ms Vella, of course. In theory you should go first but do you mind deferring to 35 Mr Williams? MR LANNING: No, I am happy to fit in. CHAIRPERSON: Because you are entitled to pull rank. 40 MR LANNING: I am happy to fit in with whatever. CHAIRPERSON: All right. Okay, Mr Williams and remembering my cogent words to you yesterday about the difference between submissions and 45 cross-examination, off you go. MR WILLIAMS: I am sure you will remind me again, sir. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 254 CHAIRPERSON: Only if you stray, Mr Williams. 10 MR BELL: I didn’t advice the client to delay Hill Street. In my Traffic and Transportation Report there is a section, if you give me two seconds I’ll find it. On page 9, section 2.3.2, it says, “The upgrade plans for Hill Street/Elizabeth Street intersection are currently subject to further investigation by the New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland 15 Transport. Depending on the outcomes of that investigation it is possible that construction of the Hill Street/Elizabeth Street intersection improvements could begin the near future 12 to 24 months. The current planned layout of Hill Street/Elizabeth Street intersection improvements are designed to cater for forecast traffic demand without 20 considering the project. When the project is constructed the distribution of traffic using Hill Street intersection will change therefore it is necessary to review the planned layout of Hill Street intersection and ensure that, as far as practical, the intersection design is future proofed for the changes anticipated with the development of 25 the project”. So in essence what that was saying was, as Mr Parker talked about previously, the previous Hill Street scheme that had been consented, has a notice of requirement, was developed before the motorway was 30 thought about. [10.15 am] During the process of those reviews that were done by the Transport 35 Agency that are talked about in this section and Auckland Transport, it became clear that there may not be these changes made to the intersection in the timeframes. As a result of that, I also undertook another analysis which said if the 40 form of the Hill Street intersection remained the same, would the effects of the project change, and that is detailed in my evidence and the conclusion I reached was that the project wouldn’t have an adverse effect on the Hill Street intersection, whether you assumed improvements or whether you didn’t. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 255 MR WILLIAMS: The next question is, in the transportation and traffic assessment report, figure 10, you show an AADT, that’s the annual average daily traffic, of 14,600 on the existing State Highway in the vicinity of Sherwoods and Moyers Hill in 2009. In figure 12 you show 5 an AADT, this is with the project in place, of 14,500 vehicles per day in 2026. That is 17 years later on. Can you explain why there has not been a significant reduction in the existing State Highway traffic, despite the expenditure of several 10 hundred million dollars will have been spent on the project before that date? Shall I repeat the last - can you explain why there has not been a significant reduction in the existing State Highway traffic despite the 15 fact that several hundred million dollars will have been spent on the project before that date? MR BELL: At the start of my evidence yesterday I discussed the base case, and the base case is in 2026, which includes future growth and traffic 20 growth up to that particular point in time. The project – the appropriate analysis in my opinion is to compare a situation in the future when the project is in place or the situation where the project is not in place. If you look at that same location in figure 12 that Mr Williams is 25 referring to, you will note that if the project wasn’t in place there would have been 25,300 vehicles a day on that section of State Highway. The project has removed a significant proportion of that. I think it is important to note that we are talking about a transport 30 network and people will still choose to use the existing State Highway because it will be a faster or more direct route for them, and that is particularly with the project that has the ramps on at Pūhoi, so people from areas south of Warkworth or the southern part of Warkworth and south of Warkworth will be able to travel down the existing State 35 Highway with less congestion than there would have been if the project wasn’t there, get on at Pūhoi and head to Auckland, and the same happens in the reverse direction. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, it occurs to the Board that in respect of that 40 last question you were referring to specific diagram or graph, I think, and you may want to explore that further or there may be future parts of the report which have diagrams or graphs in them. It would be helpful for everybody if you just were to tell us what that is in advance so we can have them put up on the screens, if that’s of help. 45 MR WILLIAMS: It will actually be in - - - Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 256 CHAIRPERSON: There we are, we’ve got it now. MR WILLIAMS: It will be in our presentation. 5 Right, okay, so we have – so this compares, in the case of the project, if you look at the left hand side of the drawing, you will see base case, there’s no traffic on the project, this is year 2020, with the project in place you have 13,700 vehicles on the new project. 10 [10.20 am] If we move over to the existing State Highway, with the base case, that’s without the project, you have 25,400, and with the project you 15 have 14,500, which is actually more traffic on the existing State Highway than is on the new project. I was surprised to find - - - 20 CHAIRPERSON: Is there a question here? MR WILLIAMS: The question is – well, I will repeat the question. CHAIRPERSON: Well, I didn’t hear the question, which is why I made my 25 comment. What is the question? MR WILLIAMS: Just hang on. CHAIRPERSON: It might be a why question or something. 30 MR WILLIAMS: Can you explain why there has not been a significant reduction in the existing State Highway traffic despite the fact that several hundred million dollars will have been spent on the project before that date? 35 Right, the next question, I guess, is why – hang on – why is the existing State Highway traffic larger than the traffic on the project? MR BELL: I think I just explained the process that I’d gone through in terms 40 of comparing the base case with the project, and also mentioned that this is a transport network – some people will still choose to use the existing State Highway because they either have locations which they access off the State Highway or the adjoining road south of Warkworth, some people in the southern end of Warkworth will choose to travel on 45 the existing State Highway and get on at Pūhoi if they were heading to Auckland, for example, rather than travelling through Warkworth, so Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 257 through the sets of signals at Warkworth, north to the project roundabout and on to the project. So as I say, the effect of the project is to reduce the volumes on State 5 Highway 1 significantly compared to what they would have been if the project wasn’t in place. MR WILLIAMS: Okay, we’ll move on. 10 Picking up on a matter raised by Mr Chandler in the operational evidence cause 71, table 1, and I might have to find that one, this is the one with the travel times through the intersection. CHAIRPERSON: Just give us the reference to that again so that the staff can 15 put it up. MR WILLIAMS: It’s clause 71 in the - - - CHAIRPERSON: It’s not a diagram? 20 MR WILLIAMS: It’s the diagram that was on screen. CHAIRPERSON: I see, yes. This is in his affidavit. 25 MR BELL: It’s page 15 of my statement of evidence for transport. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we’ve got it, I’ve got it, thank you. This is travel times through the intersection, Mr Williams, is that right? 30 MR WILLIAMS: That is correct. You address the do nothing case and you show travel times over routes through Hill Street intersection. You show that the travel times for routes from Elizabeth Street and from Matakana Road to State 35 Highway 1 north, that is towards Auckland when the project is in place, are reduced by 15-20 percent. This right turn movement has only a clearance rate of half the current left turn movement towards Auckland. Would you explain the anomaly in the model? 40 MR BELL: So I’m looking at the bottom of the table and I’m looking from Elizabeth Street to State Highway 1 north? MR WILLIAMS: Yes. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 258 MR BELL: So that is, you refer to the diagram across the page, so from Elizabeth to – it’s basically coming out of Elizabeth Street and turning left and heading north. 5 MR WILLIAMS: Turning left and turning right at the traffic lights. [10.25 am] MR BELL: Sorry, coming up Elizabeth Street and then turning right. Sorry I 10 am understanding your question, the first part of your question. Could you just repeat the second part of it? MR WILLIAMS: You show that the travel times for routes from Elizabeth Street and from Matakana Road to State Highway 1 north, that is 15 towards Auckland via the project are reduced by 15 to 20 percent. This right turn movement has only a clearance rate of half the current left turn movement to Auckland and via State Highway 1, will you explain the anomaly in the model? 20 MR BELL: The way that the model works is essentially that that goes through a process of optimising the signal times depending on the flows that are approaching from each direction so the effect of the project is to take quite a lot of traffic from State Highway 1 north so we are talking about 50 or 60 percent in terms of that movement north and south. 25 What that does is it provides additional green time so if we assume that the cycle time that we are talking about previously of about 120 seconds, because you do not have to clear as much on the existing State Highway 1 it provides an opportunity for you to redirect some of that 30 green time to other movements. The intersection is that the signal timings would change as a result of the project and I am assuming that would be the reason that that reduction would take place. 35 MR WILLIAMS: Okay, in your rebuttal evidence clause 47 and 48 you offer construction traffic management plans prepared after the contractors let to change the route of traffic from Matakana Quarry to the project to avoid Hill Street intersection or to change the source of materials. 40 Firstly can you name the alternative route past the Hill Street intersection? MR BELL: So my understanding that there are options in terms of where the aggregate for the project might come from, there are options north to 45 south, there is east, there is west so there is a number of different Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 259 options so depending on where the source of that aggregate was they would route in a different direction. I am aware that there are other quarries in the Matakana area that can 5 go over the hill and then come back down onto State Highway 1 and head south. There are quarries to the south in Auckland and as Mr Edmonds was talking about yesterday, it will really depend on the contractors supply chain as much as anything else where that material comes from. 10 MR WILLIAMS: I do not actually have the wording in front of me, would you like to read out the wording, 47.8. MR BELL: I can read it out if that would help. 15 MR WILLIAMS: Yes, you can read it out. CHAIRPERSON: What are we reading from please? 20 MR WILLIAMS: This is the rebuttal. CHAIRPERSON: His rebuttal affidavit? MR WILLIAMS: Yes, 47. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Well I think rather that just, unless you want it read into the record I mean it is slightly tedious while people to just read out something which is already there to read. Why do you not just structure your answer if you are happy with this, Mr Williams. As I 30 have said in paragraph seven of my 19th March affidavit, and then just give a very short summary of it, rather than reading it all out. Are you happy with that? MR WILLIAMS: Okay. 35 MR BELL: Sorry I thought you were speaking to him. CHAIRPERSON: I am speaking to you as well, but you were already looking at it because you were poised to read it out. What I suggest is you say 40 as I have said in paragraph seven and then just give a succinct summary which ideally should not exceed the length of paragraph 47. MR BELL: As I have said in paragraph 47 there are alternative options that the Transport Agency could use to either route vehicles in a different 45 direction so they do not come through that Matakana arm or to change the source of the materials so that it did not go through that location. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 260 CHAIRPERSON: Well you see, what you say in 47, Mr Bell is that the application could require project related vehicles. Do you feel this is something which is highly desirable, that a requirement should be 5 imposed of that nature on construction travel or are we just going to have it sort of open-ended and rather wishy-washy? [10.30 am] 10 MR BELL: I think the challenge that we’ve got is that we don’t know exactly where that material is coming from. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well were it to come from the near sites you’ve mentioned, what would your approach be? 15 MR BELL: So in my assessment I’ve talked about the number of likely trucks. I’ve assessed four coming from Matakana Quarry if we were to assume that most of the pavement material was to come from that location, that’s less than one percent of the traffic on that approach to 20 the intersection at the moment, even if it was double that, I did an analysis if there was 29 heavy vehicles making those movements. So from that perspective I’m comfortable that I’ve assessed a likely situation. 25 I guess I was noting that as part of a construction traffic management plan there are consent conditions which require you to consider delays to the public and that’s certainly something that’s very important as far the Agency’s concerned. And if there were to be large delays as a result of the construction traffic then the Agency would have the opportunity 30 to route those in a different way. MR WILLIAMS: Secondly - - - CHAIRPERSON: If you’re not happy with that answer Mr Williams, probe, 35 that’s what cross-examination’s all about. I’m not suggesting there’s anything - - - MR WILLIAMS: No, I’ll - - - 40 CHAIRPERSON: I just want to make quite sure you know what’s required. MR WILLIAMS: I’ll address it further in the presentation. Secondly, do you really think that the construction traffic management plans have the strength to make a change to the source of materials after the contract is 45 let(ph), and if so who will pick up the cost of this change? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 261 MR BELL: My experience of tendering these sorts of projects is that these conditions will be available to the parties that are tendering for the contract. I myself have been involved in helping put these sort of tenders together for these sorts of projects, so what you need to do as a 5 constructor who is tendering for that, is to understand what the implications of the conditions are and design your methodology and take the risks that you choose to take as part of that. MR WILLIAMS: Is it possible that there would be a dispute over the 10 additional cost if the source of materials is changed as a consequence of the construction traffic management plan? MR BELL: As I said, that’s the process that’s followed. There’s always the potential for a dispute, but I think that would be a contractual matter 15 rather than a RMA matter. MR WILLIAMS: That’s all my questions, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Williams, that’s helpful. You’re next in line 20 Mr Lanning, aren’t you, where are you sitting at the moment Mr Lanning – there you are. Before you ask questions of the witness, I’m going to ask some questions and other Board members may wish to too, because some of the subject in that of my questions may well impact on your own client’s responsibilities. 25 Mr Bell, have a look, please, at your operational traffic affidavit of 23 January at paragraph 73. MR BELL: Yes, sir. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Now you say there that “although improvements to Hill Street are desirable you don’t believe that any such improvements are required to mitigate adverse effects before the operation of the project”, does that remain your view? 35 MR BELL: Yes, sir. I think what I was trying to do there was - - - - CHAIRPERSON: Well I just want to know whether it remains your view? 40 MR BELL: Yes, sir. [10.35 am] CHAIRPERSON: All right. Now let’s unpick that a little bit. “Prior to 45 operation of the project”, what does that mean, does it mean before the project starts or before it finishes? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 262 MR BELL: This affidavit was in relation to the operational traffic, which is what the effects of the project will be once it’s in operation, so once the road is there and being used by other traffic. 5 CHAIRPERSON: I see. So that’s prior to completion and the opening up of the projected highway, is that right? MR BELL: No, it’s post-completion and opening up. 10 CHAIRPERSON: So post-completion and the opening up, all right. Now I see you went to Auckland University, are you an Aucklander? MR BELL: Yes, sir. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Just a suburb would suffice, where do you live? MR BELL: Kohimarama. 20 CHAIRPERSON: All right. Do you and family or any others ever travel up to Northland during holiday periods? MR BELL: Yes, sir. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Is that because you’ve got family up there or a holiday home or what? MR BELL: We have friends with holiday homes and we also like to camp. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So this would take you well north of Warkworth, am I right? MR BELL: Yes. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Have you done this in weekends? MR BELL: Yes, sir I have. CHAIRPERSON: All right. Now, the Board appreciates that long holiday 40 weekends are probably an exception to normal traffic flows, and that’s really clear from the evidence of you and others. But you will have noticed, I suspect, and if not you’ll have read about it, that on long holiday weekends traffic going north usually grinds to a halt somewhere south of the Pūhoi tunnels, and the journey from there to 45 Hill Street and beyond is very arduous and very lengthy, have you noticed that phenomenon? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 263 MR BELL: I’m aware of it, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Why does it happen? 5 MR BELL: There are a number of reasons why that happens. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, give us them in descending order, please. 10 MR BELL: So there are capacity constraints on the existing State Highway, heavy vehicles, speeds are very difficult through (INDISTINCT 2.28) Hill for example, vehicles slow down, there are limited passing opportunities, those sorts of things. So in classic sort of traffic engineering or transport planning there’s a speed flow curve, the larger 15 the flow gets the lower – there’s an optimal point and then the speed starts to reduce. CHAIRPERSON: The highway’s too small. Yes, the highway is unsuitable for that volume of traffic, correct? 20 MR BELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Okay, the next reason? 25 MR BELL: There’s also your intersection capacity, which is different to that kind link capacity that we were talking about, so the capacity of the network through Warkworth isn’t sufficient to cater for that particular demand. I think as Mr Parker was talking about yesterday, particularly because pretty much all of the access to the eastern area, the area often 30 referred to the eastern beaches area, does actually have to come through that Hill Street intersection, so that put’s particular pressure on the network. CHAIRPERSON: You’ve got traffic at that intersection continuing north and 35 traffic trying to turn right to go out along Snells Beach Road or Matakana Road, right? MR BELL: That’s correct. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So would you agree with me that quite apart from the capacity of the highway the Hill Street intersection is currently configured and controlled is really a natural obstacle which is going to cause tailbacks, which the greater the volume of the traffic the longer the tailback. Is that a fair summary? 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 264 MR BELL: Yes, sir, if there are large volumes then that intersection becomes over capacity. CHAIRPERSON: And you know this happens, don’t you? 5 MR BELL: I do, sir, yes. CHAIRPERSON: Now in these projections you’ve got of future traffic flows and also the questions you’re answering Mr Williams relating to the 10 table on the previous page of your affidavit, that’s travel times through Hill Street intersection, what sort of data have you used to justify those figures, both sets, volumes and Hill Street clearance – say three years hence, six years hence, nine years hence. How do you know that the traffic volumes are going to be what you assess them to be? 15 [10.40 am] MR BELL: I guess we call it traffic forecasting because it’s not an exact science. What we have done to try and assess that is to look at the 20 likely land use changes that will take place which drive that. I think you will also see that I – so we use that information in the way that we build the models. And we also have looked at historic growth trends to give ourselves some comfort that you are in the right range of growth that we are talking about. 25 CHAIRPERSON: You probably read political polls from time to time which, depending on the sampling, have errors of plus or minus 3 percent or 5 percent, what sort error factor would you put on your projections, Mr Bell? 30 MR BELL: So I guess the way that I would look it at rather than a percentage error, is it is probably more of a timing issue so if development takes place at a faster rate we will see that those traffic projects are reached faster. If growth takes place at a slower rate we will see that takes 35 slightly longer to get there so - - - CHAIRPERSON: Anything else you slotted in there besides land use changes? 40 MR BELL: No, sir, just the - - - CHAIRPERSON: Just that, that’s all? MR BELL: That what we have used to assess that. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 265 CHAIRPERSON: All right. Now, and I am not being ironic when I say this, you are clearly a person who has got personal experience with the ground in question, good military principle, but you will be aware, will you not, that Matakana has become a sort of an area which is quite a 5 popular destination in terms of wine festivals, food festivals, folk dancing, film festivals, so on and so forth? MR BELL: Yes, sir. 10 CHAIRPERSON: People like to go there for half a day or more, don’t they? MR BELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: And it’s an area which is a small town which is developing 15 and which is economically reasonably dependent on activities of that type, correct? MR BELL: Yes, sir. 20 CHAIRPERSON: And your modelling probably wouldn’t or possibly be able to take account for that sort of development, would it? MR BELL: So I guess that - - - 25 CHAIRPERSON: Yes or no? MR BELL: I believe it would but I probably need to explain that. CHAIRPERSON: All right, tell me how you have – have you got some 30 projections for future frequency of film and food festivals in Matakana over the next, say, five years? MR BELL: No, sir. So the way that that has been developed is in terms of population and growth. 35 CHAIRPERSON: But those aren’t people who are living there, these are people going there? MR BELL: No, sir. So the types of activities that you are talking about 40 generally take place on a weekend, for example, so we haven’t built a weekend model of this. We have tried to take account of the sorts of peaks that happen in the holiday periods. So what we did was we looked at, when we were producing the holiday period ones, what we did was we looked at the typical traffic volumes and then the bump on 45 top of that that you got for locations like Matakana, for example. And when we were producing the models for the holiday periods we Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 266 increased those trips again by an extra 10 percent after the project went in place as well. CHAIRPERSON: I see. So you have posited an add-on for that. And I guess, 5 you needn’t go in the same detail, but would you agree with me that other attractions which would require people coming from the south to turn right at Warkworth would include the marine reserve Goat Island? MR BELL: I would. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Tawharanui Regional Reserve? MR BELL: Yes, sir. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Which is becoming, more people know about it, and it’s an idyllic place to which more people go. People going to Sandspit to go to Kawau? MR BELL: Yes, sir. 20 CHAIRPERSON: And you are aware, I suspect, of lifestyle developments in and behind Park Ridge? MR BELL: I have seen them taking place, sir, yes. 25 CHAIRPERSON: All right. Now, I want to ask you a hypothetical question which most judges, active or retired deplore but several people have asked them so far so I am going to ask you one. Let’s assume that you were given plenary power insofar as NZTA are concerned and that you 30 are the person who has got a sole grip – and you are probably very close to this – on traffic volumes and the current state of State Highway 1 and Hill Street, all right? [10.45 am] 35 And you know what’s going to happen and you are taking on board all the things we have been discussing over the last five or 10 minutes, what would you recommend should be done by NZTA to Hill Street to mitigate the congestion and tailbacks which are currently there? 40 MR BELL: So I take it from that question we are not talking about the project, we are just talking about the existing situation? CHAIRPERSON: That’s right. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 267 MR BELL: So I think that the only way to, in the confines of the intersection as a starting point, in the confines of the intersection the real only way to provide significant additional capacity without large infrastructure and taking out parks and all those sorts of things, would be to ban 5 movements. CHAIRPERSON: To ban movements? MR BELL: To ban movements. So, for example - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: That sounds pretty Draconian, tell us what you mean. MR BELL: So, for example, my understanding, and I wasn’t involved in this process, that the original work that was done between Transit, as was, 15 and the Rodney District Council, which produced this memorandum of understanding - - - CHAIRPERSON: Cut to the chase, Mr Bell, what sort of movements would you recommend to be banned? 20 MR BELL: I think Hill Street movements into Hill Street would be one of the first that you would look at because it’s those movements that take a reasonable amount of the capacity, there are alternatives to making those movements. 25 CHAIRPERSON: That’s not going to be a significant part of traffic flows, is it? MR BELL: So - - - 30 CHAIRPERSON: Is it? MR BELL: Well, it’s not a significant part of traffic flows but if you look at the way that the intersection works, essentially you have to provide an 35 amount of green time for traffic that conflicts with each other. So you end up with separate phases for it. CHAIRPERSON: All right. Any other movements you would ban? 40 MR BELL: So I understand that the Agency has talked about movements into Elizabeth Street. CHAIRPERSON: Look, you know this intersection, you have studied it. You are an intelligent man, you are an expert and you know this is a matter 45 of grave concern to both the Board and the residents of Warkworth. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 268 MR BELL: Yes CHAIRPERSON: And I have given you for the time being sole decision making power so that State Highway 1 gets better not worse, what are 5 you going to do? MR BELL: So that’s another option is banning that movement. I think the other options are providing some additional capacity where that’s available. The opportunities - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean? MR BELL: Extra lane width or extra number of lanes. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Going where? MR BELL: So I think State Highway 1 heading north and south, there is an opportunity to provide some more capacity there, if you were to ban the right turn into Hill Street, which is only seven vehicles I think in the 20 p.m. peak hour, so a very small number that can make them at Hill Street. The other sorts of things that you could do is looking at what happens at Sandspit and Matakana intersection. The dominant flow is from 25 Sandspit and Matakana have to give way. A lot of that traffic appears to go down into the town centre via Elizabeth Street. So if you could provide some additional width there or create a lane for that traffic to do that without conflicting with the traffic that goes through to the signalised intersection, there would be benefits in that. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Now, some of these are improvements which yesterday you told us are under scrutiny and are likely to be put in place, aren’t they? MR BELL: I understand that was what Mr Parker told you, yes. 35 CHAIRPERSON: And would these improvements, which having taken over plenary powers, is this going to stop bottlenecks, it’s not really, is it? MR BELL: Not the periods that you were talking about of holiday weekends 40 and those sorts of things. I think it will help take the pressure off at other peak times. You know, the Friday afternoons, the Sunday evenings I think would improve but the volume of traffic that’s associated with those holiday weekends et cetera is just so large that it’s difficult to - - - 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 269 CHAIRPERSON: Now, going back to what you said in paragraph 73, I put it to you, Mr Bell, that really you would have to accept that if nothing is done things on this highway network, State Highway 1 and for people trying to get in and out of the areas serviced by Snells Beach Road and 5 Matakana Road, things are going to get much worse, aren’t they? MR BELL: I would think they will get worse and I guess there is a point at which that impediment stops development in those locations as well. So maybe you don’t see that amount - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: Well, is that a good thing? MR BELL: I wouldn’t have thought so, no. 15 CHAIRPERSON: People say “Oh, my gosh, it’s going to take me three hours to get to Tawharanui this Sunday morning, we just won’t go, we’ll go off to Port Waikato instead”, I mean that’s an understandable human reaction but that’s not necessarily a good thing for the area or indeed for free access to regional reserves, is it? 20 [10.50 am] MR BELL: No, sir. 25 CHAIRPERSON: All right, now, let’s assume – forget about Hill Street for a moment or not for a moment, I am sure somebody else is going to come back and savage you on it – but let’s assume the project goes ahead and we end up with this interchange which, to my mind, makes quite a lot of sense right at the very end, the northern end of the 30 proposed highway where traffic continuing on north will just continue north and traffic wanting to get to Warkworth or Matakana or these other places you are talking about will go a right hand turn and proceed south to the dreaded Hill Street. How confident are you, given what you told me 10 minute ago about the current configuration of State 35 Highway 1 and its inadequate capacity, how confident are you that that interchange at the end of the project isn’t going to cause another bottleneck? Or putting it colloquially, are we just moving the bottleneck north or are we solving the bottleneck problem permanently? 40 MR BELL: Sir, I address that in my rebuttal evidence. CHAIRPERSON: Just tell us about what you have said, please. 45 MR BELL: My view is that, no, that won’t be the case, there will be sufficient capacity in the roundabout to cope with that. That’s not to say that on a Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 270 holiday weekend over Christmas that delays come back from the Dome Valley and through the intersection if there were, you know, particularly high volumes but in the holiday period - - - 5 CHAIRPERSON: That is congestion problems further north though, isn’t it? MR BELL: Yes, I am just trying to explain that there is potential for queues to end up going back through there but in the assessments that we have undertaken of the holiday periods in the future, even that doesn’t 10 appear to be the case nor does it appear to be the case on a typical day, certainly not on a typical day. CHAIRPERSON: And, of course, all the traffic which is currently going up State Highway 1 north to access all these places out to the east we have 15 been talking about, like Matakana et cetera, that’s traffic if uses the new highway which is going to be approaching Hill Street from the north, isn’t it, but will effectively have a free left turn? MR BELL: It will, sir, but it will also be caught up in any queues that come 20 back from the intersection as well. CHAIRPERSON: Indeed. MR BELL: But, as I said, because we are actually taking quite a lot of that 25 north-south traffic off that provides additional capacity at the intersection to get that traffic through. CHAIRPERSON: Now, I know who your employer is and although you – well, you know the obligations on an expert witness so you are going to 30 have to answer this question. If one was looking at this whole issue holistically, would you agree that contemporaneous work on improving and sorting out the problems with the Hill Street intersection should ideally go hand in hand with the construction of the highway so that we really have a one stop shop, and the improvements all come into 35 together so we end up with an optimum outcome? If money was no object and you could do what you wanted to do, is that what you would recommend? MR BELL: I think ideally I think the points that Mr Parker raised about the 40 construction of a project at Hills Street and the effects that that would have, I think you need – if I had all planning power, I think you need to look at those wider network solutions in terms of trying to think about the Matakana Link or another alternative to getting all of the traffic coming from that eastern area through Hill Street, that’s really the 45 problem. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 271 CHAIRPERSON: You appreciate for reasons, which Ms Brosnahan will probably put on us very forcefully later on, this may not be our role but I do take it from your answer, understandably cautious though it was, that you can see merits in the improvements and reconfiguration of this 5 Hill Street intersection going hand in hand with the proposed highway, is that right? MR BELL: I think in an ideal world, yes, you would - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: Exactly. MR BELL: - - - click your fingers and it would be done. CHAIRPERSON: Now, before we hand you back to counsel, has anyone got 15 any questions which you would like to ask arising out of that? MR CHANDLER: I just wondered, Mr Bell, could you just run past us the figures for the peak hour peak traffic through the Hill Street area, the figures that you have used for the design with your chart here for the 20 traffic actually flowing through the intersection and how that compares with the average annual daily traffic through the road there. Have you got those figures reasonably available? [10.55 am] 25 MR BELL: So I can point you to the information that we have got. So within my Transportation and Traffic Assessment Report I have a number of figures in here that provide that information at a high level. If you were to go to page 31. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, which page is this? MR BELL: Page 31, it is figure 13 of my Transportation and Traffic Assessment Report. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR BELL: So that provides an indication of the northbound and southbound flows in 2026 with and without the project in place. It doesn’t detail 40 the exact turning movements that would be taking place at the intersection but it provides you an indication and there is the AADTs below. I have looked at the changes in flows through the intersection between the base case and the project, which I think was your other question. And that showed was that with the project in place there 45 would be a 50 to 60 percent reduction in the movements on State Highway 1 northbound and southbound. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 272 There would be a reduction in the movements left out of Hill Street down towards through Warkworth of some 30 to 40 percent and there would be a corresponding increase in vehicles turning right out and 5 heading up towards the new roundabout. MR CHANDLER: And in your 2026 figures, roughly what is the percentage increase from the present AADT, average annual daily traffic roughly? 10 MR BELL: So if we chose a location, say, north of Woodcocks Road. Sorry, the percentage increase that you are talking about is from when to when? MR CHANDLER: Roughly. From today to 2016. 15 MR BELL: So I have got the model figures that we had for 2009 which was approximately 18,000 – 17,900, and when the project is in place at the same location we are talking about 15,800 so there’s a small reduction of some 2 and a bit thousand. 20 CHAIRPERSON: 2009 is not today, it’s five years ago. MR BELL: That’s correct. We based the model on a 2009 base year. That was because that was the state at which the model was constructed in 25 2010. CHAIRPERSON: When did you last have access to figures, say, over the last six months or do you not have any? 30 MR BELL: So that information is available through the NZTA count system. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chandler’s question was the percentage increase from today to 2000 and whatever it was. 35 MR CHANDLER: Yes. MR BELL: So if were to look at a location south of Mckinney Road because I think that’s where the count site is. There 2012 count was about 18,206 comparing to a 2009 count of about 16 something. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Well, we are moving closer, we are only two years away now. Have you got anything for last year? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 273 [11.00 am] MR BELL: I think that’s the – that was the latest information that was available at the time that I did that analysis. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Mr Withy, any questions? MR WITHY: I certainly don’t want to savage you on Hill Street but I would like to return to that thorny issue, and I’d like you to be very - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: Just want to prick him instead. MR WITHY: Very gently. 15 I’d like you to put two things aside and ask you my questions, the first is, that you happen to work for who you happen to work for, in other words, my questions are to you as an expert (personally), and secondly, I’d like you to set aside the political, if you like, context of the answers. 20 Would you agree with me that the proposals that Mr Williams has deposited for the Hill Street intersection, have traffic engineering merit? MR BELL: I think any works the scale of – I’m assuming you’re talking to 25 the, the Option that sort of took out the park and was, you know, at large. I’m sure with something similar you could achieve some significant capacity improvements. MR WITHY: What do you think the likelihood of that more radical solution, 30 if you like, being adopted by NZTA? MR BELL: So, my understanding is that those sorts of options were looked at. There are issues with the park and in sensitive areas within that – it takes up a large area of space, if – purely from a traffic engineering 35 perspective and you could build wherever you wanted to build, then I’m sure you could do something, you could build a flyover even, but there are other constraints that you’re working under in a location like that, not least of which the community feedback about those sorts of things. 40 MR WITHY: Well of course we have another constraint which Ms Brosnahan has pointed out, and that is our legal ability to impose conditions in relation to Hill Street, but also putting that to one side for the moment. 45 You would agree with me, I’m sure, that the Hill Street intersection is of great concern to virtually all the submitters, would you not? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 274 MR BELL: It does seem to be, yes. MR WITHY: Would you also agree that a more radical solution is more likely 5 to have community support at this stage than what I think Mr Edmonds called a “tweaking of the intersection”? MR BELL: So my understanding is that, there was a project proposed for Hill Street and those wider options were looked at. The feedback from the 10 community was that they didn’t want that big radical solution, in fact that it was squeezed down as part of that – I wasn’t involved in that process so I don’t know. MR WITHY: You were not at the public meeting? Or were - - - 15 MR BELL: So there are two different projects, or two different alterations to Hill Street that we're talking about, there’s the changes to Hill Street that are – that have a designation put in place, and I’m not sure about resource consents, but basically there was a process that the Transport 20 Agency went through to - - - MR WITHY: About four years ago. MR BELL: - - - get approval for those, yes. 25 MR WITHY: Yep. MR BELL: So that was what I was referring to at that particular time. 30 I wasn’t at the public meeting, however, I was at the facilitated meeting where Mr Parker talked about what happened at the meeting, the meeting with the member of parliament and the councillors etcetera, and he said – and the feedback from that was that there was a general agreement that some smaller term improvements could provide some 35 more capacity to the intersection in the short term before our project – before the project we're looking at in terms of the Pūhoi to Warkworth project went in place. MR WITHY: Would it be fair to conclude from that your traffic engineering 40 expertise has been, or the conclusions you might draw from your traffic engineering expertise has been significantly modified by the second hand feedback from the public meeting? MR BELL: No I wouldn’t agree with that. What I’ve done in terms of the 45 assessment is an assessment against the RMA which looks at what’s the effect of putting the project in place, does the project make Hill Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 275 Street any worse? And my assessment has been, no it’s not going to have a large adverse effect on Hill Street. There’s a second question of does there need to be improvements at Hill Street as a project on its own, and I think that’s really what the focus of those discussions has 5 been around rather than the effect of the project that we’re here to talk about. [11.05 am] 10 MR WITHY: Just changing tack slightly, we have to weigh expert traffic evidence. Would you regard Mr Williams as expert in that field? MR BELL: The only thing I know about Mr Williams before this process is what’s in the front of his evidence. He seems to have worked for a 15 large consultancy and been involved in transport projects. MR WITHY: So if you set aside, what I call the political context, and just simply look at it from a traffic engineering point of view, would you agree or not that Mr Williams’ proposal should be given very serious 20 consideration? MR BELL: As part of this process that we’re going through at the moment, which is about the project and the project’s effects, I would say that it is not necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of the project. 25 As a separate matter, is there an opportunity to make Hill Street perform better and address some of the concerns of the submitters that you’ve heard, absolutely. But I’m just trying to draw that distinction between the effects of the project and while it would be nice to do at 30 Hill Street. MR WITHY: Yes, but I presume you would accept that that distinction is not something that is very high in the minds of the residents and submitters. 35 MR BELL: No, it is not, but I think it’s important in the context of this process. MR WITHY: What I called the political context? 40 MR BELL: No, I’m talking about the RMA context of this process where we’re talking about the effects of the scheme proposed. MR WITHY: Okay, thank you. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Mr Parsonson? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 276 MR PARSONSON: Thanks, Mr Bell, just one question, not Hill Street. The roundabout proposed at the northern end of the alignment. Mr Edmonds touched on this yesterday briefly, but could you just 5 provide commentary on the relative performance of the roundabout as opposed to a different type of interchange? MR BELL: So large roundabouts, which is what this is going to be tend to perform quite well from a capacity perspective. If there was a desire 10 not to slow down through traffic, so traffic from the north going into Warkworth, if that was your focus, then a grade-separated interchange would be better because it wouldn’t require them to slow down at all. MR PARSONSON: Is there likely to be some change to that interchange in 15 the future? I mean obviously if the Matakana Link goes in there may be some changes or not, but is there something that’s likely to be reviewed through the detailed design process if a better performance could be achieved in the north-south traffic flow, or indeed to eastern beaches, or is this in your view an appropriately efficient option going 20 forward? MR BELL: I think this is an appropriate option that’s been developed. There’s always the opportunity for innovation if there was a better outcome that was more efficient, it had a lower cost and achieved the 25 same objectives then certainly that would be considered I think. MR PARSONSON: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON: Ms Hunt? 30 MS HUNT: No. MR CHANDLER: Just on the question of the roundabout, what sort of delays do you see caused by traffic on the project turning right with the 35 destination of Matakana whereby traffic on the northern approach to the roundabout from State Highway One has to give-way to that turning traffic; do you see significant delays to traffic coming towards Warkworth due to the Matakana traffic? 40 MR BELL: I looked at that, and the effect of the roundabout is included in the travel time savings that are in my assessment. The thing that you’ve got to remember is that traffic coming north out of Warkworth will go through the roundabout and traffic coming from the project will have to give way so if you got through traffic going from Warkworth heading 45 north then traffic from the project or coming off the project and turning right will have to give way to that traffic. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 277 [11.10 am] The effect of that will be that through traffic will then be able to move 5 through from north through to Warkworth or alternatively onto the project turning right to get onto the project so because there are opposing movements, there are gaps provided in the circulating traffic. The right turners off the project will not have uninterrupted right of way. They will have to way to any traffic coming through and north. 10 Would it be easier if I pointed to the? MR WITHY: Yes, that would help. 15 CHAIRPERSON: We have got a nice little laser light for you here. I think we do. Somebody has stolen it. MR BELL: So as I understand it you are talking about traffic coming down here, going round the roundabout and heading into Warkworth locking 20 traffic coming through and heading into Warkworth? MR WITHY: And also from the north coming down as well? MR BELL: So if you are in this traffic stream here and you want to turn and 25 come back down towards Warkworth, when you enter that roundabout you are going to have to give way to any traffic that is going through. MR WITHY: I see that. 30 MR BELL: When these guys here are giving way to people coming through here that provides a gap for these people to come through and head south or to head onto the project. There are, because you have got opposing flows, then there are gaps provided for people. There were still be an amount of traffic going north from Warkworth or if you are 35 coming from the eastern beaches and wanting to head north or if you are coming north from Warkworth who will go through that roundabout and help provide those gaps. MR WITHY: For traffic coming towards Warkworth from the north, you 40 would not see them being unduly delayed by traffic off the project? MR BELL: If you think that, in broad terms, let us just think of it, the amount of traffic heading north is going to be comparable to the amount of traffic heading north from Warkworth is comparable to the amount of 45 traffic heading south into Warkworth just in broad terms, then going Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 278 through will provide gaps that will allow the traffic coming in the other direction to make that movement. MR WITHY: So the short answer is that traffic from the north would not be 5 unduly delayed, traffic from the north? MR BELL: Yes, that was my assessment. MR WITHY: Thank you. 10 MR PARSONSON: Just on that point, Mr Bell, should this project proceed and the subsequent stage to Wellsford proceed as part of the RoNS’ project will that, and if the connection point was at that roundabout so you see that that roundabout would meet the objectives of that RoNS’ 15 project? MR BELL: So what you are saying is if this road was to continue north, my understanding is that no decision has been made about whether the project goes this way, this way, or this way. It is pretty difficult to say. 20 I think whatever happens the form of this could quite likely change. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lanning? [11.15 am] 35 First of all some questions about the current situation on Moirs Hill Road, can you just confirm that Moirs Hill Road is a local road which – for which Auckland Transport is the road controlling authority? MR BELL: Yes. 40 MR LANNING: And do you also understand that the road is currently designated in the district plan? MR BELL: I do. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 279 MR LANNING: And is it your understanding that Auckland Transport is the requiring authority for that designation? MR BELL: That’s my understanding. 5 MR LANNING: Do you also understand that that designation has no conditions on it? MR BELL: I’m not aware of any conditions that are on it. 10 MR LANNING: So that designation – the existing designation on Moirs Hill Road that would allow for road reconstruction, maintenance type activities, wouldn’t it? 15 MR BELL: I would have thought so, yes. CHAIRPERSON: Just pause for a moment. I notice Mr Bell’s having to lean forward into the mic every time he gives an answer which may be a bit – but would, if he stayed in his chair wouldn’t it pick him up? 20 MR……….: Yes, don’t need to lean back. MR BELL: All right. 25 CHAIRPERSON: It’s just – it’s a directional mic, it’s not a karaoke device, so. MR BELL: Thank you. 30 MR LANNING: Now, Mr Bell, I terms of vehicles and other uses of Moirs Hill Road at the moment, you’re not aware of any restrictions other than the normal restrictions that apply to local roads, are you? MR BELL: Not that I’m aware of. 35 MR LANNING: So there’s no bylaws restricting heavy vehicle movements for instance? MR BELL: Not that I’m aware of. 40 MR LANNING: So that means that, if I could, I could drive a truck up and down Moirs Hill Road as many times as I wanted any time of the day, couldn’t I? 45 MR BELL: I believe so, yes. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 280 MR LANNING: However, if I wanted to do any physical work on the road, dig it up, placing a thing on the road for instance, I would need Auckland Transport approval for that wouldn’t I? 5 MR BELL: Yes. MR LANNING: And is it your understanding that that approval to do works on the road is separate from any resource management approvals that you might need for that work? 10 MR BELL: Yes. MR LANNING: So as things currently stand then, works could be done on Moirs Hill Road, potentially with only approval from Auckland 15 Transport, is that your understanding? MR BELL: That’s my understanding. MR LANNING: Just to be clear, I mean there might be a need for an outline 20 plan of works from the council but that would be all potentially an Auckland Transport approval, as road controlling authority and potentially an outline plan of works from the council? MR BELL: That’s my understanding. It might be better to direct those 25 questions to Ms Sinclair - - - MR LANNING: I thought you might say that. MR BELL: - - - but that would be my understanding. 30 MR LANNING: Now I wanted to just ask you a few questions about the proposed situation. Now in your evidence you’ve concluded that the effects of the 35 construction traffic on Moirs Hill Road can be adequately managed through the CTMP and SSTMP process, that’s correct isn’t it? MR BELL: Yes. 40 MR LANNING: And I understand, from discussions with various people yesterday, that those plans will be essentially approved in inverted commas as part of the outline plan of works process for this project, is that your understanding? 45 MR BELL: It’s my understanding. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 281 MR LANNING: Now, again, these might be questions which you’re not qualified to answer, but is it your understanding that the outline plan of works process involves the council considering a – essentially a draft outline plan of works provided by the requiring authority, is that how 5 the process starts? MR BELL: I’m not precisely aware of all the details of how that happens. MR LANNING: But you are aware that the outline plan of works process 10 involves the council - - - MR BELL: I am, yes. MR LANNING: - - - as regulatory authority, yes. 15 And is also your understanding again – apologies if this is outside your expertise – but if there’s disagreement over the content of the outline plan of works then that matter can go to the Environment Court, are you aware of that? 20 [11.20 am] MR BELL: I would assume if it wasn’t approved then there would be some mechanism to address that. 25 MR LANNING: Now, while the council has to be involved in the outline plan of works process, in Auckland at least now, when it comes to the traffic management aspects of that plan is it your understanding or expectation that the council will in essence defer to the views of Auckland 30 Transport as a road controlling authority? MR BELL: I would have thought so, and there is a condition in the designation that requires them to review it. 35 MR LANNING: So you confirmed the answer to my next question. I assume that is why your proposed conditions include consultation with Auckland Transport and seeking Auckland Transport’s comments, is that correct? 40 MR BELL: Yes, but particularly as they’re the road controlling authority. MR LANNING: Yes. Now in terms of putting together these plans, whose involved in developing these plans, what sort of expertise goes into them? 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 282 MR BELL: Its people with an experience in developing construction traffic management plans, so someone like myself is involved in aspects of that. People have to be qualified as site traffic management supervisors, which is a process that the Transport Agency runs. There would then 5 be a review by the Agency to confirm that they were comfortable with the information that was included, and then it would go for approval by the Auckland Council. MR LANNING: Now I’ve got some vague experience with the safety audits 10 of various management plans, would it be fair to say that – well for instance, can you confirm because I think I know the answer, but can you confirm that qualified safety auditors would be part of this process auditing these plans? 15 MR BELL: In general people with those skills would be involved, yes. MR LANNING: And my vague experience with those processes is, in my terms or the way I describe it, as a very fine-grained analysis of what’s proposed and what measures need to be put in place to deal with any 20 safety issues, would that be fair? MR BELL: So the site specific traffic management plans are the ones that go down into the real detail of where the signs are going to go, exactly what the alignment will look like, where cones would go, those sorts of 25 things. MR LANNING: The colour of the paint on the road, all that sort of thing. MR BELL: Yes. 30 MR LANNING: And as part of these plans, would it be possible, it might not be necessary, but would it be possible for it to be necessary to have limits on the numbers of vehicles using the road at particular times? 35 MR BELL: My experience is that when these sorts of things are developed there is specific consideration of what the effects would be in terms of delays and those sorts of things. For example, when a site traffic management supervisor goes to put their traffic management out on the Auckland motorway network they actually count the number of 40 vehicles going by to confirm that volumes are low enough that it’s safe for them to put that out. So it’s quite detail analyses of that sort of thing. But you also have to provide calculations and things as part of it. MR LANNING: But could it be possible for the plans to have a condition, for 45 instance saying that no more than five heavy vehicles were to leave the construction yard between certain times of the day, just as an example. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 283 MR BELL: I’m sure that would be possible, yes. MR LANNING: Is the requirement of the proposed conditions that the CTMP, 5 or these plans, it’s a requirement that these plans are adhered to and implemented, isn’t it MR BELL: It is, yes, and they are audited by the road controlling authorities to make sure that that is happening. 10 MR LANNING: Again, this might be a planning question. But you’re understanding that if there was a condition requiring or limiting the number of vehicles, and that was breached, that would effectively be a breach of the conditions of the designation, wouldn’t it? 15 MR BELL: Yes, I believe it would be in that situation. MR LANNING: Now, in your experience is the use of these traffic management plans a common sort of standard practice these days? 20 [11.25 am] MR BELL: Most definitely, yes. 25 MR LANNING: And can you give an example of where you’ve been involved in the preparation of a CTMP or SSTMP for a major project? MR BELL: So I’ve been involved in the Telstra Clear ATMS contract, which was putting fibre onto the motorway network. I was the traffic 30 management on the free flow Grafton Gully alliance and I’m currently involved with the causeway project in Auckland. MR LANNING: And to what extent - - - 35 CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just – causeway? Which causeway? MR BELL: So State Highway 16 going across where they are widening and building up the motorway - - - 40 CHAIRPERSON: To the other – yes. All right, thank you. MR LANNING: To what extent when those documents were being put together is there input from stakeholders, and in particular affected land owners and occupiers? 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 284 MR BELL: In circumstances where they will be affected it’s very standard, a lot of the way the projects are run there are key performance indicators around community involvement, stakeholder engagement and also in terms of traffic performance – so are you causing delays, that sort of 5 thing. So examples would be on the Grafton Gully project that I worked on there were a large number of business that fronted State Highway 16 towards the port there was a large amount of disruption that was 10 necessary to put large pipes in the ground, so there was regular contact with those people. MR LANNING: And would you say to summarise that this approach to managing construction traffic works? 15 MR BELL: Certainly in my experience it is, and it’s a very good way of maintaining safety and ensuring that the effects on the network are minimised and mitigated. 20 MR LANNING: Now the Proposed Condition 22 refers to the New Zealand Transport Agency Code of Practice for temporary traffic management (COPTMM). In a – and I don’t want you to sort of give - - - 25 MR BELL: Yes? MR LANNING: - - - an extensive answer to this, but briefly what is the purpose of referring to that document in these conditions? 30 MR BELL: The Code of Practice sets out the requirements for a site specific traffic management plan - when they need to be produced, what needs to be included in them. It includes standard layouts that are acceptable, what needs to happen in a long term or a short term closure and those 35 sorts of things. So it’s quite an extensive document that provides that guidance. MR LANNING: And how does that document provide for people who may be affected by the construction traffic? 40 MR BELL: Well I think it requires that to be considered when the plan is put together. You will need to show how you cater for the different road users or different people who will be affected in terms of property access, those sorts of things, and then that will have to be approved by 45 the road controlling authority. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 285 MR LANNING: Okay. Now, I wasn’t going to but I’m going to ask you some questions about Hill Street. It’s probably dangerous. CHAIRPERSON: I was just thinking, would that be a suitable break point? 5 MR LANNING: It could be, sir, yes - I might reconsider whether I should ask the question. CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I’m not deterring you. We need as much assistance 10 as we can get in this area I think. Just, Mr Lanning, one of the – this is not a criticism of you, but you weren’t here to give an opening on Monday. So openings are sometimes helpful because it gives adjudicators an opportunity to elicit questions across examination through – well, gives a site focus. 15 Is it going to be Auckland Transport’s stance that this Board has no jurisdiction to do anything in respect of Moirs Hill Road? MR LANNING: No, sir. 20 CHAIRPERSON: It’s not? MR LANNING: No. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Well I just thought there was a certain element of triumph when you indicated that you could drive innumerable heavy trucks up and down Moirs Hill Road without any restriction at all. MR LANNING: No, I think - - - 30 CHAIRPERSON: I was hoping you weren’t proposed to do this. MR LANNING: No, sir. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. As we understand it Moirs Hill Road is going to be subject to some form of consent and I take it that Auckland Transport accepts that in terms of the relevant part of the RMA we do have jurisdiction to put in consents and conditions in that area. 40 MR LANNING: Yes. No, the point, sir, was just to make it clear that at the moment quite a high level of adverse effect could be generated on that road. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 45 MR LANNING: That’s the point. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 286 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but - - - MR LANNING: That’s our starting point and - - - 5 CHAIRPERSON: But the evidence suggests that they’re not convoys of heavy trucks rattling up down so mitigation becomes an issue, doesn’t it? MR LANNING: Yes. Yes, that’s correct, sir. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Oh well, that’s where we are still on the same page then. That’s helpful. We’ll take a 15 minute break, thank you. ADJOURNED [11.30 am] 15 RESUMED [11.46 am] REGISTRAR: Please ensure that cell phones are off, thank you everybody. 20 Please all rise for Members of the Board. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. REGISTRAR: Please be seated. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please continue, Mr Lanning. MR LANNING: Thank you, sir. 30 Mr Bell, I just want to ask you a couple of questions about Hill Street and apologies in advance if these come across as patsy questions - so a lots been – there have been a lot of questions around the current state of the Hill Street intersection and how, I think there’s general agreement that it’s not performing as well as it should, was that sort of a succinct 35 summary to the situation? MR BELL: I think so. CHAIRPERSON: Now what was your answer, was it yes, was it? 40 MR BELL: Yes, sir, yes. [ALL LAUGHING HERE] 45 MR LANNING: Now you were also asked some questions assuming that you had supreme powers to implement whatever traffic improvements you Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 287 thought were necessary, but just looking across the wider Auckland region. Are there other intersections or parts of the State Highway and arterial 5 road network which similarly could be improved because they’re not performing as they should? MR BELL: Yes. 10 MR LANNING: And are there other areas within that network where there is significant queuing that would be greater than that normally experienced at the Hill Street intersection/ MR BELL: Yes there is. 15 MR LANNING: And with those examples that you must have in mind, would it be that queuing, that significant queuing occurs on a daily basis? MR BELL: That’s correct, in a – yeah, in a – on a typical working day. 20 MR LANNING: And so overall in a regional context, while the Hill Street queuing is not unusual, would that be fair? MR BELL: It’s not unusual but I can understand why people get frustrated by 25 it. MR LANNING: Yes. But going back to the questions about if you had the “supreme powers”, there are other parts of the network which you would also want to fix up as well, aren’t there? 30 MR BELL: There are. CHAIRPERSON: Give me one example. 35 MR BELL: So the road through Kohimarama my - - - MR BELL: - - - my hometown that you asked about earlier on. CHAIRPERSON: Tamaki Drive? 40 MR BELL: So there are parts of Kohimarama Road that queue if you were to travel through there on a week day, you would have to sit through a number of cycles to get through the intersections there. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 288 MR LANNING: And – you caused me to ask another question, sir, and would there be some examples close to where we are now in terms of around the Silverdale motorway intersection? 5 [11.50 am] MR BELL: That’s another location where there are currently issues, yes. MR LANNING: No more questions, sir. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lanning. Ms Vella? 15 MS VELLA: Thank you, sir. Mr Bell, I’m just going to pick up on some questions that were asked by Mr Dillon yesterday and the Board, and indeed by Mr Lanning just now, in relation to the traffic management plan. In particular those questions reflected concerns that related to who’s going to prepare the management plans, what they’ll address, 20 accountability and approval processes. So in light of that, my questions are going to focus on the adequacy of the conditions and in particular whether your evidence and recommendations are properly reflected in those conditions. 25 I’m going to refer the Transmission Gully and Water View conditions, and they are at, for the Board’s purposes, they’re at volume 5, tab 36, for Transmission Gully, and volume 6, tab 37 of the common bundle for Water View. I’m not sure that you have them – you might need a 30 copy of those. MS VELLA: That was Transmission Gully’s volume 5, tab 36. Have you found those conditions? 35 MR BELL: I’ve got the - - - MS VELLA: Volume 5, tab 36 of Transmission Gully. CHAIRPERSON: This is of the common bundle? 40 MS VELLA: The common bundle. CHAIRPERSON: Has the witness got the common bundle on the table? 45 MS …………..: Yes, he has. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 289 CHAIRPERSON: He has, thank you. Tab 36. MR BELL: I’ve got tab 36, yes. 5 MS VELLA: That’s the conditions for Transmission Gully I hope? MR BELL: Yes, I’m just trying to see Transmission Gully written on the front it to be honest. Okay, this just says Transit New Zealand. I’m not sure that they would be for Transmission Gully. 10 MS VELLA: Perhaps if I could have a copy of the common bundle. CHAIRPERSON: What page do these conditions start on Ms Vella? I mean what we’ve got behind tab 36 is the Transmission Gully report. 15 MS VELLA: Yes, that’s volume 5, tab 36? CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well this is 252 page report of a Board headed by Judge Dwyer. 20 MS VELLA: Sorry, sir, I don’t have copy – do you have another copy of the report? Sorry, if I can just have a look at that report and I can direct Mr Chairman to the correct page. Sorry, sir, the conditions are attached to the report. 25 Sorry, sir, I’ve misled you, it’s tab 37 for Transmission Gully. The Water View conditions are at tab 38. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Ms Vella, just focus in on what it is you’re trying to ask him questions about, that’s at a very high level at the moment. [11.55 am] 35 MS VELLA: So, Mr Bell, were you involved in the Transmission Gully and Waterview projects? MR BELL: I led the them that produced the transport assessments for Transmission Gully and I drafted the draft construction traffic 40 management plan. MS VELLA: That draft construction traffic management plan like the one for the Waterview case was provided as part of the application process to the Board of Inquiry? Is that correct? 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 290 MR BELL: That is my understanding. In terms of involvement in Waterview, I was part of one of the consortia that tendered for the Waterview project and also part of the team that is delivering the causeway project which I understand in part of the same. 5 MS VELLA: Do you accept that providing drafts of management plans including construction traffic management plans is a relatively common practice? 10 MR BELL: I have certainly seen it before. MS VELLA: That provision for a draft for the Board’s view would be one way of providing some comfort to the Board and to submitters as to the types of things that a construction traffic management plan might 15 address specific to that proposal? MR BELL: It would be one way. MS VELLA: Is there any reason why NZTA has elected not to provide a draft 20 as part of that process? MR BELL: I think that question is better directed at one of the planners of NZTA. 25 MS VELLA: You were not asked to provide one? MR BELL: I was not asked to provide one because there is an outline plan of works process as part of this application so there is no waiver required. 30 MS VELLA: Okay, so I am just going to turn to the designation conditions for this project, those that govern construction traffic management plans starting at condition 17. Condition 17 is the condition that requires NZTA to prepare and implement a construction traffic management plan, is that correct? 35 MR BELL: It is correct. MS VELLA: It also sets out the purpose and objectives of the CTMP? 40 MR BELL: That is correct. MS VELLA: The purpose of the CTMP is to set out the minimum standards to be adopted for the implementation of temporary traffic management is that right? 45 MR BELL: That is correct. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 291 MS VELLA: What type of standard do you expect to be addressed in that document? 5 MR BELL: I would expect that as part of that document you will set out the construction methodology and the overall way that you intend to undertake the construction traffic management. It would include compliance with the code of practice for temporary traffic management which is a key document in this area. There are a number of other 10 standard things that would need to be included for signs and lines and things like that. MS VELLA: It is required to set up minimum standards to be adopted what standards would it set out, compliance with the code of practice? 15 MR BELL: It would set up compliance with the code of practice if there were any particular issues that needed to be addressed specific to this project, then those would then be included as well. 20 MS VELLA: No other minimum standards to be addressed? The condition says it sets out minimum standards and ordinarily standards are things that you need to comply with and I am just wondering whether that is the intention or not? 25 MR BELL: That would the intention of the plan, it would set out how that you would need to comply with, as I said, the code of practice for temporary traffic management other standards in terms of signs and lines and markings and those sorts of things. It would also require you to produce site specific traffic management plans and have them 30 approved in a particular way if there was other ways that you were going to do it that were different to what the (INDISTINCT 4.29) says but I do not think that would usually be the case. MS VELLA: Then condition 17, the very end of that says the purpose of the 35 CTMP is to advance the following objectives and there is a list of four objectives, at page 34 of your construction traffic report at the very top you recommended that the Transport Agency should complete CTMP and that the CTMP would typically include the following objectives, you have about 11 objectives in that list, but the list of objectives at 17 40 is much shorter and much less specific than your list of recommendations, isn’t it? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 292 [12.00 pm] MR BELL: The list is shorter. As part of the process of developing the conditions we sat down with the project team and said, “Well, what do 5 we actually want to achieve”, and these things generally fit in under the objectives that we’ve got in the condition. MS VELLA: So you’re satisfied that your list on page 34, is covered by the more generic list, if I may say, that in condition 17? 10 MR BELL: I’m comfortable that they are generally included, yes. MS VELLA: So in terms of that list on page 34, where’s the requirement to comply with the code of practice wherever practicable – practical, sorry 15 – practicable – where does that fit in? MR BELL: Sorry, I just have to go back to my conditions there – this condition 22 that says that the SSTMPs that would be produced under the construction traffic management plan, would need to be consistent 20 with the version of the Transport’s Agency code of practice for temporary traffic management which applies at the time. MS VELLA: So the site specific plans have to be consistent with rather than comply with – “comply fully with” which is the wording in your 25 recommendation, is that correct? MR BELL: That is what the wording says, yes. MS VELLA: And your recommendation is, that the – sorry, so your 30 comfortable that the requirement to comply with code of practice sits underneath the site specific traffic management plans rather than the general overview one? MR BELL: I’m comfortable with that – I mean I noted there are procedures 35 within the code of practice that things can be varied for good reason through an engineering exemption decision, so if there was a need to – because it was impractical to be able to meet the requirements of the code, then there are alternatives that – there’s a process for approving that alternative. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Ms Vella, is the point of this cross-examination which is to assist the Board to establish that, at the moment, NZTA has only in a very broad way but in any specific way, set out the appropriate content of proposed traffic management plans, is that where this is heading? 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 293 MS VELLA: That’s right, sir, and whether or not the CTMPs and the SSTMPs in particular and perhaps I should - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 5 MS VELLA: - - - skip to those, could be or should be – the detail of those be more specifically provided for in the condition - - - CHAIRPERSON: Mm. 10 MS VELLA: - - - so that the Board can be comfortable and obviously submitters and landowners and the public can be comfortable that what ordinarily might be contain in a specific site traffic management plan is that they can be directed to that via the question. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Well there has to be some flexibility as the witness has indicated and we, yesterday looked at this whole issue of delegation and enforcement in detail and “devil being in the detail” or “lack of detail” so and so forth. 20 MS VELLA: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I just ask one question this way, Mr Bell, having listened as you have been to the thrust of Ms Vella’s questions, do you 25 think there would be some merit in NZTA being able to provide this Board in due course with some of the specific detail which would be appropriate to the various types of management plan – traffic management plans which will be necessary during the construction phase? 30 MR BELL: So even it – I don’t think it’s necessary, even - - - CHAIRPERSON: But - - - 35 MR BELL: - - - and the reason is that, even for example, the Transmission Gully draft management plan that I produced, is, it doesn’t set limits on things, or it doesn’t do – it basically says the way that you will address particular issues as they arise. So I think I would have to answer that question - - - 40 [12.05 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Limits is a topic in itself, isn’t it? We are not going to sit down and work out how many trucks per hour should go along Moirs 45 Hill Road, but at some stage somebody is going to have to turn their Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 294 mind to that and sort out limits et cetera, speed limits, all sorts of things. MR BELL: So I believe that is specifically included for in the condition that 5 requires a site specific traffic management plan for Moirs Hill Road which specifically includes an assessment of pedestrian, cyclists and equestrian safety and gives consideration to the establishment of - - - CHAIRPERSON: So is it your evidence that the wording of the consents 10 sought at the moment are adequate? MR BELL: That’s what I consider, yes. CHAIRPERSON: Right, Ms Vella? 15 MS VELLA: Okay, thank you. Just looking at condition 18, so condition 18 actually specifies what the CTMP has to include. In your construction evidence at page 4 you 20 have a footnote 4 which says that the CTMP defines how and when the contractor will be required to consult with stakeholders. Do you think that it is worthwhile for the CTMP condition specifying that the CTMP should address those issues? 25 I mean, there’s a 17D, one of the objectives is to inform the public, but do you accept that consultation is different to informing the public about these things? MR BELL: I think that would happen in any case, so I can’t see an issue with 30 that sort of thing being included in the conditions. MS VELLA: So but condition 18 might include a requirement a consult with owners or landowners of specific properties. 35 MR BELL: I don’t think that is what I say, I think I said that it would talk about the requirements and who needed to be consulted and when rather than a requirement to consult. MS VELLA: Okay. Now just moving to the topic of how the CTMP is 40 approved – condition 19 requires the Transport Agency to provide the CTMP to Auckland Transport 60 working days in advance. Is that correct? MR BELL: Yes. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 295 MS VELLA: And yesterday you gave evidence that the CTMP would be provided to Auckland Transport to review, comment and approve – do you recall that? 5 MR BELL: I think what I said was that it would be for Auckland transport to review and comment. It would be for Auckland Council to approve if I said the opposite I was mistaken. MS VELLA: Okay. So you agree that condition 19 doesn’t have an approval 10 role for Auckland transport at all? MR BELL: No, it doesn’t. But I just note that they are the road controlling authority, so they have to approve the site specific traffic management plans that are produced under this. 15 MS VELLA: As the road controlling authority? MR BELL: Yes. 20 MS VELLA: Yes. And yesterday you gave evidence that the CTMP would be provided as part of the outlined plan of works process. Is there anywhere in the conditions that requires that to be provided as part of that process? 25 MR BELL: I am not aware of any, but Ms Sinclair might be better placed to answer that. MS VELLA: Okay. The Chairman asked you whether the contractor or the Agency formulates the CTMP and your response was that it depends on 30 the way the contract is put together, but that it needs approval by Auckland Council – and you said this just before – and asked whether the council’s role is one of certification that the plan addresses what is required by the conditions, or whether it had a broader role to play in confirming that the adverse effects will be mitigated by the measures 35 proposed. And you said the Auckland Council has – we may need to check with Ms Sinclair – but the Auckland Council has a role in making sure the effects of the project are managed. Condition 19 doesn’t have a provision for Auckland Council to 40 approved this CTMP, is there? Either in a certifying capacity or a broader, evaluative capacity. MR BELL: No. I guess I was saying that on the basis that it would be produced as part of the outlined plan of works. 45 MS VELLA: But there is no specific requirement in the condition? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 296 MR BELL: I can’t see one. CHAIRPERSON: Should there be? 5 [12.10 pm] MR BELL: I don’t see there would be an issue with including a condition like that. I think it would happen in any case. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Well I guess on a jurisdictional basis Auckland Council is the territorial authority which is relevant, but it’s probably quite a good idea for this Board to actually specify who’s got to carry the responsibility for getting the management plans right, is it not? 15 MR BELL: Yes, good clarity would be good. CHAIRPERSON: Good, okay. Next issue? 20 MS VELLA: Thank you. Condition 20 requires the preparation and implementation of the site specific traffic management plan where any construction activity varies the normal traffic conditions. Can you describe in what circumstances they’d be required, does that mean, where for example you have a situation where there’s more traffic at 25 the Hill Street intersection or increased traffic at Woodcocks Road there would be an SSTMP for those locations? MR BELL: In general, a site specific traffic management plan is required if you’re doing works on the road, so you’re actually affecting the 30 conditions on the road itself. It’s also common if there are construction vehicles that need to use accesses or that are basically going to, as the wording suggests, the conditions of the road that one would be produced. So for example Moirs Hill Road, I would expect there would be one produced. 35 Whether there would be a need for one at Hill Street - I’m not sure that the kind of volumes that we’re talking about would meet that definition of affecting the traffic conditions. 40 MS VELLA: Varying the normal traffic. MR BELL: Varying the normal traffic conditions, I think that you would probably consider that that would be similar to the normal traffic conditions at Hill Street. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 297 MS VELLA: So your assessment that you undertook, which had 29 heavy vehicles moving through Hill Street, was it in an hour, I think from memory, doesn’t vary the normal traffic conditions of the road? 5 MR BELL: I wouldn’t consider it to do, no. MS VELLA: Again, there’s nothing in condition 20 that requires the SSTMP to be approved by you or Auckland Transport or Auckland Council, it has to be prepared in consultation with Auckland Transport but not 10 approved by Auckland Transport? MR BELL: If Auckland Transport are the roading controlling authority they will need to approve it. 15 MS VELLA: Via a separate process? MR BELL: Via a separate process, yes. MS VELLA: Okay. 20 MR BELL: But any site specific traffic management plan that’s produced would have to be approved by the road controlling authority, be that Auckland Transport or the Transport Agency, or probably quite likely both if there are effects on both of their road networks. 25 MS VELLA: One of your recommendations was to submit an SSTMP for approval five days in advance of implementation, and I noticed that both the Water View and the Transmission Gully conditions require that either five or 10 days in advance. There is no timeframe in these 30 conditions is there? MR BELL: No there’s not. I’d have to check and talk to my – I think there is a requirement for five days prior. 35 MS VELLA: In the conditions? MR BELL: No, I think within the Code of Practice, I think there’s a requirement, I’d have to check that. 40 MS VELLA: And if there’s not, should they be in the conditions, is that an appropriate timeframe? MR BELL: I think that’s an appropriate timeframe. 45 MS VELLA: So just looking at site specific management plans, condition 21, the first part of that condition says – there’s two parts of that condition, Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 298 the first sentence “requires site specific plans to describe the measures the Agency will take to manage traffic effects associated with the construction of the project”. If there’s not to be a site specific management plan for situations such as Hill Street or Woodcocks 5 Road, how are the effects on those roads going to be managed? MR BELL: I think that will be considered as part of the construction traffic management plan initially, which sets out when SSTMP’s will be required. 10 MS VELLA: Okay. MR BELL: If there was to be a large volume of trucks for example going through Hill Street intersection, as we said likely to vary the normal 15 operating conditions, then I believe that that would probably be required then. MS VELLA: So that would be set out in the overview document? 20 MR BELL: That’s my understanding, yes. [12.15 pm] MS VELLA: The high level one. Now, the second part of that condition says 25 that the purpose of the Site Specific Traffic Management Plan is to identify specific construction methods proposed to address particular circumstances. Is it just construction methods that need to be identified in the Site Specific Traffic Management Plan? 30 MR BELL: The construction measures determine what’s going to happen to the road network. So if you were to need to dig a hole in a lane then you will need to close that lane, for example. MS VELLA: Isn’t the purpose of the Site Specific Traffic Management Plan 35 to actually avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of construction traffic on the roading network or at specific sites? MR BELL: I think what the purpose of the Site Specific Traffic Management Plan is to identify what works are going to take place, show how that’s 40 going to be done safely without causing undue disruption to any road users. MS VELLA: So condition 21 is the only condition, other than those specific ones in 23, that tells us what the Site Specific Traffic Management Plan 45 should address, isn’t it? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 299 MR BELL: There is also the requirements of the code of practice which is required in 22 below which sets out in more detail what would be included. 5 MS VELLA: Okay. Just looking at the Waterview conditions, condition TT3 which is temporary traffic condition 3. That condition, the header of that condition says, “Each Site Specific Traffic Management Plan shall describe the measures that will be undertaken to avoid, remedy or mitigate the local and network wide effects of construction of the 10 project. In particular the plan shall include the following matters…” And then it sets out some quite specific matters that the Site Specific Traffic Management Plan should address, including maintaining traffic capacity on roads, particularly during peak periods, managing effects of 15 traffic during construction including requirement to detour or divert traffic, which was one of your recommendations. It has got quite a long list of matters that would be specific to that project but that the Site Specific Traffic Management Plan should address, so it gives quite some direction as to what they should address, is that right, do you 20 agree with that? MR BELL: I haven’t got it in front of me but, yes, I am prepared to accept that is what it says. 25 MS VELLA: So can you just explain why that similar approach hasn’t been taken in this case because condition 21 doesn’t really seem to give very much direction as to what that should address, what those traffic management plans should really address? 30 MR BELL: So I think it says that “traffic effects associated with the construction of the project to achieve the objectives in condition 17”. Condition 17 talks about safety, delays, interruption to property access and informing the public. 35 MS VELLA: So they are very generic headings but nothing specific? MR BELL: They are but there are also requirements, as I said, within the code of practice to include specific things within an SSTMP as well. 40 MS VELLA: Do you accept that the type of condition that TT3 is in the Waterview conditions might provide the Board and submitters with more comfort that your specific recommendations at page 34 of your traffic report would be considered and addressed in the preparation of the management plans and the current conditions? 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 300 MR BELL: So I think the conditions that we have got adequately cover all of those issues. A matter of comfort I guess is for the Board. MS VELLA: But it wouldn’t be inappropriate to adopt that sort of approach, 5 would it? MR BELL: I don’t think it would be inappropriate, I am not sure that it is necessary. 10 MS VELLA: Turning back to page 34 of your Construction Traffic Report, the second part of that page contains some specific recommendations that NZTA should address when developing the Construction Management Plan and Site Specific Management Plans? 15 [12.20 pm] MR BELL: Sorry, could you just give me that reference again? MS VELLA: Yes, page 34 of your Construction Traffic Report. And 20 essentially this list picks up all of your recommendations that you have made previously in your report in your consideration of specific issues. I could only find one of those recommendations that has been specifically reflected in the conditions, and that relates to movements of heavy vehicles past Woodcocks Road at the beginning and the end 25 of the day, are there any others? MR BELL: As I said before I think these are picked up generically in the conditions that are there so that these would need to be considered when you are producing the plans. 30 MS VELLA: But none of your specific recommendations are reflected in the direction given in the condition to develop site specific management plans or what that should address? 35 MR BELL: Well, they are reflected in to the extent that you would need to consider them. MS VELLA: Where in the condition does it require NZTA to consider this list? 40 MR BELL: It doesn’t require them to consider this specific list but I think, just having skimmed down this again, that these issues would be picked up in, you know, meeting the objectives set out in condition 17. 45 MS VELLA: Just by way of example, picking up on Mr Dillon’s concern that he expressed yesterday in his questions, which related to school Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 301 children on existing State Highway 1 in the context where there are heavy vehicle movements up and down the road and school children are waiting for buses, and that sort of thing. On page 35, so it’s the end of that list, you have recommended the provision of suitable set down 5 areas for bus services to facilitate boarding and alighting, it wouldn’t be inappropriate for the conditions to require that specific issue to be addressed in the SSTMP, would it? MR BELL: I think it would be considered as part of the SSTMP. So, for 10 example, at Pūhoi when the project is being constructed if, for example, the traffic management measures were going to take out the place that the bus normally stops at the moment, you would have to look to provide an alternative for that. And I believe that would be picked up as part of the Construction Traffic Management Plans or the SSTMP 15 for that site because you would look at all the road users and you would see how they were affected and you would come up with a different solution. So in the same way that, if something is happening on roads in Auckland and a bus stop is closed, there is another or you are guided to another one safely. 20 MS VELLA: So you are saying that all the specific recommendations that you have made, having assessed the proposal and the potential impacts of the proposal on the roading network, on passenger vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, your recommendations will simply be picked up by NZTA 25 in undertaking its ordinary course of preparing a Site Specific Management Plan but there is no need for the conditions to provide any more specificity around the types of issues that the Site Specific Management Plan should address? 30 MR BELL: Well, not at the moment because we don’t know exactly what those effects will be, we don’t know exactly how that will be constructed. I think the generic conditions that we have got ensure that those issues will be picked up. 35 MS VELLA: Why are - - - CHAIRPERSON: Ms Vella, I think you have asked a number of questions on this and you are effectively getting much the same answer. 40 MS VELLA: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: And it is a philosophical issue here as to the amount of detail and specificity which may be required, and I don’t think Mr Bell is going to change his stance which, from his point of view, may be 45 justified but it may well be in some or all areas we have our own views on the Traffic Management Plan, And my suggestion is, unless you Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 302 think you have got a rabbit killer question there, that this be a matter for submission. I think you have helpfully highlighted the issue for the Board so perhaps, unless there is something else there, you could move on to another topic if there are any. 5 MS VELLA: I don’t have any killer questions, sir, I just thought I would flesh out the detail for the Board in order to assist you - - - CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think that was very good but on each one of these, 10 the subtopics which you have raised, he is giving the same answer, isn’t he? MS VELLA: Yes, he is but, of course, I don’t have the right to make submissions. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Well, we may ask you to. MS VELLA: Okay. 20 CHAIRPERSON: You may not but I certainly feel at some stage, subject to what other counsel may think, it is an issue where you feel you can raise topics for the Board’s consideration without necessarily urging one position or the other. 25 [12.25 pm] MS VELLA: Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON: And you for your part, Ms Brosnahan, you need to take 30 aboard the fact that there may well be areas where, including in terms of mitigating risk and threats to public safety must be a risk, where maybe some degree of specificity is needed, but quite obviously we can’t work out what a common factor might want to do in five years’ time in a certain area, but there’s certain things which need to be there 35 and certainly tying in Auckland Transport’s to make sure that it fulfils its obligations is sensible in my view. Does that help, Ms Brosnahan, from your point of view? You’re comfortable with that approach? 40 MS BROSNAHAN: Certainly, sir, I might - - - CHAIRPERSON: And that may curtail the number of questions you need to ask Ms Vella, sorry. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 303 MS VELLA: There are just a couple of questions I can put to Mr Bell which hopefully will and - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, well your - - - 5 MS VELLA: Yes, yes, certainly, but your - - - CHAIRPERSON: - - - your turn, your turn lies ahead, yes, yes. 10 MS VELLA: Your questions run along the same line as mine, thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Right - - - MS VELLA: Thank you, sir. 15 CHAIRPERSON: - - - proceed. MS VELLA: In that case we're – I just had a couple of questions in relation to the construction effects on Hill Street, in your rebuttal evidence, at 20 paragraph 48 and I think this is a subject of a question to Mr Parker from Mr Parsonson yesterday, you propose a condition that will require NZTA to consider effects on operation of Hill Street as part of the CTMP once the methodologies developed. 25 You say: “An appropriately worded condition could be included”, is that condition been picked up – has that recommendation been put into the conditions? MR BELL: Not that I’m aware, no. 30 MS VELLA: Is there any reason why not? MR BELL: I’m not certain. I think it’s – I said at the start, although I do not consider that changes to conditions are necessary to mitigate the effects 35 of the project, I consider - - - MS VELLA: Yes, but you propose a new condition to address Mr Williams concerns. 40 MR BELL: Certainly. CHAIRPERSON: But obviously, I mean this is common sense, isn’t it? If the constructor or whoever takes over construction of the proposed highway, decides that they’re going to bring all their metal and other 45 supplies in from the south, rather than from Matakana based quarries, well then the construction – the effect of construction traffic is going to Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 304 be quantitively different from what it would be, either way, and ditto with where the contractor may want to take away excess soil, we just don’t know at the moment do we? 5 MR BELL: No, but - - - CHAIRPERSON: It would be idle, would it not, Mr Bell, to say that we just leave it all open ended and if the Hill Street intersection is going to be subjected to considerable volume of construction that nothing should 10 be done in the actual condition? MR BELL: I’m not suggesting that nothing should be done. CHAIRPERSON: No, yes. But you are saying is “wait and see”? 15 MR BELL: I’m saying, wait and see whether the contractor is going to direct all the traffic through the Matakana - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that’s just what I’ve said, isn’t it? 20 MR BELL: - - - for example, and then if they are, then that issue needs to be addressed. CHAIRPERSON: Exactly. 25 MS VELLA: Thank you, sir, and the point of question was really only that Mr Bell has proposed a question, it hasn’t shown up in the conditions I don’t want it - - - 30 CHAIRPERSON: Exactly, yeah, right. MS VELLA: - - - to fall through the cracks. CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, you’re booting him into action. 35 MS VELLA: Or somebody else. And at paragraph 47 I think Mr Williams raised this question with you, half way down you say, “The Transport Agency could require project 40 related vehicles to change their routes to avoid entering Hill Street”, and I think Mr Williams asked whether there was a possible route that avoided Hill Street, but I’m not – I don’t think you answered the question, is there one? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 305 MR BELL: So, ah – so I think that from Hills Street intersection from the Matakana arm, so I think there is a route that goes over the back and then back through onto State Highway 1 to the north. 5 MS VELLA: Okay. MR BELL: So you could do that or you could have traffic go in a different way, so I think some of the quarries have trucks that go that way anyway. 10 MS VELLA: Okay. So, and again, you’ll say this is a matter left for later, but it would be open to the Board then, given that there isn’t a possible option, to require the avoidance of Hill Street altogether if it was satisfied that the potential effects of construction traffic on the 15 intersection was such that that, that approach should be adopted? [12.30 pm] MR BELL: I think so, but I think in doing that you would have to think about 20 when the volume of trucks and also when that volume of trucks would affect the intersections. On a Sunday evening, it would not be a particularly good idea to send a whole lot of trucks through at that point, but that would not mean that you would say that you could not send trucks through Hill Street at all. 25 MS VELLA: Another option might be to have a specific condition that restrict vehicle movements to avoid peak periods very similar to condition 24D which restricts the timing of truck movements passed Mahurangi College? 30 MR BELL: Yes, that is correct. MS VELLA: Philosophically speaking there is no difference between those two? 35 MR BELL: I think in terms of the potential impacts that I felt quite strongly that we needed to do something about the trucks passed the school during those periods because of the potential safety issues that come along with that. I think it is prudent that that condition is there for the 40 school because there is a particular safety issue that could arise there. MS VELLA: Another option might be if the Board was concerned about to allay the submitters concerns I suppose about Hill Street would be to require NZTA to monitor the effects on Hill Street and review the use 45 of the Hill Street intersection if necessary? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 306 MR BELL: Certainly. MS VELLA: And of course that is not because of the approach that NZTA have taken that is not specified in the construction traffic management 5 plan at this stage? MR BELL: It is not specified in there but you are required to consider what the effects of construction traffic will be. 10 MS VELLA: There is no requirement to monitor that on an ongoing basis and then review whether or not that particular route is appropriate? MR BELL: No, no specific requirement, no. 15 MS VELLA: There is no requirement either to review the site specific management plan at a certain stage, say for example a certain time period after the implemented or if things have changed that might trigger a need to review that? 20 MR BELL: I think those plans would be continuously being monitored as I said. They will be audited over time and if any particular issues arise then the road controlling authority will request that they are looked at and addressed. 25 MS VELLA: Are you aware that the Waterview condition specifically require monitoring of construction traffic and then review of the SSTMPs? MR BELL: I am willing to accept that that is what they say if that is what you have said. 30 MS VELLA: Condition 23 requires an SSTMP prepared for Moirs Hill Road and in that to give consideration for the establishment of a liaison group with local residents, do you think that the liaison group is an appropriate mechanism for addressing public concerns? 35 MR BELL: I think it would be an appropriate mechanism for addressing concerns of the locals that live along the road, yes. MS VELLA: Do you think that a similar approach might be adopted in 40 relation to Woodcocks Road which is going to be the subject of quite a large in the volume of traffic? MR BELL: I think the roads are quite different. One is a local road, the others are I think classified as an arterial, I think Woodcocks Road is 45 classified as an arterial, I have got it in my notes here somewhere. It carries in the order of 2,500 vehicles a day already and trucks and those Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 307 sorts of things. There will be a stakeholder and consultation plan that is produced as part of the project and I assume that they will be included in the normal course of events. 5 MS VELLA: If I just move on to Hill Street intersection briefly because I think it has been done this morning quite a lot. I just wanted to clarify with you in your traffic report at page 14, your original base case assessment included low cost changes to Hill Street but were required as a result of changed traffic patterns resulting from the new 10 motorway? MR BELL: Sorry page 14? [12.35 pm] 15 MS VELLA: So at page 14, under 2.4.2 – so that was contained in your original base case, and I think later on you undertook an assessment without those changes, and I understand that you have assessed the effects on Hill Street as neutral or slightly positive. But I just wanted to 20 clarify with you, in your last paragraph you say that “without these changes delays at the Hill Street intersection were forecast to increase significantly”. MR BELL: So I think it is just important to note what the project that I 25 included was, and that as we have said previously, was designed at a time where we didn’t think that the – the project hadn’t been envisaged at that point. So it was set up to have a number of lanes turning right into Matakana Road, and a number of lanes turning left out with less capacity going north. 30 So what we did in the modelling then was basically to change those lane arrangements around so that we provided more capacity for traffic turning right out of Sandspit-Matakana to head towards the project – so rather than having two lanes turning left at the intersection there were 35 two lanes turning right at the intersection, so that was part of that initial assessment that I did. Subsequently I did an assessment which basically left the Hill Street intersection as it is at the moment. It is not possible to provide 40 additional lanes turning right out of Sandspit-Matakana for example, because there is only one lane for them to go into on the northbound carriageway for example. So that is the difference. MS VELLA: Okay. The changes though that you have set out at 2.4.2 45 essentially arise as a result of the motorway itself, don’t they? And the need for them arises as a result of the commissioning of the motorway? MR BELL: So should the Hill Street project as previously envisaged be constructed, then you would need to change the lane markings. Even if Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 308 that project is not constructed you will have to change the traffic signal timing. Those are sort of operational rather than sort of large scale changes – that is what you would do as a road controlling authority to meets the requirements of the changing travel patterns. 5 MS VELLA: But you are suggesting that the southbound approach would need to be widened. MR BELL: Yes, that was to provide some additional left turning capacity in 10 there. That was part of the assumptions that we made at that time. MS VELLA: And that type of change would naturally flow on from the construction of the motorway? 15 MR BELL: So I think that would be reasonable, and I think we tested that approach through the peer review and also accepted that, it seems like a reasonable way of approaching that. Certainly you could condition that if the project was to be constructed, 20 the changes were made – sorry, if the Hill Street project was to be constructed the changes would need to be made. I’m just not sure that it is necessary. MS VELLA: Sorry, you are saying you could put a condition on the Hill 25 Street upgrade that these changes be made? MR BELL: Well if there was an effect from the project that you were concerned about that needed to be mitigated by making those changes, I guess the approach that we took when we did the assessment was that 30 those were pretty small scale and simple changes that would be made in any case if the project went ahead. And I think in the current situation where we have got some more clarity from the Transport Agency that they don’t intend to proceed with that project beforehand, then you wouldn’t necessarily need to make any changes to Hill Street as it 35 stands at the moment to mitigate the effects of the project. CHAIRPERSON: How are we going time-wise? MS VELLA: Just a couple of minutes, sir. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Right. MS VELLA: Mr Chairman asked you a question earlier this morning and it was in relation to the growth of Warkworth and what sort of level of 45 error there was in your predictions in terms of that future growth. I just wanted to confirm with you – in adopting your methodology in relation to the effects on the road network generally – but particularly Hill Street – my understanding is that you essentially used the SATURN model for Auckland to Whangarei and that the model factored in a 50 range of things, including peak hour, inter-peak, holidays and that sort Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 309 of thing, and then you used the available population data et cetera to estimate traffic patterns and then make predictions. In that process there must be some level of uncertainty about the predictions that you make using that model. Is there a generally accepted level of certainty 5 or uncertainty in that process? [12.40 pm] MR BELL: As I said earlier on, it’s a forecasting process that there will be 10 error in what we’ve produced. Things like land use, you know in terms of the forecasts that are provided for those produced, and as I said I think it’s more of a timing issue, so if the development was to take place at a faster rate we’d see those traffic volumes eventuate sooner; if it was to take place at a slower rate than it would take a little bit longer. 15 So there is error in terms of the effect on my assessment. I don’t think it has a large bearing. We did do a test where we took out some of the assumed induced traffic, so we took out the one percent per annum, which is over the period up to 2026 is really significant, and the 20 assessment that I did showed that my assessment wasn’t sensitive to that kind of a change. MS VELLA: So the answer is essentially the same, that it’s a timing issue really, it will happen at some stage, it just depends on when? 25 MR BELL: I think if you have the land use growth that’s envisaged, then it will happen at some point. MS VELLA: I’d just like to ask you a couple of questions about Mr Williams’ 30 evidence, particularly his addendum. In the fourth paragraph, last sentence, he says “I do not dispute the macro model but I do have doubts as to the ability of the programme to model the complex Hill Street intersection. 35 MR BELL: Sorry, which? MS VELLA: The addendum to Mr Williams’ evidence, it’s just a one page - - - 40 MR BELL: Sorry, could you provide it to me? MS VELLA: I can’t give you a copy. MS BROSNAHAN: Do you know when that was provided? 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 310 MS VELLA: It was on the website at some stage, I can’t remember exactly what date. MS BROSNAHAN: Do you know when the addendum to Mr Williams’ 5 evidence was provided? I don’t know if we have it. We can quickly read it. MS VELLA: I’ll give you a minute. I think it’s on the other side of the page. 10 I’m going to ask you questions in relation to the last two paragraphs, so for my purposes you don’t need to worry about table one. CHAIRPERSON: Were you just talking about the very short document about five paragraphs? 15 MS VELLA: That’s right. I just wanted to understand whether you, Mr Bell, in the last paragraph he says “no verification appears to have been carried out on the operation of this micro pilot model” and I just wondered whether you understood what he meant by the “micro 20 model”? MR BELL: So the modelling software that we’ve used is called SATURN, and it is a metre-scopic modelling tool, so it doesn’t model vehicles individually it models packets of vehicles as they arrive. Within that 25 model it basically has a static queue that develops as different packets of traffic arrive, and so there is some consideration of blocking back. The Hill Street intersection is a particularly complex one to model because there’s a lot of people letting each other in and giving-way in 30 situations, so it’s not a typical sort of set of traffic signals or something like that, so it is a complex thing if you are wanting to model it in a real amount of detail. I guess the approach that we took with this assessment was because we were actually removing a significant amount of the through-traffic at the intersection, and we were changing 35 travel patterns that – to a smaller extent, that there wasn’t a need to go into that level of detail in terms of the assessment. [12.45 pm] 40 CHAIRPERSON: Well is Mr Williams right though that even though traffic volumes, compared with those – is it the SATURN - - - MR BELL: The SATURN model, yes. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 311 CHAIRPERSON: The SATURN model may be on the lower side that no-ones actually gone up and had a look at Hill Street to see whether the model being used coincides with what’s happening on the ground. 5 MR BELL: That’s not the case, sir. CHAIRPERSON: That’s not the case? MR BELL: No. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Next question? MS VELLA: Okay. Sorry, sir, that’s where I was going as well. Sir, I think you’ve asked all of the remainder of the questions that I had so thank 15 you very much, Mr Bell. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Now, Ms Brosnahan, we’ve had a request from – I don’t know, in fact I’ll ask the submitter to stand up. Is there a Mr Thaller or how do you pronounce your name, sir? 20 MR THALLER: Thaller. CHAIRPERSON: Thaller. And Mr Thaller wants to ask Mr Bell a question, which I think – we’ve got you slightly out of order and you have 25 probably sort of put in your request on rather the late side, Mr Thaller, but we can accommodate you. But I just want to make sure you are the man who has got a 50 acre approximately farm somewhere up in the Wyllie Road region and 30 according to your original submissions you weren’t sure whether it was going to be acquired under the Public Works Act in whole or in part, and this was at times a run off from a larger property you have further north. Have I got the right guy? 35 MR THALLER: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON: And what do you want to ask this man about, before I decide whether you can? 40 MR THALLER: You were explaining just before the break about the traffic jam? CHAIRPERSON: Yes? 45 MR THALLER: And the current traffic on a long weekend that usually goes - - - Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 312 CHAIRPERSON: You want to ask – how many questions have you got? MR THALLER: I’ve got one question. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Up you come, just in the front table there somewhere will be fine. And it’s got to be a question rather than your own observations. 10 MR THALLER: Yes, it certainly is. CHAIRPERSON: That’s fine. CHAIRPERSON: By length of traffic jam do you mean how long it stretches back or how long it takes to get through? 25 MR THALLER: How long it stretches back. CHAIRPERSON: All right. Any work done on that? 30 MR BELL: Sorry, I haven’t looked at that in detail – no. I have looked at the travel times though. MR THALLER: And I also wanted to know if you could – maybe that could be done in the future to incorporate that analysis with the improvement 35 of the hill intersection, and b) without the hill intersection improvement. MR BELL: I haven’t looked at the length of the queuing. I’ve looked at travel times through that intersection. 40 CHAIRPERSON: The two are inextricably related thought, aren’t they? MR BELL: They are. 45 CHAIRPERSON: I mean the longer the queue, the longer the travel time. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 313 MR BELL: Yes, and it depends on how much clearance you can get through the roundabout. CHAIRPERSON: But effectively you’ve done this on the basis of some model 5 rather than actually observation as to how far back these tail backs stretch, is that right? MR BELL: Yes, and I could extract from the model what the average queue length was - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: All right. MR BELL: - - - I just haven’t done that. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Good point, Mr Thaller. Anything else you would like to ask him? MR THALLER: Yes, I do. Sorry. 20 CHAIRPERSON: This is now your third question. MR THALLER: You are very good at counting, sir. I also wanted to know, because Mr Bell also predicted or explained to 25 us that the current State Highway 1 is going to be used as well as the new proposed motorway, that would mean that on a public holiday we would expect also traffic jam south of Warkworth, and I would like to know if any analysis has been done on that? 30 [12.50 pm] MR BELL: So in terms of analysis what I have done and presented in my transport assessment is – in table 7 and 8 – are information about the travel time savings or the travel times changes that will happen when 35 the project is in place and when it is not, and what I’ve done there is to talk about the scale of those changes and whether they are a reduction in travel time or not. And so I have done that for the p.m. peak period, the inter peak period 40 and the holiday start and end, and what that shows is the effects of the project are positive in terms of travel times which I guess relate to the queues that could extend back through Warkworth. MR THALLER: No further questions. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Thaller, that’s very helpful - - - Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 314 MR THALLER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: - - - because they were points which haven’t been raised. 5 MR THALLER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Now, oh yes, we’ve got one question from a Board member. Yes, sorry. 10 MR PARSONSON: Thanks, Mr Bell. There’s two questions, sorry, sir. Firstly, you’ve spoken about Auckland Transport’s role as road controlling authority in approving construction traffic management plans. 15 MR BELL: The site specific traffic management plan. MR PARSONSON: Site specific, yes. Do they base their approval on the code that you based the plan on? 20 MR BELL: That would be one of the factors that they’d look at, yes. MR PARSONSON: They could require additional measures should they consider them necessary, could they? 25 MR BELL: Yes, if they considered that there was some shortcoming. MR PARSONSON: Thank you. My second question then is on Condition 23, which is the one relating to the site specific plan for Moirs Hill Road. 30 MR BELL: Yes? MR PARSONSON: Clause A reads, ‘Includes specific assessment of pedestrian, cyclist and equestrian safety”. Would a reasonable or 35 acceptable alternative to that wording be, “provide for pedestrian, cyclist and equestrian safety”? MR BELL: I think it would be – yes, I think that would be fine. I mean, I think it’s the same thing essentially because when you’re producing 40 the traffic management plan you are looking to ensure that there is a safe outcome. MR PARSONSON: Thank you. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Now, Ms Brosnahan, now – I don’t want to curtail you because they’ve been a wide number of issues raised by witnesses – but how long do you anticipate your re-examination going? MS BROSNAHAN: Approximately four minutes. There have been a lot been 50 a lot of questions but it seems to have gone in circles a little bit today. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 315 CHAIRPERSON: Goodness me, circularity of questions? Never. 10 MR BELL: Yes, there are. One is being constructed within an urban environment, which is the Waterview project. And then there’s this project, which is – yes, quite removed from that. MS BROSNAHAN: And would that lead to differences in the traffic 15 management plans that we’ve been speaking of? MR BELL: Yes, I think there would be differences in the plans that you’ve produced – yes. 20 MS BROSNAHAN: Would you - - - CHAIRPERSON: Differences, because different safety aspects would have to be considered, is that right? 25 MR BELL: Exactly, and different effects would be around in terms of delays to people and things like that. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 30 MS BROSNAHAN: You’ve discussed COPTMM, if I can call it that, a number of times today. Would you consider that COPTMM is very prescriptive and process orientated? MR BELL: It is quite prescriptive and process orientated, yes. 35 MS BROSNAHAN: You’ve also mentioned that AT or the Transport Agency would be involved in reviewing these documents. How thoroughly are those documents reviewed by those organisations? 40 MR BELL: So my experience is that they are reviewed thoroughly and they have specific people within their organisations that do that, that are removed from any of the projects. MS BROSNAHAN: And do you consider that these agencies consider safety 45 to be important when reviewing those? MR BELL: Yes, I mean I would think if you looked at the Transport Agency, Auckland Transport safety would be, you know, a number one concern. 50 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 316 [12.55 pm] MS BROSNAHAN: Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Now before we take the break - - - MR CHANDLER: I was just going to ask you, Mr Bell, you have used the SATURN model in other situations, have you, for forecasting? 10 MR BELL: Yes, I have used the SATURN modelling in a number of occasions. So transmission Gully, for example I was the team leader for the SATURN model that was constructed for that project which covers a large chunk of the region. 15 MR CHANDLER: For projects which have been completed, have you had a chance to review the actual traffic situation with those which the model has forecast? MR BELL: I can’t recall any large projects that I have been involved in 20 forecasting that have been constructed and are operational now. And it would be great if we had the opportunity to do those kind of comparisons, but often they are not done. CHAIRPERSON: So the question is, I think, designed to look at the suitability 25 and accuracy if you like of the SATURN model from the other end, after it has all happened. I take it from your answer that this has not been done? MR BELL: I haven’t personally done that, but - - - 30 CHAIRPERSON: Do you know of any studies which have? MR BELL: I couldn’t point you to one directly, but what I can say is that the SATURN modelling software was developed in the UK some 20 plus 35 years ago. It has been used on a very large number of projects. The software itself is only as good as the people that are using it, or, you know, the way that it is applied. CHAIRPERSON: How often is the software updated? 40 MR BELL: Fairly regularly. There is an updated that will come through every now and again. CHAIRPERSON: Anything arising out of those SATURN questions, 45 Ms Brosnahan? MS BROSNAHAN: The SATURN model that you have used for the project, have you had a chance to have it calibrated? 50 MR BELL: Yes, the model has been calibrated and peer reviewed. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 317 MS BROSNAHAN: Thank you. MR BHANA-THOMSON: I have. CHAIRPERSON: So I think – have you got a booked flight back? 15 MR BHANA-THOMSON: 6 o’clock. CHAIRPERSON: All right. Well we will put you on straight away at 2 o’clock. Are you giving evidence or making submissions or what? 20 MR BHANA-THOMSON: No, it is just a representation. CHAIRPERSON: All right. And how long do you think you will take? 25 MR BHANA-THOMSON: I have been allocated 15 minutes. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know, but how long do you need. MR BHANA-THOMSON: About that long, sir. 30 CHAIRPERSON: All right. So you just want to make submissions to us – subject yourself to the normal penetrating questions from the Board, and then you would like to get away? 35 MR BHANA-THOMSON: Well, yes. CHAIRPERSON: Well, you don’t have to get away, but yes. MR BHANA-THOMSON: But I would like the opportunity. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well because you have travelled a distance we will put you on first, and there is another group here who have presented some very detailed evidence which relates to economic things called the Campaign for Better Transport and are you Mr Steven Pitches? 45 MR PITCHES: Cameron Pitches. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cameron Pitches. Have I got your name pronounced correctly? 50 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 318 MR PITCHES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Now, what exactly – are you from Wellington as well? 5 MR PITCHES: No, I am from Auckland. CHAIRPERSON: You are Auckland, all right. So are you ready to go, as it were? 10 MR PITCHES: Yes, I am. CHAIRPERSON: And are you given evidence yourself? Because NZTA want to cross-examine you. 15 MR PITCHES: Yes, they do. My presentation takes half an hour, including the representation and the evidence. CHAIRPERSON: All right. Well the secretary at the moment seems to have allocated about an hour and a quarter for you in total – do you think that 20 is accurate? That is including questions from counsel. MR PITCHES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: All right. And you are ready to go as well? 25 MR PITCHES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Right. Now, Mr Williams, hello Mr Williams? Can you lurch to your feet perhaps. You have been very accommodating in 30 terms of being delayed already, and I am just slightly concerned that we may run out of time for you again today. Have you given any thought – and you might like to think about this over the lunch break and also discuss it with Ms Turner. Have you given any thoughts to whether there may be some benefit in your evidence and presentation been done 35 up in Warkworth instead of here, or would you rather it was dealt with here? [1.00 pm] 40 MR WILLIAMS: That won’t be possible, sir, because I’m going away on holiday. CHAIRPERSON: All right, no, I understand that. 45 MR WILLIAMS: For three weeks. CHAIRPERSON: Well, what’s the length of time which you’ll need? MR WILLIAMS: The presentation. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 319 CHAIRPERSON: Presentation and – but you want to cross-examine him don’t you, Ms Brosnahan? 5 MS BROSNAHAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR WILLIAMS: The presentation which is – would probably take - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: We’d put this up on the screen. MR WILLIAMS: This is on the screen, para - - - 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, how long is that going to take? MR WILLIAMS: It’s to the point, but it would probably take 20 minutes. CHAIRPERSON: To watch the whole thing? 20 MS……….: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: All right. And in terms of giving further evidence, you’ve already given – we’ve got your evidence there, in an addendum, but 25 you don’t want to add to that grammatically, do you? MR WILLIAMS: I won’t be adding to that at all, unless - - - CHAIRPERSON: All right. 30 MR WILLIAMS: - - - unless - - - CHAIRPERSON: Right, well that we’ll have to fit you in today. 35 Ms (INDISTINCT 1.18), what I want you to do is to just to have some brief helpful discussions with both Mr Pitches and also Mr Williams, so that we make sure (A) we don’t run out of time – and maybe you better be involved with these too, Ms Brosnahan, because cross-examination time, make sure we don’t run out of time, work out which one we put 40 on first, after we’ve dealt with Mr Barnard Thompson (PH 1.42), can you do that for us – and we don’t really want to sit beyond 5 o'clock today if we can avoid it, but if we have to we’ll have to – all right. MS BROSNAHAN: Sir - - - 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 320 CHAIRPERSON: Is there anyone else – yes, you’re standing up, sir, we left you out. MR PITCHES: Sorry, Cameron Pitches again. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR PITCHES: Would it be possible to have a lunch break for half an hour instead of an hour? 10 CHAIRPERSON: No. MR PITCHES: Thank you, sir. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Why, do you, you – are you on a diet or something? MR PITCHES: I can’t present today. CHAIRPERSON: I see what you mean. 20 MR PITCHES: I might be able to present tomorrow or - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that’s true, and that’s a fair comment despite my facetious remark. If you think we are going to run out of time, then we 25 need to curtail our lunch break perhaps to 45 minutes, there’s a – I don’t want you to think, Mr Pitches, that these lunch breaks are just so we can sort of lull about the place and sort of feast and do nothing because – and the lawyers need it too because this sort of court work is quite time consuming and stressful, so it’s not there for the benefit of 30 judges and lawyers and panel members, it’s there so people can recharge their batteries, all right. You’re only here for half a day, whereas everybody else has been here for three or four days already. 35 Yes? MS TURNER: Sir, with all due respect, Mr (INDISTINCT 2.54), with all the good roading now at to the airport, it doesn’t take as long from here, 40 and he has a better road – these guys have been waiting longer - - - CHAIRPERSON: What is your point? MS TURNER: Well, I - - - 45 CHAIRPERSON: He hasn’t come from – you haven’t come from Wellington. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 321 MS TURNER: No, but he will still get to the airport in time if he waits a little bit, um, the break. 5 CHAIRPERSON: We’ll be calling him once we finished the luncheon adjournment – anything else? Yes. MS BROSNAHAN: I just note that Auckland Transport was also calling a witness - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: I know. MS BROSNAHAN: - - - this afternoon, so just we’ll - - - 15 CHAIRPERSON: I know, you had – yeah - - - MS BROSNAHAN: - - - put that in the calculation. CHAIRPERSON: You’re going to have to have a session with Mr Lanning on 20 that as well. MS BROSNAHAN: I certainly can. CHAIRPERSON: I want you – where’s Mr Lanning disappeared to – how 25 long is your case going to be, your witnesses going to take? MR LANNING: Sir, I have four pages of submissions, Mr Clarke's is very brief, it will take – it depends on - - - 30 CHAIRPERSON: Well I won’t get the lay people out of the way first for obvious reasons, and you – so I left you - - - MS BROSNAHAN: (INDISTINCT 3.52). 35 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Brosnahan, I left you out of the consultation with Ms Young, but you’ll need to have a session on that as well and if we need to spill over to tomorrow we’ll do so – all right? MR LANNING: It’ll be quite nice, sir, if we had any indication of Ms 40 (INDISTINCT 4.05) and Mr Clarke and we can go on – and we can (INDISTINCT 4.09). CHAIRPERSON: Well exactly, and if it’s decided he’s not going to be reached today – I mean, we may be able to do your submissions late 45 this afternoon and him tomorrow morning. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 322 He wants to go up and manage the network does he? Thank you, madam. 5 ADJOURNED [1.04 pm] RESUMED [1.45 pm] REGISTRAR: Please all rise for members of the Board. 10 Please be seated. CHAIRPERSON: Where’s Michelle gone – disappeared. 15 MR……….: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: It’ll be helpful, Ms Duffy, if I could have her big sheet at some stage with the, where we can all see and read it. 20 All right, so we're starting with the gentleman from Wellington – up you come. Is Mr Bhana-Thomson, that right? 25 MR BHANA-THOMSON: Correct, yeah, thank you very much. Okay, well thank you for the opportunity to present to the Board and basically I want to add onto our written submission that we made, and so I have a presentation that will be available on the screens for you, so 30 basically we want to take this opportunity to add the perspective of the heavy haulage industry to this project. Am I pointing at the right place? Oh, here we go. 35 MR……….: You are, so it’s - - - MR BHANA-THOMSON: That way, okay. So just a – just some brief overview points, just to set the scene – so in 40 general we want to support this RoNS’ project proceeding. We want to identify the significance of the heavy haulage transport sector, as meeting – supporting this project. We do have a couple of concerns though, one with the design envelope constraints that NZTA have used and we also want to advocate for a full interchange at Pūhoi there, so. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 323 Firstly, just a quick overview about us, so the heavy haulage industry we are a specialist sector of the road, overall road transport sector. Basically we transport loads for clients that are either wide, high, long or heavy, and you may not be able to see along the bottom of the 5 picture there, you’ll see some examples – I’ve got some other pictures that will be better examples, but basically just to give you an illustration of the clients that our – well my members transport loads for, from left to right we’ve got a piece of equipment that was manufactured in New Plymouth that went to a geothermal plant in 10 Taupo – these are nationwide examples obviously – there’s a relocation of a boat for a private owner. The third one along is a house coming off the Kapiti Expressway route, being relocated to a new site. 15 The fourth one along is a wind farm blade, those things arrived obviously from overseas, landed in Napier and taken to Palmerston North. 20 The fourth one along is a large two storey house that was done within the Hawke's Bay area and the last one along the bottom there, so that’s a bridge beam that was made in the Napier area, constructed for the Waikato Expressway and transported to those sites. 25 So that just gives you a bit of a flavour as to the magnitude if you like of what the sector gets involved in. Just briefly, obviously when you transport these large loads on the road, we need approval from – in addition to all the normal transport 30 requirements, there’s a whole lot of other permits required, so a couple from NZTA, one “an over dimension permit” relating to the safety requirements for on road travel, and also NZTA and road controlling authorities for weights, to ensure that the structures are capable of carrying loads, then you’ve got protection of over height providers, like 35 power lines, Chorus and other telecommunication providers. Now our sector, we need specific routes to transport these types of loads. They have dimension requirements and structural requirements, in order to make sure that we can transport the loads on the particular 40 routes, and in fact, usually there are very few routes that actually meet our demands and we are usually pretty demanding. So obviously a key role for the Association is to advocate for the routes to be designed and maintained for our over dimension and overweight 45 loads. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 324 [1.50 pm] Here’s a picture. This is actually taken last week and for the eagle eyed among you this was actually taken going up the – well heading south, 5 going up the Johnstone’s Hill. And a bit of a closer view, this is actually a 91 tonne crane that was on a Cullum’s transporter, a local, or a Whangarei based operator. I understand that half of the cranes of all of the cranes in Auckland are 10 currently working on Marsden Point at the moment so obviously these are the type of loads that get transported along the current route and potentially along the new route. A couple of other examples, Poyners, also a Northland and Auckland 15 house mover. That, I think, is a new home – a new relocatable home. They get build and then trucked to site, obviously providing pretty quick housing requirements. They’re also, like this one here, recycling of existing houses from one site and onto another site for reuse by a new owner. 20 And then finally another local example, so another member, Rhodes for Roads, a Warkworth based contractor just in Hudson Road there at the northern end of this potential project, towards the end of that, close to that. And so this is an example of some of the earthmoving equipment 25 that they need to move around on specialist transporters for obviously like construction of projects such as this. Now, what are we after in terms of our route requirements? So for many years we’ve sought an envelope, the dimension envelope is 11 30 and half metres wide, six and a half metres high, which is good, round numbers and easy to remember. There are reasons for this – in a divided road situation (which is potentially what the RoNS project could look like) this is what we are – 35 if you can imagine a big, wide flat load there, that’s what it looks like – so 11 metres wide clearance is what we’re after. So what are we after these particular dimensions? So basically this comes from the NZTA rules around transporting large loads, which 40 allow 11 metres wide and 6.5 metres high without special engineering permission, okay? Further, when we have a look at the OD loads, or the OD permits that are issued for these loads – so in any one year we’ve got about 4,000 45 loads moved nationwide that are over four and a half metres wide. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 325 Now, interestingly enough, we’ve got 82 percent that are up to 10 metres wide and 97 percent of these are up to 11 metres wide. So the gap between those (and you’ll realise in a minute why I’m 5 highlighting this) is it’s one in seven loads is actually within that 10 to 11 metre band. When we have a look at the height requirements we’ve got 4,700 loads moved nationwide over 4.25 metres high. So 4.25 is the normal truck 10 height, so four and half or over four and a half thousand loads moved annually. Now of this, 93 percent are over the 5.8 metres in height and 98 percent are over 6.3 – so one in 20 loads in that band. Now, why am I highlighting this band? That’s because the NZTA’s 15 general route dimensions and used for this particular RoNS project is 10 metres wide, six metres high. So just going back, so between 10 and 11 metres in width, one in seven loads – 15 percent of the loads. Between 5.8, which is close to the six metres (obviously you need a little bit of clearance to squeak in under the height), so it’s five percent 20 of the load – so one in 20 loads are in that band, okay? So that’s why we say that NZTA’s general route dimensions of six metres wide and 10 metres high, in this case could be deficient. 25 We’ve had this discussion long and hard with NZTA, not only about this project but about other projects, basically they are saying it comes back to a cost benefit analysis of whether to increase the general dimension criteria. We do accept that. 30 We submitted to this RoNS project the dimensions should be increased to 11 and a half and six and a half metres in height, and basically part of this is that on this project there is only one overhead bridge at six metres high that is the main structural restraint for us as long as the - - - 35 CHAIRPERSON: Looking at the width criteria - - - MR BHANA-THOMSON: Yes? CHAIRPERSON: - - - you are seeking an increase from 10 metres in width, is 40 that right? MR BHANA-THOMSON: Yes, from 10 - - - CHAIRPERSON: Which you say would fit 82 percent of the loads being 45 carried - - - Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 326 MR BHANA-THOMSON: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: - - - to 11 and a half. 5 MR BHANA-THOMSON: Mm? CHAIRPERSON: But what does that mean in terms of lane width on a motorway? [1.55 pm] 10 MR BHANA-THOMSON: I’m not sure about that. What I know in general terms, from other NZTA requirements, is by the time they get two three and a half metre lanes and then say a 1.5 metre safety tolerance, if you like, to the median barrier and then you’ve got a one and a half metre 15 shoulder – so that’s how you construct your 10 metres generally. So it’s not normally a problem to actually gain that. What we’ve found in practice, and this is from the Waikato Expressway project, is by the time that they actually allow – there are tolerances also to bridge 20 abutments for overhead bridges, and so what we tend to find is it’s not a problem to actually get between 11 and 12 metres. So while for dimension requirements they say 10, for other reasons they tend to get two between 11 and 12 for new builds. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Well if I was driving a load which was 11.5 metres wide - - - MR BHANA-THOMSON: Mm’hm? 30 CHAIRPERSON: - - - first question, would I need a special permit? MR BHANA-THOMSON: You need a written permit up to 11 metres wide and beyond 11 metres you need special engineering permission. 35 CHAIRPERSON: All right. MR BHANA-THOMSON: So 11 metres is the standard, yes. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Are 11 and a half metre wide loads currently allowed on say, Auckland’s southern motorway or indeed the northern motorway? MR BHANA-THOMSON: There are rules around which bits of the motorway that we’re allowed to travel on. At the moment it’s very restricted. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 327 So south of Ramarama is the only bit on the southern motorway we are actually allowed on and so, yes, you’d be able to transport something 11 metres wide on that section. 5 CHAIRPERSON: South of Ramarama? MR BHANA-THOMSON: South of Ramarama. There is also a section of State Highway 18 between Squadron Drive and Old Albany Highway which we can also use. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Well why should the width restrictions – why should the width allowances for this proposed highway be changed to put it out of kilter with other motorways and highways in New Zealand? What’s the rationale of that? 15 MR BHANA-THOMSON: Well I wouldn’t say it’s out of kilter. I would say that - - - CHAIRPERSON: Well you just told me it is? 20 MR BHANA-THOMSON: Well, like I said, the standard envelope is 10 metres wide. By the time they actually construct it and allow these extra safety margins that they can allow between 11 and 12. What I’m saying is, I’m putting it to you that you should say – you should 25 mandate them that it should be between 11 and 12, not simply the 10 metres. CHAIRPERSON: Well I wouldn’t be allowed to drive a load 11 metres wide through Spaghetti Junction, would I? 30 MR BHANA-THOMSON: No, well at the moment you’re not allowed to either – neither would I. Yes. So like I say, there are very specific rules about where you are allowed to transport loads on which section - - - 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well we may be talking past each other but what I don’t understand is if in fact 10 metres is the “norm”, if you like - - - MR BHANA-THOMSON: Mm? 40 CHAIRPERSON: - - - for load widths throughout the rest of New Zealand’s motorway system - - - MR BHANA-THOMSON: Yes? 45 CHAIRPERSON: - - - why should this one be any different? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 328 MR BHANA-THOMSON: Why should it be different? CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Because that is what you are asking us to do. 5 MR BHANA-THOMSON: It is, yes – because there is demand for it. When you look at the actual analysis of the OD permits that are issued, that there is demand for greater than 10 metres wide, and to be honest I would say it doesn’t really put it out of kilter. 10 Like I say, on other new builds such as the Waikato Expressway they have been able to achieve between 11 and 12 for other reasons, not just simply a dimension reason. 15 Have I convinced you? CHAIRPERSON: No, not necessarily. MS HUNT: What are the other reasons? 20 MR BHANA-THOMSON: The other reasons? Right, okay. Well like I say, what I understand is that if you’ve got a bridge abutment you don’t want the one and a half metre shoulder outside of 25 the traffic lane being the bridge abutment, right? There are other people probably here within NZTA that might be able to explain it better but they tend to like some extra dimension in there so that you’re not only one and a half – you know, if you’re going 30 down a lane, 100 k’s an hour, you’re not one and a half metres away from a bridge abutment that could have, you know, potentially interesting situations should you come across it. But like I say, that’s what we tend to find in practice. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Proceed. MR BHANA-THOMSON: So what we are asking is that – so if there is only one bridge at six metres high (and it’s that Moirs Hill Road bridge) that we haven’t seen any analysis of why it is the height that it is, and what 40 is the potential cost to the project of actually increasing the height to six and a half metres to give the height that we recommend. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 329 [2.00 pm] So basically we’re saying that – yep, investigate the costs and logistics of increasing that minimum height, it might also include sign gantries 5 and toll gantries that I don’t think there’s enough detailed design to be able to assess that, but just an asterisk at that point. Then the same with the width. So the cost and logistics in increasing the minimum widths to 11 metres should be investigated. I think 10 probably at the Moirs Hill Road over-bridge. It seems to be that they’re saying a minimum of 10 metres, it looks as though it could be reasonably easy to say “listen make that 11 and a half”, I don’t think there’s too much of an issue there. But subject to detailed design. 15 So the next question is why should we transport OD and overweight loads on the RoNS route? Basically if you compare the existing road to the proposed new road - you’ve got a two-lane divided road which really means no oncoming traffic. So therefore it is safer for both the load movement and for other traffic using the road. There is less 20 exposure due to the quicker travel duration. So what that means if there’s less time on the road, less chance of something going wrong, that sort of thing. Also better road camber, less up hills, down hills, and less roading restrictions potentially on the RoNS route compared to the current route. 25 So that was our first request when we submitted. Now, the second request that we made was about the structural requirements for any bridges or viaducts built, and basically we say – hey, listen you should build those to allow overweight or for those travelling on overweight 30 permits to use them. In practice that means complying with the standard, which is HNHO72. It does appear in rebuttal evidence that NZTA have agreed with us, so we’re happy that this outcome has been achieved. 35 So the other main issue that we want to draw to your attention is about the Pūhoi interchange. Basically from our perspective we’re seeking a full interchange and north-facing on and off ramps at Pūhoi, and this is basically to allow on and off for over dimension and overweight loads to actually use the RoNS’ road. 40 At the moment, so the way that the OD and overweight routes goes, is we can’t actually access through the tunnels, so we have to travel over State Highway 17, over the Johnstone’s Hill to join State Highway One at the northern tunnel exit, and travel north on State Highway One 45 through Warkworth. So the proposed design at the Pūhoi interchange will only allow traffic that’s heading north through the tunnel to exit, Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 330 and obviously traffic heading south on the existing State Highway One to access the toll road to head south through the tunnels. What this means is that over dimension/overweight loads moving north 5 over Johnstone’s Hill won’t be able to access the RoNS road, will still need to travel on the existing State Highway One, we still have the traffic management requirements for obviously the safety requirements for making other traffic aware of the large load on the road, and there are also a number of weight restrictive bridge on the current State 10 Highway One which do restrict some of the weight that is allowed on transporters. Same thing for loads moving south, so basically instead of turning at that roundabout and heading onto the RoNS road, you have to continue 15 on the existing State Highway One through Warkworth and then up and over the hill. And you won’t be able to access – well yes - - - CHAIRPERSON: Well effectively what you’re saying is that if there are only two ramps, both south facing ramps on Pūhoi, heavy transport users 20 aren’t going to be able to use this proposed highway at all? MR BHANA-THOMPSON: That’s right. MR PARSONSON: Is there a distinct between some of the loads that your 25 members would carry and others – I’m just thinking if it was coming north down the old State Highway One, Johnstone’s Hill and then if there was a northbound on ramp at Pūhoi you’ll have to go under the motorway and then turn and rise up an on ramp. 30 MR BHANA-THOMPSON: That a potential - - - MR PARSONSON: Would the geometry allow for these loads to get round that S-bend? 35 MR BHANA-THOMPSON: Well probably. I mean if NZTA were designing an on ramp to their normal standards then they would, yes. MR PARSONSON: Okay. 40 MR BHANA-THOMPSON: But listen, I appreciate that the section there appears quite constrained, but having said that, and I think I’ve got this somewhere else, but from what I understand in the consenting process it is allowed in the consents that there could be north-facing ramps, so I would say that, yes, that the geometry has been considered. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 331 [2.05 pm] Right, so in our view it makes sense to allow over dimension overlap loads on the RoNS, it’s a better road for large loads and obviously 5 there’s nil risk for – nil risk safety risk for oncoming traffic – hopefully they don’t get traffic going down the wrong way of the motorway although it does happen occasionally. The other issue for us, is that the current State Highway 1 through 10 Warkworth will revert to council ownership as I understand. In our experience it’s difficult to maintain these sorts of roads as an over dimension overweight route. We’ve had an interesting experience through State Highway 17 as it goes through Orewa there, there are competing demands about – between an OD route which it’s designated 15 as and the demands of the local community to actually, you know, use it as a more pedestrian friendly area. And so, it really has become quite an issue for us and obviously we don’t want to see that continued or replicated as in the current route as it goes through Warkworth there. 20 MS HUNT: So in terms of the OD/OW route - - - MR BHANA-THOMSON: Yep. MS HUNT: - - - how many traffic movements of these vehicles happen during 25 the day versus at night? MR BHANA-THOMSON: It’s a good question – so daylight loads are usually the smaller loads. We don’t have – they don’t have written permits as such. But I would say they would be of a factor of probably 10-1, so 30 the night loads, they’re the ones that move generally over five metres in width. So you know if you’ve – so, yeah, so if there’s one at night then there’ll probably be 10 during the day, obviously they’re different types of loads, the earth moving equipment and that sort of thing, so - - - 35 MS HUNT: Okay. MR BHANA-THOMSON: Yep. So now, there is an alternative solution and this is to allow OD and overweight loads through the toll road tunnels. Now we have been lobbying NZTA for this and it is a possibility, but 40 no matter what there will always be the width and height of restrictions of the tunnel itself and what NZTA will let us do, so some loads will always need to travel over the hill and obviously as soon as you travel over the hill, there’s no way you can get onto this RoNS road. 45 The other thing we’d like to draw to your attention is some, what I call “local transport effects”, obviously what I’ve been talking till now, is Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 332 loads that move through the area. Obviously that’s our bigger picture, but I guess we want to bring to this, a lot of the discussion I’ve heard today has been about, you know, local effects and the beloved Hill Street intersection. 5 But a lot of what we're talking about is, you know, loads travelling through and the efficiency of those and the effect of, yeah, taking them off, you know the current road and putting them onto a potentially much better road. 10 However, there are local transport effects, and if you take my member, as an example, roads for roads at Warkworth, so he basically – if he wants to do any deliveries or any transport in and out of Pūhoi, he’s going to have to keep on using current State Highway 1, so he’s not 15 going to be able to use the RoNS road to do any of that local work, even though he’s about 500 metres from the start of it in the northern end there, as an example, he’ll have to use the current State Highway 1 because there’s no way of getting off at Pūhoi, okay. 20 MR PARSONSON: Just on that picture you showed of roads with the grader on the back of the loader, is he currently prevented from going through the tunnel? MR BHANA-THOMSON: He would be, yes. 25 MR PARSONSON: Yes. MR BHANA-THOMSON: Yep. Okay, so in summary, so our association recommends that NZTA should cost the construction of the north 30 facing aspects of the interchange, and also evaluate potential future cost of constructing the full interchange. As I’ve said – as I understand there is in the consenting, there is allowance for it. Unfortunately, New Zealand is littered with examples of where things 35 have said, “Oh yeah, we’ll build it later”, and of course it always ends up being far more expensive later than what it is at the time, so what we're saying is listen, there are real terms whether it should be more cost effective to construct it now and, yeah, just to work through that process. 40 So that’s our summary position, so basically the height and width requirements should meet a greater percentage of the over dimension loads that are travelling, and also the cost, the full interchange at Pūhoi to allow access for over dimension/overweight loads. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 333 And finally just some pictures of, just a great example of local engineering firm at Whangarei that built those VERN construction, part of the Eden Park redevelopment, transported them potentially down this road if it existed, when that work was being done, so thank you. 5 MR CHANDLER: Just a question, you mentioned with the Johnstone’s Hill Tunnels, that you’re not allowed to go through them. MR BHANA-THOMSON: Correct. 10 [2.10 pm] MR CHANDLER: If you were allowed to go through them do you happen to know whether you could accommodate your six a half metre high load? 15 MR BHANA-THOMSON: No, I understand they are probably built to the six metres high NZTA standard requirement but I am not sure whether the infrastructure they have got in the top, in terms of ventilation and that sort of thing, includes the six metres or whether the six metres is below 20 that. Now, from our initial discussions with NZTA it would be closer to the five, five-six sort of area that they might allow through the tunnels. MR CHANDLER: So even if the Moirs Hill Bridge were built to accommodate 25 a six and a half metre high load, you are still stuck at Johnstone’s Hill Tunnels notwithstanding at the moment you haven’t got permission to go through them? MR BHANA-THOMSON: That’s correct, yes. 30 MR CHANDLER: Thank you. MR BHANA-THOMSON: Now, I do believe in future proofing roading so that we are not stuck in 20 years saying, “Oh, we wish we’d built it a 35 little bit higher” because of something else that comes along, you know. Yes, I don’t think we should be constrained by the current infrastructure by what we should look to for the future. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bhana-Thomson, I just want to ask process questions. 40 These are very detailed and helpful submissions from your Association, when did NZTA first see them, this afternoon presumably? MR BHANA-THOMSON: That particular thing, yes, well, this afternoon but the points that we are making would be of no surprise, that was part of 45 our original written submission. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 334 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR BHANA-THOMSON: There have been some rebuttal on it but basically I think their answers to the four questions we made were “No, no, yes 5 and maybe”. But to me they didn’t give too much analysis of what could be done in terms of the dimension criteria. CHAIRPERSON: The second question, further south, there being two other Boards exercising the same jurisdiction which we have looking at 10 motorways or projects in the Wellington area, have you made similar submissions to those Boards? MR BHANA-THOMSON: We haven’t made submissions to the Boards but we have been involved more on the detailed design side of things so 15 that we are engaged with those ones just to make sure that our dimension envelopes is what is achieved. CHAIRPERSON: And, thirdly, you were here this morning and you heard quite extensive cross-examination on some topics of Mr Bell and there 20 have been similar cross-examination of NZTA’s witnesses yesterday, which you weren’t here to hear, but I take it you or your Association saw no point in embarking on that cross-examination exercise? MR BHANA-THOMSON: Not particularly, I think that the questions that we 25 are raising from the rebuttal evidence, I mean they just said no, you know, without providing too many reasons. In my view it was better to put it in front of you. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because the other process issue, of course, is that 30 Ms Brosnahan can’t cross-examine you but I am sure she’ll cope with that. MR BHANA-THOMSON: Right. 35 MR WITHY: I just have a question about your mathematics. MR BHANA-THOMSON: Sure. MR WITHY: You have said 98 percent of those 4,700 high loads are over 40 6.3, I think you mean up to, do you not? MR BHANA-THOMSON: That could well have been a typo that should well be picked up. 45 MR WITHY: I don’t think you are really saying that 98 percent of them are 6.3, are you? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 335 MR BHANA-THOMSON: That would be correct, so I apologise for that. CHAIRPERSON: Which page are we looking at? 5 MR BHANA-THOMSON: So this is the route requirements, sorry, I don’t think it’s numbered there. So it should say, “93 percent are up to 5 percent for the 5.8 and 98 percent are up to 6.3” yes. 10 MR WITHY: That’s what I thought. MR BHANA-THOMSON: Yes, correct, sorry about that. MS HUNT: So the 4,700 plus loads, is that specific to this area here or is that 15 nationwide? MR BHANA-THOMSON: No, that’s nationwide. MS HUNT: Okay. 20 MR BHANA-THOMSON: Yes, unfortunately the permits don’t let us drill down into the detail. MS HUNT: Oh, okay. So my next question is are you expecting I suppose an 25 increase in vehicle movements of overweight loads coming down from Northland to Auckland in the near future? I mean has there been any studies or statistics gathered on that? MR BHANA-THOMSON: No, there haven’t. Like I say it is difficult to drill 30 down into the specific areas because, for example, the permits only give a start point and a finish point, they don’t actually detail the route. But from what I have seen in the last few years, even despite the recession over the last five years, the number of permits have actually stayed pretty stable. So, to me, what that indicates is there is always a 35 level of demand for this type of work despite the recession and I guess, to be honest, what I am seeing more and more is that there is greater amounts of fabrication and then delivery to site. [2.15 pm] 40 So if you take the bridge beams or any large item, what we are seeing is it’s fabricated in one point, in the most efficient place for that, whether it’s an engineering firm like in Whangarei and it’s transported to Auckland or vice versa. So it’s fabricated at a particular point and then 45 it is delivered to site. The transporters and the other engineering Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 336 around all those is so much better than what it used to be in the past so that there is a much greater capability to do it safely now. MS HUNT: So looking at, say, from Whangarei through to Auckland, what 5 are the issues or the challenges facing you guys at the moment or the industry at the moment with the current route? MR BHANA-THOMSON: Yes, well, there are pinch points, typically they tend to be where there are signals or roundabouts. Yes, I mean 10 strangely enough no one mentions to me about that beloved Hill Street one. I guess it’s because when our guys go through there’s not a lot of traffic but obviously, you know, for example at Hudson Road there, there are some new signals and so we got involved in that design process and we made sure that they were designed so that, you know, 15 you can continue to just keep the large loads moving, for example. And so I guess what we do is we try to get involved with those to make sure that any new ones are actually designed to a good criteria. So listen there are restrictions, I mean Brynderwyns is obviously a 20 significant pinch point, you know, the guys on the big loads talk about going to the top of the hill and stopping all the traffic and bringing the loads through and then doing it stepping like that. So they are quite experienced in doing it. And, yes, I don’t think there is any particular pinch points other than the normal ones that I think the guys have just 25 got used to dealing with, yes. MS HUNT: Thank you. MR BHANA-THOMSON: That’s all right. 30 MR PARSONSON: Am I right to assume if you can get down the Brynderwyns you could get around the proposed roundabout at the northern end of this route? 35 MR BHANA-THOMSON: We would be interested to see the design but if it is designed similar to other roundabouts that we have seen designs of recently then we should be able to, yes. Certainly if it is – I don’t know, is it a two lane roundabout? We certainly seem to have no problems with those. If it is a one lane we need to pay a little bit of 40 attention to where you put light poles and that sort of thing but usually it is not a problem, yes. MR PARSONSON: And, finally, was I right in hearing you say that you seem to be having some success in the detailed design phase of those 45 Wellington based projects? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 337 MR BHANA-THOMSON: Yes, listen it is a challenge with the design and construction projects because what tends to happen is that NZTA sets the parameters but then the actual contractor comes along and actually designs as they go sort of thing. And so engagement with that, from 5 our perspective, can be interesting because typically they are working on different sections at different times or maybe there’s different designers but it is possible to do that, yes. It is just a matter of staying engaged really. 10 MS HUNT: So the Moirs Hill Underpass, the request for it to be increased to 6.5 metres, is that just because you want it future proofed or you are setting I suppose the baseline, the criteria for future –or is there a specific reason why Moirs Hill Underpass needs to be 6.5? 15 MR BHANA-THOMSON: Well, I think the only reason is because we have identified it is the only overhead structure on the route, right, and we believe, yes, it should be future proofed so that even if, you know, we can’t get it through the tunnels, for example if we got some north facing on ramps at Pūhoi then we can come down off the hill onto the 20 RoNS and just keep going, easy. MS HUNT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much that is helpful. 25 MR BHANA-THOMSON: Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, we are in your hands together with Ms Turner. Now, are you giving evidence or giving us a presentation 30 or both or neither? MR WILLIAMS: It is actually a technical issue. CHAIRPERSON: What, you can’t get it work? 35 MR WILLIAMS: No, not that sort of technical, it is up to you, sir. We have a submission which is on PowerPoint as a submitter. I am quite happy for what I have written to be evidence, that’s fine. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and you have also filed evidence-in-chief which you will probably have to confirm on oath. MR WILLIAMS: Yes, that’s fine. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 338 CHAIRPERSON: And at the same time, without perjuring yourself, are you able to say that the contents of your presentation are true and correct as well? 5 MR WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Are you happy with that approach, Ms Brosnahan? MS BROSNAHAN: Yes, sir. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Swear him in. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Sit down, Mr Williams, and I will just help you in a moment. Now, is your full name Roger Williams, do you reside in Warkworth and have you provided a statement of evidence dated 24 February 2014? 20 MR WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: And to the best of your knowledge are the contents of that statement true and correct? 25 MR WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: And that also applies to your comments in the addendum? MR WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 30 CHAIRPERSON: And have you presented for the benefit of this Board a PowerPoint presentation and to the best of your knowledge and believe the contents of that presentation, both visual, written or otherwise, are true and correct as well? 35 MR WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Off you go. 40 MR WILLIAMS: So I can go straight into the presentation? CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please. So what is this stuff? MR WILLIAMS: I am sorry, sir - - - 45 CHAIRPERSON: This is not Mr Williams. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 339 MR WILLIAMS: Sorry, sir, if I might explain. CHAIRPERSON: Do you trade as Wyatt Haulage? 5 MR WILLIAMS: No, if I may explain. Some of the slides are going to be a little bit on the small side and for clarity I have issued seven of the pages which cover the slides. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see, so we ignore the frontage. Why don’t you sit down, do you need to stand, has this got a voiceover? MR WILLIAMS: No voiceover 15 CHAIRPERSON: So we just sit and watch it. MR WILLIAMS: Just me. CHAIRPERSON: All right, off you go. 20 MR WILLIAMS: My name is Roger Williams. I have got this toy which has been provided which is probably more suitable for playing golf with or practicing golf with. This is just my experience. So there is a RoNS’ project there. There’s two jobs that have been constructed and a 25 number of jobs which are NZTA jobs. I just point out the Britomart job, just to put the Hill Street in context, I was in charge of the civil design for the Britomart and carried out all the design. We carried out the design work from scratch in one year 30 and we built the Britomart in two years. Hill Street does not seem to be such a problem. The issues to be addressed in this presentation are the Hill Street intersection is not coping with current traffic and I’ll demonstrate that. 35 The project is not a solution for the problems of the Hill Street intersection. Further delay of improvements at Hill Street are unacceptable to the Warkworth community. Construction traffic from the project will significantly increase Hill Street congestion. Serious options for Hill Street have not been fully explored. 40 Delays occur not only at peak hours but also occur at any time of the day. This is a temperamental intersection. The current intersection configuration creates very poorly managed traffic flows, it chokes very easily. Truck and trailer movements are particularly problematical. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 340 CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, given the problems I had yesterday with the word “conservative” has “temperamental” got some special meaning as well in a planning or traffic context? 5 MR WILLIAMS: I was actually thinking of the aunt in Downtown Abbey when I was thinking of temperamental, something that is slightly unpredictable and can - - - [2.25 pm] 10 CHAIRPERSON: You are talking about the Dowager - - - MR WILLIAMS: You have that, sir, yes. 15 CHAIRPERSON: She is not to be trifled with, that’s what temperamental means. MR WILLIAMS: No, and I don’t think Hill Street is to be trifled with either, sir. 20 CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you. MR WILLIAMS: So, anyway, the point of putting in the Wyatt Haulage letter is that Ms Brosnahan challenged me that the evidence I had of 25 congestion was not substantiated so I thought the best way of addressing this was to go to the local haulage company that operates out of Sandspit Road and say, “What happens at this intersection, when does it happen and when it happens how far does it back up?” And the answer, which they provide in this letter to me, says that “road blocks 30 can occur at any time of the day on a random basis” and that applies to most legs of it, “any time of the day on a random basis”. CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what the size of Wyatt Haulage’s fleet is? 35 MR WILLIAMS: It’s about 10 truck and trailer units. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Right, we have read that letter. MR WILLIAMS: Pardon? 40 CHAIRPERSON: I said we have just read it, in case you feel tempted to read it out. MR WILLIAMS: No, I wasn’t going to carry on. This is Hill Street 45 intersection. I think you are reasonably familiar with that, sir. We have got State Highway 1 flowing down, Hill Street, Matakana Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 341 intersection, Matakana Road, Sandspit Road, going to Snells Beach of course, and Elizabeth Street. CHAIRPERSON: Could you just go back to that please? 5 MR WILLIAMS: Certainly. CHAIRPERSON: We have heard evidence from Mr Bell and others about the possible Matakana Link, can you with your pointer just sort of show 10 approximately where that might start or go through, are we talking about the green patch to the top of the picture or - - - MR WILLIAMS: No, sir, I can’t. 15 CHAIRPERSON: You can’t. MR WILLIAMS: It’s somewhere out - - - CHAIRPERSON: It’s off the photograph. 20 MR WILLIAMS: It is way off the photograph. CHAIRPERSON: All right, on you go please. 25 MR WILLIAMS: Right, so if we zoom in and I should explain this is a random photographs, it’s the one that is available on the Auckland GIS system, so it occurs and I will just try and point the arrow. We have a truck and trailer unit sitting right – you can see the length of the truck and trailer unit. Over here we have a bus and a car, the car is just 30 projecting over the intersection. You can see that the length of the truck and trailer unit will actually project over that intersection. Here coming out of Kowhai Park you see a car which is in conflict with another, a blue car that is conflict with a red car. Just down here we 35 have a car coming out of here from Elizabeth Street and it’s already in conflict with a car coming out from Matakana Road. While I have got this on the screen, there’s three lanes here. The left lane has not a free left turn but a signalised left turn onto State 40 Highway 1. The next lane actually has to feed into the two lanes here, either for Hill Street or for State Highway 1 north. These cars are giving way to the right. They are also giving way to traffic coming through from State Highway 1, Hill Street and from 45 State Highway 1 south. If we move over here there is a pedestrian Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 342 crossing facility at this point. A crossing facility, it is hard to see and I will show you in a photograph in a second. You can also see a car in this position which is somewhat confused by 5 the intersection and blocking both lanes. [2.30 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Can you give us any – and please say so if you can’t – you 10 said this was from an Auckland site, have you any information as to the approximate date of this photograph and the time of day? MR WILLIAMS: No, sorry, sir. I haven’t. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Right. Thank you. MR WILLIAMS: But it is the one you always get when you go on the East Auckland website. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Right. MR WILLIAMS: I should get this point again, right we have got the arrow. You can see an interesting property boundary here in the middle of the road. This property apparently already owns half the road. So we are 25 already in a position where they have to acquire some land off this guy. Right. I’ll move forward. This is a typical photograph of the main highway intersection. 30 Move forward onto the next one and we can see there is a free left turn on the inside, a red car has come round on the inside here. The next two cars are trying to get either into that lane or the lane beyond, and cars in the next row are trying to get across this intersection. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Is that a photograph you took, Mr Williams? MR WILLIAMS: It is indeed. CHAIRPERSON: Date and time? 40 MR WILLIAMS: I would say it is within the last month. CHAIRPERSON: Time? 45 MR WILLIAMS: Probably about - - - Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 343 CHAIRPERSON: Was it morning/afternoon? MR WILLIAMS: - -- 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Right. Weekday or weekend? MR WILLIAMS: Weekday, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 10 MR WILLIAMS: This photograph shows the manoeuvring that they had to do to get around this very difficult intersection. It shows a couple of other vehicles coming out and crossing over. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Is that a stop sign we can see back there somewhere? MR WILLIAMS: There is a stop sign - - - CHAIRPERSON: Just behind the campervan. What is that controlling? 20 MR WILLIAMS: - - - on Kowhai Park, but it is not particularly apparent to anybody because of course you can’t read a stop sign from the reverse side, so the people coming out of Elizabeth Street are not necessarily aware that that is a stop sign. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Right. MR WILLIAMS: This shows the blue car coming over the line hoping to get around the red truck. The red truck has right of way but is being 30 courteous to the blue car and letting it out. Behind that you have a metal truck and you can see the road is not particularly wide – the inside lane is not particularly wide beyond there. This shows the road on State Highway 1 north coming in. You can see 35 that there is an informal slip lane that has been formed by trucks trying to get past the stationary vehicles, indicating a bit of a problem. CHAIRPERSON: So your informal slip lane, are you talking about the broken up verge, is that what you are saying? 40 MR WILLIAMS: The broken up verge has been filled in with metal and trucks use it – I don’t use it myself because the curb is a bit high for my car. But trucks do sneak around the corner there. 45 And we got a very similar situation on State Highway 1 going north. The lights are just around the corner – if I can just try and get the arrow Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 344 working again. At this point here there are two arrows – the road is not quite two cars wide at that point. The right queuing movement at the lights which is of the order of 50 percent of the flow, is often blocks back and traps the through traffic. Hence the people have been using 5 the left hand lane and it has been filled in with metal. You can see a truck here which is reluctant to pull past the stationary car for that very reason. This is just between Elizabeth Street and Sandspit Road entrance. You 10 can see the informal crossing facility that exists, this is the only - pedestrian crossing facility to the north eastern housing area of about 200 houses and also to Kowhai Park this is the only way you can cross. We here have family of three or possibly four trying to cross the road and we have got a metal truck coming through. 15 [2.35 pm] You can also see road is fairly narrow at that point. Luckily the lady and family are making it across and they are of course vulnerable to 20 traffic coming from the left hand side of the photograph which has just negotiated the very difficult part of the intersection and the last thing on their minds is pedestrians. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, what be the point of trying to cross the road 25 at that point? What is on the other side as it were? MR WILLIAMS: On the other side there is Totara Park, that is a retirement village and we obviously have the village scooter coming down from there. There is also a housing area up there of about 200 houses I 30 think. CHAIRPERSON: If a reasonably alert and agile resident of Totara Park decided they wanted to wander into the centre of Warkworth to look at the river or have a cup of coffee or do some shopping or matters of that 35 sort, is that the pedestrian route? MR WILLIAMS: That is the only pedestrian route. CHAIRPERSON: It is not a promulgated pedestrian crossing, it is just a haven 40 in the middle of the road, is that right? MR WILLIAMS: Yes, and a lowered curb with a haven and it the only access to Kowhai Park. 45 CHAIRPERSON: You mentioned mobility scooters, is that how people on mobility scooters get across as well at that point? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 345 MR WILLIAMS: That is correct sir. That is the only available position for them to get across. 5 CHAIRPERSON: How many people live in this retirement village? MR WILLIAMS: I think there is about 24 houses. CHAIRPERSON: Right, is there anything else over the side to attract this 10 young family going across? MR WILLIAMS: The reserve and they live over there, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Well not in the retirement village. 15 MR WILLIAMS: Oh no, there is the housing area. CHAIRPERSON: There is a housing area, to the left of the photograph as we are looking at it? 20 MR WILLIAMS: It is just up the road, just up the Matakana Road in the distance there, sir. CHAIRPERSON: So the two types of pedestrian are those in the housing area 25 plus the elderly in the retirement village, is that right? MR WILLIAMS: That is right. CHAIRPERSON: Right, thank you. 30 MR WILLIAMS: They are the ones of course who would not necessarily have access to a car to drive to town. CHAIRPERSON: No. 35 MR WILLIAMS: More specifically the traffic does not clear freely when the lights change, the queues are often blocked. The basic principle of traffic lights is if you have got one busy lane coming into traffic lights, you are going to have to have two lanes to store the traffic while it is 40 stationary and when the lights turn green the broad principle is you want to clear every car that is in that queue that can possibly get across in the time. You want to have free flow that is just what is not occurring in this case 45 because the right turning traffic is blocking the through traffic. There Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 346 is inadequate capacity on State Highway 1. There is only one through lane at the lights on both directions. Traffic is exiting both Elizabeth Street and Kowhai Park are faced with 5 poor concurrent give ways. Pedestrians are badly catered for and the basic problem, the real basic problem you must not forget is the proximity of Elizabeth Street to the Hill Street signals. I will just go back down the State Highway 1 and this is the figure I 10 alluded to yesterday showing that the 2009 flow on the point just south of Boyer Hill, 14,600 vehicles. If we move forward to this one, this shows the position in 2026, if you look at the top box on the left you see base case nothing, that’s assuming that in 2026 there are no vehicles on the motorway, and when the motorway is open there are 15 13,700 vehicles on it. [2.40 pm] If we move over to the existing state highway we find that there would 20 have been 25,400 vehicles but there are now 14,500 vehicles. The interesting thing about this is that is the 14,500 is very close to the 14,600 that occurred 16 years earlier, and the other interesting thing is that there is more traffic on the existing state highway than on the project, to me that raises a red flag about – there must be something 25 wrong. Sorry, on this, I don’t know the value of this project, this hasn’t been disclosed to us, so I’ve just put a number in of 800 million. The project is not taking enough traffic and that’s a fundamental problem. 30 How will the project affect the Hill Street intersection? All right we’ll move up to this one. These are, by the way, are on your hand-out as well. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR WILLIAMS: Now if we go up to the project – first of all I should explain the blue line here is the proposed link road going through from north to south. This hasn’t been built yet, parts of it have been built, but there is 40 a bridge proposed here for across the Mahurangi River, this is to connect the areas. If we go over to this diagram here, we have the project coming in at this point here. You’ll see the base case – no project, no traffic. 45 Project there – 5,700 vehicles. Actually that must be an error, because they’ve lost 8,000 vehicles en-route from the one – I’ll just go back a Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 347 couple. No, we had 13,700 vehicles there – sorry, we’re going the wrong way. CHAIRPERSON: We’re going the wrong way Mr Williams. 5 MR WILLIAMS: Yes, I am sir. CHAIRPERSON: Losing vehicles as you go. 10 MR WILLIAMS: I’ve lost vehicles and I’ve slides and I’ve lost everything. But I’ll just point out the error. I presume it’s just a typing error of some sort, sir. So anyway, if we come down to the State Highway just north of Hill Street, you can see that indeed the traffic has dropped off slightly from 15,400 to 14,700 by the introduction of the project. 15 If we go down to the south, indeed we have a much more dramatic decrease there on Brown Road – 22,700 out of 17,700, so there is a reduction there on State Highway One traffic. 20 For some reason or rather there’s a significant increase on Hill Street from 10,500 to 13,700. If we move over here we get Matakana Road very little change, and there’s about 11,000 vehicles on that. If we come to Sandspit Road we find there is about, I think its 15,000 vehicles there, and very little change there. 25 The project has increased the amount of traffic on Elizabeth Street, it’s gone up from 9,700 to 10,000 something. So there is no doubt about it, that the traffic has not changed 30 dramatically, there is some reduction on the main State Highway, but very little, and there’s some increases. [2.45 pm] 35 I just want you to try and remember the traffic on Matakana Road and Hill Street, on Matakana Road and Sandspit Road, just keep an eye on that ratio, 11,000 on Matakana Road, 15,000 on the other road. I picked up the error, that’s all right and I just – it’s opened to those 40 figures. The other thing of course, is that the traffic has – the total amount of traffic has increased over the previous 12 years. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 348 The completed project will not reduce traffic on Hill Street. The continued increase in traffic is over taking any minor reduction that’s occurring, due to the project being in place. 5 I just now so move to the northern roundabout, north end of the project, we have some numbers here which are on Mr David Mason’s evidence, they were provided by NZTA, and to the right I have drawn a little diagram to show the percentage of the traffic going, for instance the project is on the bottom left and State Highway 1 is at the north, 51 10 percent of the traffic on the new project is going towards Northland, 49 percent is going towards Warkworth. What this is showing, is that Warkworth is a destination for half the traffic using the project, half the traffic, so it shares destination status 15 with Northland. Most of that traffic going to the Warkworth or the Warkworth area, will actually go through the Hill Street intersection. The other comment I make is that, it feels uncomfortable to go two kilometres north from 20 Hill Street in order to go south towards Auckland. And as a result, I suggest that adding south facing connections to and from the project south of Mckinney Road (and that’s south of Warkworth), will reduce traffic at the Hill Street intersection. It will reduce traffic on State Highway 1 south and by virtue of increasing traffic on the project, it 25 will make the project more viable. CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn’t that require a – I don’t know whether you can – where’s the laser pointer – is it on the table there – could you just turnover Mr Williams, and just point out, for the benefit of the Board 30 with that pointer, where Mckinney Road is? MR WILLIAMS: Okay. Mckinney Road is towards the south of the current CBD, there is a proposed route across here to link through to that connector road that is shown, so it’s in this vicinity – in actual practise, 35 it won’t be at Mckinney Road it’ll be at a point here, so somewhere between here and – because I haven’t designed the road, I will not – I can’t tell you exactly how or where, but there is - - - CHAIRPERSON: That’s - - - 40 MR WILLIAMS: - - - the general idea is the connection across this area, south facing ramps here. CHAIRPERSON: So effectively you’re wanting a new onramp with all the 45 construction which would go with that? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 349 MR WILLIAMS: Indeed, sir. I’m suggesting that, to make this route more viable, to take traffic rather than have this traffic, we’ve - - - CHAIRPERSON: All right. 5 MR WILLIAMS: The same amount of traffic, have no improvement over 2009, wouldn’t it be better to try and capture the traffic in this area, bring onto here and add it to the project traffic. 10 CHAIRPERSON: I understand that. Now on this issue of it being “uncomfortable to go north, to go south”, which I understand that that’s not the only part of the world this would happen. MR WILLIAMS: I’ll be totally selfish, I live down here, sir. 15 CHAIRPERSON: I see, right, okay. [2.50 pm] 20 MR WILLIAMS: If I wanted to use the project I will have to travel through Hill Street. CHAIRPERSON: If Hill Street was totally redesigned though, along the lines you suggest, would your discomfort drop considerably? 25 MR WILLIAMS: It would drop slightly, but as there is a lot of the development of Warkworth will be occurring in this area, to me it would make sense. In my opinion it would be better to have a connection here, a southbound connection here. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Does the discomfort go the other way? I mean, somebody coming off and driving along the project to go to Warkworth who wants to end up in Mckinney Street or the areas you are pointing out, that person could well say to him or herself “well I feel slightly 35 uncomfortable, I am going to have to go north to go south”. MR WILLIAMS: Indeed. CHAIRPERSON: This happens on motorways the whole time though, doesn’t 40 it? MR WILLIAMS: It does, sir. CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you. 45 MR WILLIAMS: Right. So I think I have covered that one. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 350 CHAIRPERSON: Good. MR WILLIAMS: I have not got a timeline showing progress on Hill – this 5 shows a graph of the traffic on State Highway 1 – in fact State Highway 1 south of Mckinney Road. And it starts off at 1994, comes up to about here, and at this point there was an agreement signed, a memorandum of understanding between Rodney District Council and the NZTA to carry out various Warkworth roading improvements, 10 including Hill Street and indeed Hill Street was, at that time, scheduled to be completed by 2009. You can see the traffic is rising as we go and the project hearing is it up here, so it has already increased at this point. And as it stands at the 15 moment it will be a couple of years before the project is started, I suspect, and five years to construct the project, three years, if we are lucky, to get a decision on Hill Street and have it constructed. And so you can see there is a considerable growth of traffic over that time and we are well short of the promised date of 2009. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, how long have you lived in the Warkworth area? MR WILLIAMS: I have been travelling to the Warkworth area for about 25 10 years, sir. I have only lived there for three years, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Did you, yourself, professionally have any involvement in your areas of expertise – any involvement with Rodney District Council and its planning processes? 30 MR WILLIAMS: No, sir. But I did work in the Auckland - - - CHAIRPERSON: No, it was Rodney I was focusing on. 35 MR WILLIAMS: Rodney. CHAIRPERSON: So you are not able to enlighten us as to why Rodney District Council didn’t grasp these nettles at an earlier stage before it disappeared? From your personal experience, other than hearsay. 40 Most planning lawyers in the room will have view on it. MR WILLIAMS: My colleague, Jen Turner, who was on the local Board and a Rodney Councillor might be able to help you, sir. 45 CHAIRPERSON: No, we won’t needle her too much then. Yes. Okay. Thank you, proceed. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 351 MR CHANDLER: Perhaps I could ask a question, Mr Williams. In summary, are you saying that if the project was in place and the Matakana traffic came from the north rather than from the south as it does now, are you 5 saying that the Hill Street intersection would get worse and deteriorate further? Notwithstanding the fact that there was a change in the traffic flows. MR WILLIAMS: I think I will come to that in just a moment. So anyway. 10 The truck – yes, I will talk about the traffic flows first. Traffic going to the project, traffic going to the project from Warkworth and the eastern suburbs now makes a difficult right turn with typically a clearance rate of six vehicles per traffic cycle. That is approximately half the clearance rate for traffic turning left on State Highway 1 towards 15 Auckland. Therefore, it would be more difficult to go towards Auckland via the project. And if we look at the picture we had before – have I got an arrow, yes, I have got an arrow – currently if you are coming from the Matakana- 20 Omaha area or from Sandspit area and you want to go to Auckland you go down about there and turn left. That generally clears about 12 vehicles per cycle. [2.55 pm] 25 If you want to go right you’ve got to get across here and up here and it generally only clears about six vehicles per cycle so it’s going to be twice as hard to go towards Auckland from the suburbs without this intersection being altered. 30 I’ll move forward. The proposed Matakana link. At Hills Street intersection only 40 percent of the eastern traffic comes from Matakana Road while 60 percent comes from Sandspit Road. I showed you that in the total traffic numbers before. I carried out a spot survey of about 35 100 vehicles and I found that of those vehicles coming from Matakana Road and Sandspit Road 33 percent of them turned off directly into Elizabeth Street. 33 percent were therefore going to the Warkworth CBD directly. 40 I suggest that probably a similar percentage were going to Woodcocks Road. Two thirds of the traffic at least I believe is going to Warkworth area. The link cannot reduce the eastern traffic at Hill Street by more than 20 percent. In fact two thirds of 40 percent is 17 percent. This demonstrates that no serious origin destination surveys have been 45 carried out to justify the Matakana link. A link basically from Matakana towards the project. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 352 The Matakana link is useful but it is a not solution to Hill Street. CHAIRPERSON: Just pausing there for a moment. If – and there’s certainly 5 evidence of this – on of the objectives of the project is to reduce travelling time to those areas which I was asking Mr Bell questions about this morning, Matakana, Tawharanui, Kawau, the coast etcetera. People travelling northbound to those destinations they’re probably going to be able to get there reasonably easily by coming off the 10 motorway and turning south and then peeling off. My question is this, or your point is is it not, that on the homeward journey because they’re going to have to turn right at an unrestricted or unimproved Hill Street intersection to get back onto the motorway it’s 15 going to be much more difficult. Is that right? MR WILLIAMS: That is correct, sir. CHAIRPERSON: All right, did you want to add something to add. 20 MR WILLIAMS: No, you put it very well, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Right, on you go. 25 MR WILLIAMS: Mr Bell talks about the construction traffic and he says that – and he’s referring in clause 50 to the state highway 1 traffic and he says it’s a maximum of two vehicles per traffic cycle. Two new construction vehicles. I consider this level of additional traffic will result in only minor effects. 30 Further down he talks about the heavy traffic that is likely to turn from Hill Street to and from Matakana and this would form only a small proportion of the intersection traffic and would be unlikely to significantly affect its operation. 35 The clearance rate of traffic on state highway 1, this is the through traffic, through the signals is low. Typically it’s a maximum of 15 to 20 vehicles per cycle. The addition of two vehicles per cycle of construction traffic is not minor. 40 [3.00 pm] Concrete and metal truck and trailer units from Matakana have a very poor clearance rate because of stacking problems around Elizabeth 45 Street and choking. Truck and trailer units can block Elizabeth Street. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 353 Even small increases are not minor. Project construction traffic is a very significant problem. I just put a few slides in to illustrate this. This is a small, small I might 5 mention, truck and trailer unit which is already over the white line and the back end is on the intersection of Elizabeth Street. The next one shows a truck queued up between probably two cars and you can see that it is over the intersection. I can see a car trying to come out from Elizabeth Street. It has to give way to the right to this big truck. It also 10 has to give way to traffic coming from state highway 1 north, Hill Street and state highway 1 south. In fact it can’t see any of those last three lots of traffic coming. So what are the options for Hill Street intersection? I explore the 15 NZTA 2009 proposal or similar. I explore one that I suggested back in September for a large roundabout. I explore a few do-minimum options for supposedly a 10-year period only. The sort of thing that might be proposed by NZTA and I also talk about nothing which I’m good at. 20 So here we have the NZTA 2009 proposal. This is actually – what it’s done if I can show you somehow. What they have done here is they’ve brought the Elizabeth Street Road into the main intersection. This means that all traffic is controlled by lights. They’ve also added lights 25 over here on Matakana Road and Sandspit Road. In doing so – I might mention that they have increased the number of lanes quite considerably. So we’ve doubled the number of lanes on this sight and coming from the north we have banned the right turn into Hill Street and we’ve got two effective lanes there. So there is some 30 improvement. The intersection in the meantime you can where the arrow is that is where the existing curve is. That is now down here. So in the process they have turned it into from four roads approaching the intersection to 35 five roads. This increases the – has an effect on the cycle times of the traffic lights. They’ve also – because the intersection is twice as large it means that they have to have a gap between cycles. Increase the gap between cycles to allow the traffic to clear. 40 They’ve also by the way – they’ve got an “in’ to Kowhai Park and an “out” up here. So just running through that again, this proposal offers a managed solution. Staggering lengths and lanes are improved. The proposal 45 includes signals, I’ve got that. It addresses the basic problem of the proximity of Elizabeth Street by putting it through the main Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 354 intersection. There’s no widening of state highway 1 south of Shoesmiths Bridge. And no right turn. NZTA says the upgrade will not be started until after the project is 5 completed. This shows that the project is delaying the works. It has an effect on the works. Sorry, the project has an effect on Hill Street by this delay that they have imposed on us. [3.05 pm] 10 And of course there is a growth rate at the intersection of possibly three to four percent and so the intersection problems are going to get worse during that 10 year period, making the construction of the upgrade more difficult, not easier. 15 So I then, in frustration I submitted a proposal for a large rotary intersection to NZTA in September, and this is a felt pen sketch of how I saw it working. 20 So what I’ve done is I’ve created a large rotary intersection, and at this point here the road comes across as a straight line to there. It rises and there is a – so we’ve got a stream coming underneath here and we actually have an underpass here as well to allow the pedestrians to come down here – down freely underneath there, through the car park 25 and then they can cross at this point down here – noting that they have more opportunity to cross because there’s no turning traffic cutting across them and – okay. Now, until the project is operating of course we have a dominant flow, 30 which is State Highway 1, coming down, and dominant flows do cause problems with roundabouts. And the other thing is that we probably don’t want all State Highway 1 traffic winding its way around this roundabout. 35 So for the period until the project is complete I have put some lanes down here and I’ve got the traffic going straight across here, straight across – no turning off, just straight across. Same going this way, straight across. 40 I will just go forward for a minute. CHAIRPERSON: Has that southbound traffic coming down the dominant flow of State Highway 1 got any traffic light control? 45 MR WILLIAMS: It has. Right, so it’s got the main traffic lights – they are reconfigured of course – and it’s got a light controlled crossing here so Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 355 that any right turn traffic here gets a break across there. When the State Highway 1 traffic stops, it stops here and leaves a gap. CHAIRPERSON: So that both lights facing southbound traffic would be 5 phased so that - - - MR WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: - - - you don’t get a backup blocking parts of the 10 roundabout? MR WILLIAMS: No. No, that’s exactly right, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Right. 15 MR WILLIAMS: What have we got? Yes, Kowhai Park is a left in and left out. I’ll just move forward and have a look at the – rotary intersections require - the advantages of a large roundabout are rotary intersections require simple give way to the right decisions. That’s a lot easier than 20 giving way to four other directions at the same time. Large size means that one decision is taken at a time. The addition of the state highway straight through only lane with traffic signals gives a direct path for the major flow. This is only required for 25 the State Highway 1 traffic while the project is constructed. Just go back a second - you can see that once you take out that dominant flow then this particular piece of road here is not really required. The traffic can circulate to the more local turn offs, so it gets 30 simpler later on. [3.10 pm] Traffic signals intercept the major flow giving minor legs the 35 opportunity to enter the rotary intersection and Hill Street of course can be entered from or by people going around the roundabout. If it is constructed now the future project construction traffic will be catered for. It will be quite straight forward to work. Warkworth 40 residents will have better access to the completed project. They will actually be able to use the project. Access from all nearby properties is improved and as I mentioned before it is possible to simplify it after the project is complete. The new 45 road crossing of the stream allows pedestrians and mobility scooters access to the traffic lights by an underpass. The traffic signal sequence Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 356 allows more time to cross to Warkworth. Traffic at this crossing point is one way and there is no threat to pedestrians from turning traffic. Construction advantages. A large part of the alternative design can be 5 constructed off the highway. This reduces the total construction time to less than one year. We have heard Mr Parker bemoaning the problems of the previous construction which was started at the beginning. It was designed to be started at the beginning of the summer season, but the contract was actually at the end of the summer causing all sorts of 10 problems and extending the project over two years. Note that the balance of the improvements use the existing construction as a base, in fact most of the roads are already there, they just need improvement and extra curbs. Services are largely unaffected, land 15 purchase is not required, at this stage NZTA have not responded to this suggestion. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, what is you answer if there is one to what seems to have been the stance of NZTAs witnesses to embark upon 20 reconfiguration of the Hill Street intersection is going to cause, the construction of it is going to cause a massive disruption to the Warkworth community? MR WILLIAMS: Yes, there will undoubtedly be disruption, it is inevitable 25 whatever you do, there will be disruption but it is better to do it now rather than later when there actually will be more traffic on the intersection. CHAIRPERSON: More traffic to be disrupted? 30 MR WILLIAMS: More total traffic to be disrupted and my suggestion here means that instead of widening highways as much as they are proposing to like four lanes going north then a lesser amount is possible. We have also heard from Mr Parker that he is proposing a few patch up jobs that 35 would tide us over for say ten years and this is the sort of compromise that is being proposed. These will increase the capacity of State Highway 1 both ways and there will be some improvements to traffic flow from Sandspit Road but 40 it still chokes. There may be something done for pedestrians, there may not but the option is still very temperamental. The elephant in the room is that it does nothing to solve the basic problem which is the proximity of Elizabeth Street and Hill Street and I 45 am not recommending it, but I will just show the sort of things that might be proposed. You can see there is some widening down here which frees up the left hand movement. There is something happening here, possibly by 50 banning the right turn movement. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 357 [3.15 pm] You’ve got to be careful about the advantages of this. If it’s going to 5 choke by turning movements, some having a mixture of cars going straight-through and turning movement, this slip-lane may only solve the problem back to that point, the choking can still occur beyond. Here I’ve suggested an in and an out, I’ve also looked at a bit of extra 10 widening down here, and getting the traffic in here to slip in. Mind you, if there’s congestion at this point it will still snarl up – it will back up from here. And if we go south then we would have to do a bit of widening here to 15 cope with two lanes of traffic coming in from the north, and we’d want to carry the State Highway One straight ahead traffic, we’d want to carry that back down to Shoesmith Road. But quite frankly it does not address the basic problem, which is up here, which is the proximity of Elizabeth Street to this road here, and therefore I cannot recommend it. 20 Then you come to do nothing. The problems get worse during the construction of the project, the project does not solve the Hill Street intersection, congestion only gets worse. NZTA will alienate both the State Highway One users and the Warkworth-Mahurangi residents for 25 the next seven to 10 years. CHAIRPERSON: Why would it be NZTA alienating these people, but I suppose if NZTA wasn’t proposing this project and had responsibility for State Highway One on its current route it would have to do 30 something, but so too would Auckland City, would it not? MR WILLIAMS: Auckland Transport would be linked in with that, they would both be alienating. They’re not only alienating the people of Warkworth and Mahurangi, they’re also alienating all the through 35 traffic, so it’s just unbelievable. I’ve included here a letter from the Rodney - - - CHAIRPERSON: Just to save you reading it out, Mr Williams, I think most 40 Board members have read this, but effectively in December last year the Rodney Local Board, which is one of the Boards of the Auckland City organisation, is it not, has effectively given your proposal its approval. I take it was a unanimous carrying of the resolution was it? 45 MR WILLIAMS: It was indeed, sir. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 358 CHAIRPERSON: And that they are urging both NZTA and Auckland Transport to do something about these issues, is that right? MR WILLIAMS: That is correct, sir. 5 CHAIRPERSON: So you’re effectively have got the backing of the Rodney local board? MR WILLIAMS: I have made a number of presentations and I have not had a 10 negative response at any of them, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Do we know whether the bureaucracy of Auckland City has responded to this, it’s over four months tomorrow that it was written. 15 MR WILLIAMS: I believe not, sir. CHAIRPERSON: All right. Does that conclude your evidence? MR WILLIAMS: No, I’m just summing up. 20 CHAIRPERSON: But you want to ask a question? MR WITHY: Well just a matter of fact the letter is addressed to the NZTA rather than the Auckland City. 25 CHAIRPERSON: That’s correct, yes. So this letter didn’t go to Auckland City? MR WILLIAMS: I don’t know, sir, I wasn’t the - - - 30 CHAIRPERSON: No, you’re not the writer. MR WILLIAMS: I only saw the copy of it, sir, I didn’t pick that up. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you’re quite right. MR WILLIAMS: But I think they saw NZTA as the lead agency in Hill Street improvements. 40 CHAIRPERSON: And that’s what the resolution said. Yes. Thank you Mr Williams. [3.20 pm] 45 MR WILLIAMS: So the reasons for the Hill Street upgrade now – congestion must be addressed now. Project completion will not reduce congestion. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 359 Due minimum solutions do not address the real problem which is the problem of the proximity of Hill Street. The redesign must occur with a robust solution – that is a managed 5 solution, a robust solution, such as the NZTA 2009 or the large roundabout type of option. The impact of construction traffic will be minimised by the upgrade. Responsibility for the Hill Street upgrade must be kept with NZTA. Warkworth businesses need a user friendly gateway to the town now to mitigate the negative effects of the project. 10 And the project is not a solution for the Hill Street construction traffic – it increases the problem. Growth will increase the problem. Procrastination is not a solution. My considered conclusion is that prior improvement of Hill Street 15 intersection to a robust solution such as NZTA 2009 Plan or a large roundabout must be a condition of the project. Thank you for your attention. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Now before we ask Mr Williams any questions, other than you, Ms Brosnahan, does anyone want to cross-examine Mr Williams? I assume you do too, Mr Lanning? MR LANNING: No, I don’t, sir. 25 CHAIRPERSON: You don’t. Anyone other than Ms Brosnahan want to cross-examine? Yes, and the Board. MR DILLON: Sir, I might have one question. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dillon. Now the Board is concerned that we have got ourselves into a timing muddle here, and as I understand it some of the parameters are that Mr Williams wasn’t available for the second tranche of hearings and Mr Dillon, I understand that Asia 35 Pacific’s witness, Ms Shen, is going overseas tomorrow, is that right? MR DILLON: Tomorrow? No, I think it is the next day actually, sir. CHAIRPERSON: So she could come tomorrow if need be? 40 MR DILLON: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Well we were told that she was going overseas tomorrow and would have to be heard today. So that may help us a bit. And is 45 Mr Pitches still here? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 360 MR PITCHES: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: What constraints do you have in terms of timing? 5 MR PITCHES: I am not (INDISTINCT 2.54) CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And I have forgotten where you are based, Auckland is it? 10 MR PITCHES: Auckland, yes. CHAIRPERSON: Right. No, it’s all right. I was contemplating your lunch parameters. So that gives us a little bit of flexibility I suppose. Because the impression which the EPA staff were going on, Mr Dillon, was that 15 we had to get rid of you today – or get your evidence out of the way today. Is that not the case? MR DILLON: No, actually I think I advised that 11 of April is when - - - 20 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you can come back tomorrow if need be? MR DILLON: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: All right. And Mr Lanning, where do you stand on all this? 25 At the moment we have an optimistic 35 minutes for you to make your submissions and put Mr Clark in the box and have him cross-examined – is that realistic? MR LANNING: I don’t know what questions they will wish to ask so, you 30 know. CHAIRPERSON: Well what about your submissions – your submissions would not go more than 15 minutes? 35 MR LANNING: Four pages, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Your part of Simpson Grierson (INDISTINCT 04:15) is that right? 40 MR LANNING: Correct, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Right. All right. Well I suspect we just box on. Have you got any thoughts about this timetable you’ve imposed upon us, Michelle? 45 MS ………: No, sir. We’ll make some small adjustments tomorrow. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 361 CHAIRPERSON: Well when you let us have afternoon tea, which is at 3.45 – is that right? 5 MS ………: 3.30, sir. CHAIRPERSON: It’s 3.30 now? Why does it say 3.45 on this? MS ………: 3.30, sir. It is a slight typo – official afternoon tea is 3.30, sir. 10 CHAIRPERSON: I see. Okay. MR LANNING: Sir, I was going to say, if Mr Clark is not available tomorrow, that’s another niggly thought. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that is - - - MR LANNING: But Monday, he could come back on Monday. We just thought it was useful, given the nature of Mr Clark’s evidence - - - 20 [3.25 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Where is our project director, Dr Bense, is he here. He has just come in. Like a well written script isn’t it. 25 Dr Bense, the Board has considerable unease about the underpinning or the realism of the underpinning of some of these times for witnesses and there are constraints, like people who can’t be here at certain times and so on and so forth, but although we tried, or your staff tried with 30 the best will in the world to try and rejig things during lunch, it is not quite going to work. So what we are going to do is take a break at 3.30 and we need to get something which is realistic, but my direction to you is that the 35 experience of the last two or three days where you will have all got a feel for the dynamic of how this hearing is going, and that dynamic has to be factored into planning next week, and indeed up in Warkworth, and it is critically important that the Board has time to listen to people who have had the courtesy of coming around here and airing their 40 concerns, and that people who want to say something or other, are going to be heard on at least the day or half day when they are heard and we don’t run into a situation where we are being pushed for time. Because otherwise, to use Mr Williams’ expression, everybody is going to get annihilated, all right. 45 DR BENSE: Now we understand the dynamics - - - Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 362 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it takes a while to sort things out and counsel have been very helpful, we are not dealing with people who have been prolix or anything like that but some of these issues are of importance. 5 All right, now, is there any Board members that want to ask questions of Mr Williams before we unleash Ms Brosnahan. MR WITHY: When you were actively involved in these transport planning 10 and traffic engineering matters, where were you based? MR WILLIAMS: Hamilton. MR WITHY: Never in Auckland? 15 MR WILLIAMS: I was based in Auckland for a period, I did the Waitemata Harbour crossing studies from Auckland and I was operating from the Opus office there. 20 MR WITHY: So you are reasonably familiar with the Auckland region? MR WILLIAMS: Yes, and concurrently at the time I was sharing draftsmen – the draftsmen were also working on the Woodcocks Road to Whittaker Road section, designing that with the anticipation that they, with the 25 designing Hill Street the following year. That was 10 years ago. MR WITHY: You referred to the 2009 NZTA proposal. I take it that is identical with the one that you appended to your evidence dated March 2010? 30 MR WILLIAMS: It could be, sir, that would be the same, it is the only one I have available. MR WITHY: The same proposal. There has been a public meeting referred 35 to, I think, earlier this year. Were you present? MR WILLIAMS: Are you referring to the meeting – I was present for a facilitation meeting in early March and a facilitation meeting last week. There was a political meeting that occurred about a week and a half 40 ago, I was not present at that, no. MR WITHY: When you say political meeting, is that the same one that Mr Parker and Mr Bell referred to when they talked about a public meeting? 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 363 MR WILLIAMS: I am not sure about that, there was a facilitation meeting scheduled for the week before last, and it was cancelled because there was a meeting with Mark Mitchell, the MP, Penny Webster and – no, I correct that. 5 The Warkworth Area Liaison Group scheduled a meeting with Mark Mitchell about the subject. He invited NZTA who invited Penny Webster who invited a number of interested landowners on the Matakana link. I was not invited to that meeting. 10 [3.30 pm] MR WITHY: Right. I’ve just reread the facilitated meeting with yourself, dated the 11th of March. 15 MR WILLIAMS: That’s correct. MR WITHY: That’s the most recent meeting you had with NZTA people? 20 MR WILLIAMS: I attended the meeting last week, last Thursday, that was a facilitated meeting, I attended it, I did not speak because I felt I was going to prejudice what I spoke about today. MR WITHY: Would it be fair to say that the 11th of March meeting was 25 inconclusive, there was very little agreed. MR WILLIAMS: We agree to disagree on a number of matters. There were areas where we in general agreement, but in – but the key points about construction traffic and operational traffic, we were not in agreement 30 about. MR WITHY: And likewise, the issue of timing, your position is that something needs to be done and done quickly, whereas NZTA’s position is, let’s wait and see what the project does and then do 35 something at Hill Street, that gulf remains correct? MR WILLIAMS: That is correct. MR WITHY: Yep. 40 MR WILLIAMS: The people involved in will probably retire before that happens – maybe I shouldn’t have said that. MR WITHY: I just want to be clear to in what you’re saying about the 45 Mckinney Street/road onramp, you’re advocating that in addition to, rather than replacement of? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 364 MR WILLIAMS: I’m just – I’m making a suggestion for a couple of reasons - - - 5 CHAIRPERSON: Oh, use the pointer. MR WILLIAMS: - - - (1) is that, I believe that the route that’s proposed is fundamentally flawed by the lack of traffic using it, or the – well shall I say, the amount of traffic left on State Highway 1. 10 MR WITHY: I understand that, but what I’m asking you is this portion up to the roundabout, are you advocating that that - - - MR WILLIAMS: Oh, definitely. 15 MR WITHY: - - - remain? MR WILLIAMS: definitely. 20 MR WITHY: So it’s another entry to - - - MR WILLIAMS: It’s an additional connection here, and it will ease problems around here, by giving people a choice and it will service the whole of this area and it will reduce traffic down the existing State Highway – 25 and it will make this project more viable. CHAIRPERSON: So effectively as in the Taupo bypass and also a number of North American highway links, Warkworth would be a community which would have a choice of two onramps and two off-ramps. 30 MR WILLIAMS: Yes, this makes the viability of businesses in the town a lot better - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 35 MR WILLIAMS: - - - I mean, it means that people wishing to visit the town, can enter at this end - - - CHAIRPERSON: And go out the other end. 40 MR WILLIAMS: - - - and go out the other end. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. 45 MR WITHY: And my last question is, if further conferencing were available to you, would you be prepared to engage, you mentioned at the last one Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 365 you chose not to engage, but if there were more conferencing during this hearing would you be prepared to engage? MR WILLIAMS: Yes, now that I’ve given my presentation, yes. 5 MR WITHY: And how much time do you have before you go on extended holiday to engage? MR WILLIAMS: I’m going away for three weeks holiday from next Sunday, 10 I’ll be back before the end of the hearing – I’ll be back on the 4th of May. MR WITHY: So you’re talking about leaving on April 12th? 15 MR WILLIAMS: Yes. MR WITHY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: I did have a question, I’ve forgotten what it was for the 20 time being – yes, cross-examination. MS BROSNAHAN: I’m just noticing the time, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Oh, the time, yes, thank you very much, I think that’s good. 25 When – Ms Young, I think we're going to have to have further discussions with everybody, and the Board’s temporary preference at the moment, we list carefully, we sympathise with Mr Pitches concerns, but my thoughts are really, that once cross-examination of 30 Mr Williams is finished that we should probably move straight onto Asia Pacific and then if we’ve got time then with Auckland Transport, you’re man’s not here? MR PITCHES: I strongly object, sir, I have been here since noon, and like I 35 say I’m not paid to be here - - - [3.35 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I appreciate that, there is nothing to object about, I 40 said I was being sympathetic with your position, Mr Pitches. MR PITCHES: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: We have got a problem, it may well be that if Mr Clark is 45 not available tomorrow we should do him today but will counsel please Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 366 confer in conjunction with the staff and get something which is orderly sorted out please, all right, and we will take a 15 minute break. ADJOURNED [3.35 pm] 5 RESUMED [3.52 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are on your former, Mr Williams. Ms Brosnahan? 10 MS BROSNAHAN: Thank you, sir. Mr Williams, your evidence is that the Hill Street intersection requires improvement whether or not the project goes ahead. Is that correct? 15 MR WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, the Hill Street intersection does require improvements. MS BROSNAHAN: Thank you, and once operational do you consider that 20 the project will have an adverse effect on Hill Street intersection? MR WILLIAMS: If the Hill Street intersection has been improved, no. MS BROSNAHAN: And if the Hill Street intersection has not been improved 25 do you consider the project will have an adverse effect on it? MR WILLIAMS: Definitely. MS BROSNAHAN: And can you point me in your evidence to where your 30 analysis is for that, the paragraph in your evidence? MR WILLIAMS: It may not be totally clear in the written evidence. It is in the presentation, it gives – we’ve got some net changes in flows on various legs of the intersection. Those changes are overwhelmed by 35 the growth that occurs between now and the end of the project. MS BROSNAHAN: And so there’s nothing in your evidence analysing the project’s effects once operational on Hill Street intersection? 40 MR WILLIAMS: I don’t have the resources to do that. MS BROSNAHAN: But you mentioned that in the presentation – and I’m sorry there’s not page numbers for anything – but you had a slide. Are you able to take us back to that? It is about half way. 45 MR WILLIAMS: What’s the view? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 367 MS BROSNAHAN: The Predicted Effect. Thank you. And you mention a number of movements there – the Elizabeth Street, the Hill Street and so forth. Have you mentioned the actual through traffic, which is one 5 of the - objectives for the project, the north to south? [3.55 pm] MR WILLIAMS: I have mentioned the state highway north traffic is six 10 percent down. You have to counterbalance that with the three percent per year growth, three to four percent a year growth that is occurring during the period of the project. MS BROSNAHAN: If you are comparing which you have done, you have 15 compared the numbers of Mr Bell’s evidence which is similar growth, so it is base case versus the project, is that correct? MR WILLIAMS: In that particular year. 20 MS BROSNAHAN: In 2026? MR WILLIAMS: That is correct. MS BROSNAHAN: From the information that you had up earlier the number, 25 the reduction in through traffic is around 5 or 6,000 vehicles would that be about right? MR WILLIAMS: I can look it up. Which one are you interested in, State Highway 1 is north and is going from in 2009 it was 11,900. It goes to 30 15,600. MS BROSNAHAN: No, sir, I am asking you to look at this figure which is now up there in front of you. 35 MR WILLIAMS: The main project, yes. MS BROSNAHAN: It is the comparison of 2026. MR WILLIAMS: - - -Yes. 40 MS BROSNAHAN: Base case to the project, you will see a drop of about 10,000 vehicles. MR WILLIAMS: Yes, that is correct. 45 MS BROSNAHAN: Then if we go three more pages on, you will see just north of Whitaker Road which is a continuation of that traffic. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 368 MR WILLIAMS: Well it is, but it has already gone past Whitaker’s, it has already gone past Woodcocks Road and Whitaker Road, yes. MS BROSNAHAN: You will appreciate this might be the through traffic for 5 Hill Street? MR WILLIAMS: The Brown Road traffic which you are referring to has dropped from 22,700 to 17,000, I cannot quite read it from here but 17,700, yes. 10 MS BROSNAHAN: That would be about a 25 percent reduction on the through traffic? MR WILLIAMS: It is undoubtedly a drop in the through traffic. 15 MS BROSNAHAN: The numbers that you had up there before analysing this, did you factor into your consideration that the phasing of the lights at the intersection at Hill Street will change as a result of the project? 20 MR WILLIAMS: I was only using your figures. The only percentage changes are taken entirely from the figures provided in the transportation and traffic assessment report. MS BROSNAHAN: You appreciate that even though the numbers may be 25 increased on certain movements through that intersection, the project may not have an adverse effect on that intersection because of the through traffic decrease? MR WILLIAMS: - - -I cannot agree with that, no. 30 MS BROSNAHAN: Can you provide me with any analysis that suggests why that is incorrect in your evidence, can you point me to somewhere in your evidence that is before the Board? 35 MR WILLIAMS: No, the project is beneficial to the Hill Street intersection in general provided the flow north towards the project is catered for which it may or not be by additional lanes or lights. There will be changes needed at the intersection. 40 MS BROSNAHAN: As a result of the project or as the result of growth between now and 2026? MR WILLIAMS: The result of the project. 45 [4.00 pm] MS BROSNAHAN: Now, going to construction, do you consider that the project will have adverse construction effects on the intersection? Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 369 MR WILLIAMS: Yes. MS BROSNAHAN: And, again, can you please point me to some information, 5 some analysis to prove that? MR WILLIAMS: Mr Bell has provided the information on the increase in vehicle movements. I have not analysed it in detail, I do not necessarily disagree with the number he has – I don’t agree or disagree with the 10 numbers he has provided. I am just saying that the increases are significant. MS BROSNAHAN: He suggests in paragraph 45 of his rebuttal, can you please go to that. 15 MR WILLIAMS: Of his rebuttal? MS BROSNAHAN: Yes, sir. 20 MR WILLIAMS: I possibly haven’t got that on hand. I might or might not have. MS BROSNAHAN: On page 8 you will have seen at paragraph 43 Mr Bell is continuing a conversation he has had about the heavy vehicles that he 25 considered may come from Matakana through that intersection, do you see that? MR WILLIAMS: Yes. 30 MS BROSNAHAN: And he estimates that approximately four vehicles per hour, heavy vehicles per hour may come in that westerly direction, do you see that? MR WILLIAMS: Yes. 35 MS BROSNAHAN: And you will see down in paragraph 45 he suggests that those vehicles that would average out at about one vehicle per seven cycles on the lights? 40 MR WILLIAMS: Yes, I should also point out, of course, he hasn’t counted any concrete trucks coming. MS BROSNAHAN: His analysis is of all heavy vehicles coming through west from the construction. 45 MR WILLIAMS: I believe it’s not. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 370 MS BROSNAHAN: Can you point me to the information? MR WILLIAMS: No, it was on discussion with Mr Bell and he talked about 5 the heavy vehicles from the quarry for supply of metal. He did not discuss additional vehicles such as concrete trucks. MS BROSNAHAN: Coming from where, sir, from the east? 10 MR WILLIAMS: There is a concrete plant that services the Warkworth area based at Matakana. MS BROSNAHAN: Thank you, sir, and your - - - 15 CHAIRPERSON: Just so there is no unfairness here, Ms Brosnahan, Mr Bell is referring in paragraph 45 to paragraph 26 of Mr Williams’ evidence. Wasn’t paragraph 26 limited to trucks carrying metal from quarries? In which case, if that is the case, the witness’ point is correct. If he is talking about construction traffic generically, well, then your point is 20 correct. MS BROSNAHAN: It does speak of truck and trailer units in paragraph 26. CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so we are focusing on truck and trailer units which I 25 suppose a concrete truck is not. MS BROSNAHAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: The big thing which roll around on the top and rotate. 30 MS BROSNAHAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay, thank you. 35 MS BROSNAHAN: But you will also note that in paragraph 23, which may take into consideration your concrete vehicles, in that Mr Bell considered 25 vehicles per hour on a typical day going through the Hill Street intersection? 40 MR WILLIAMS: Which paragraph – oh, on the main evidence, is it? MS BROSNAHAN: No, it’s the same paragraph in 43, in response to your evidence he did further analysis to show that it could be 29 but it is a maximum that he doesn’t envisage but to sensitivity test. 45 MR WILLIAMS: He has done the figures, I haven’t done the figures. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 371 MS BROSNAHAN: But you note that it does say that the level of service doesn’t change in that situation? 5 MR WILLIAMS: That is his opinion. MS BROSNAHAN: But you have not done any analysis of that? MR WILLIAMS: I have not analysed it, no. 10 MS BROSNAHAN: Okay, thank you, sir. And when looking at the Hill Street intersection, are you aware how many injury crashes there have been at the intersection? 15 MR WILLIAMS: There are very few reported serious injury crashes or fatalities, if any, and that is because the vehicle speeds are very low. CHAIRPERSON: Any pedestrian fatalities or injuries you are aware of? 20 MR WILLIAMS: I haven’t done any research on that. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MS BROSNAHAN: Have you see, again, Mr Bell’s construction traffic 25 evidence? MR WILLIAMS: I have. MS BROSNAHAN: At paragraph 55 he notes that there has only been one 30 injury crash in the five year period from 2008 to 2012, would that seem correct to you, sir? [4.05 pm] 35 MR WILLIAMS: I couldn’t offer an opinion on that. MS BROSNAHAN: But that seems about right, based on your opinion? MR WILLIAMS: My understanding is that there are very few injury crashes. 40 MS BROSNAHAN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Now was it Mr Dillon, do you have some questions you wanted to ask? 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 372 MR DILLON: Just wanted to clarify one point. In your evidence you were comparing the existing use of State Highway One, and I think they 5 were from 2009 figures, and the projection for 2026 for State Highway One. And I think you made the point that those figures were quite close together. What was the variance, what was the absolute number variance between those two figures can you recall? 10 MR WILLIAMS: There was 100 vehicles, and the difference between the two numbers was 100 vehicles per day. MR DILLON: So the benefit from the project was a reduction of 100 vehicles per day along State Highway One, is that correct? 15 MR WILLIAMS: That is correct. MR DILLON: Do you know what the margin of error was in the assessment for the 2026 projections. 20 MR WILLIAMS: I have no idea. I didn’t do the analysis, I’m only using the figures provided by NZTA. MR DILLON: From your own experience, would you have any feeling for 25 what the margin of error might be in relation to those projections? MR WILLIAMS: It could be 10/15 percent. MR DILLON: And 100 vehicle movements in relation to the total number of 30 movements is well within the margin of error, would that be a fair comment? MR WILLIAMS: That’s correct. 35 MR DILLON: Yes. No further questions. Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, just one – it’s again almost a process issue, but you’re heading away on Sunday for three weeks. I take it that you’re not really able to engage in such short notice in any useful 40 dialogue, if you thought a useful dialogue was possible with Mr Bell or NZTA generally – this is a repeat of the facilitated conference type of thing. MR WILLIAMS: No, I don’t think that would be productive, sir. 45 CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 373 Ms Turner, you are here in a support role I take it, is that right, you weren’t proposing to give evidence? 5 MS TURNER: No, sir, I have my turn for submission at the beginning of May, so I’m waiting. CHAIRPERSON: Ah. 10 MS TURNER: Yes, and I will have much to say at that point in time. CHAIRPERSON: All right, well we’ll keep it under wraps I think until then. I take it this will include some analysis, if that’s the right word, of the now disbanded Rodney District Council’s approach to this problem, 15 will it? MS TURNER: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON: Which you will have some inside lines. 20 MS TURNER: I have very much inside experience of it. CHAIRPERSON: Well that’s really helpful. Right, thank you. Thank you, Mr Williams, the Board is - - - 25 MR …………: Hang on. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I forgot about you. I’m sorry. Yes, Ms Vella, have you got something you want to ask him? 30 MS VELLA: Just a couple of quick questions if that is okay. 35 CHAIRPERSON: I do apologise. MS VELLA: Mr Williams, I just want to pick up on one of the questions that my friend asked you during her cross-examination relating to the effects of the project on Hill Street intersection. You said that you 40 think that the project will be beneficial to the Hill Street intersection in general provided that the flow north of the project is catered for. You said that “there are changes needed at the intersections as a result of the project”. Now I might be putting you on the spot a bit, but are you able to give us an overview of what those changes would be? 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 374 MR WILLIAMS: We’ll be assuming that the Hill Street intersection is not upgraded, other than minor tweaks. MS VELLA: Yes. That’s right. 5 MR WILLIAMS: I actually honestly don’t think it will cope because I can’t see how you can get enough right hand turns without having very long – the traffic will have great difficulty turning right to go towards the project from the eastern suburbs. 10 MS VELLA: I understand that, but let’s assume for a moment that Hill Street won’t be upgraded until the completion of the project or post that. [4.10 pm] 15 MR WILLIAMS: Mm? MS VELLA: What I’d like to get to is your view on the changes to Hill Street that are required directly as a result of the project in order to cater for 20 the changes in traffic patterns and that sort of thing. CHAIRPERSON: I see, in other words, is this right? This is the – assume no change to Hill Street until the project is completed – what changes would be necessary to the intersection then. Is that right? 25 MS VELLA: No. What changes does – because Mr Williams said it would only be beneficial to the project provided that changes were made to cater for the flow from the north. 30 So what changes to Hill Street, putting aside the general upgrade, would be required, as you say, as a direct result of the project? CHAIRPERSON: When? On completion? 35 MS VELLA: At the time of completion of the project or before it’s opened. CHAIRPERSON: Well I thought that’s what I asked, was to - - - MS VELLA: Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood you, sir. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Have you got the drift of what counsel’s asking? MR WILLIAMS: I’m afraid not, sir. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I thought you might not have. Take a deep breath and try again in small words, Ms Vella. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 375 MS VELLA: One more time? Do you recall the question from my friend, Ms Brosnahan, that she said – she was asking you whether or not you agreed – whether or not you considered that the project would have an 5 adverse effect on Hill Street itself, separate to the current issues that are occurring there and growth that might impact again on Hill Street? But the project itself, is that going – do you think that that’s going to have an adverse effect on the Hill Street intersection? 10 MR WILLIAMS: I believe - it’s a very hard question to answer – I believe that the project will have a negative impact because I don’t believe that the traffic cycles can be rearranged adequately. 15 If I look at this picture here, this movement here is very, very difficult. When the lights change these vehicles here (this bus and this car) move forward and head towards the project. Vehicles back here, that are also wanting to go in that direction, they have to try and catch up and there is difficulty because these vehicles are probably still coming out. So 20 you find that only about six vehicles turn right. I watched it the other day, and the sixth vehicle was a truck and trailer unit from Wharehine’s. It ran the red light. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Ms Vella, just listen carefully to this question because it’s formulation and if it’s what you were getting at, not in it and we will see what the answer is. Mr Williams, you’ve given us evidence as to why you think Hill Street 30 needs immediate attention (and we don’t need you to revisit that), okay? MR WILLIAMS: No. 35 CHAIRPERSON: But assume that there is no change to the configuration of Hill Street at between now and completion of the project, or alternatively only the minor changes which Mr Bell was telling us about this morning. What will the effects – will there be adverse effects on the Hill Street intersection once the project is completed? 40 MR WILLIAMS: I believe there will be. CHAIRPERSON: And your answer, amongst other things, is that it’s not going to do anything about the volume of right turning traffic coming 45 out of Matakana Road and Sandspit Road - - - Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 376 MR WILLIAMS: And it’s not - - - CHAIRPERSON: - - - prior to joining the project. Is that right? 5 MR WILLIAMS: And the conflict with Elizabeth Street, which is too close to the proximity of the two intersections, exacerbates the problem considerably. CHAIRPERSON: So from your considerable experience in this area would 10 you agree that the completion of the project will have an adverse effect on Hill Street in as much as it will make things worse than they are at the moment? MR WILLIAMS: I believe it will. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Right. Now, was that what you were trying to do? MS VELLA: Thank you, sir. That’s exactly where I was going. And in your view, Mr Williams – or do you have a view about changes that could 20 be made to Hill Street to address those adverse effects? [4.15 pm] MR WILLIAMS: There’s only two options that I can see, and that is, the 25 NZTA 2009, with minor adjustments to the phasing and/or a solution similar to the lower tramline. MS VELLA: So essentially you’re saying there’s no minor tweak that will give - - - 30 MR WILLIAMS: I believe there is no minor tweak that – no, forget it. MS VELLA: And my understanding is, that’s lively based on the fact that you have more traffic having to turn right into Hill Street – no, out of Hill 35 Street? MR WILLIAMS: No, right. More to – there’s more traffic turning from Elizabeth Street, Sandspit Road and Matakana Road towards the project. 40 MS VELLA: Okay. MR WILLIAMS: And that is, this intersection just will not cope. 45 MS VELLA: Okay, thank you I understand. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 377 Turning now to construction traffic effects, do you have Mr Bell’s rebuttal evidence in front of you? Can you just look to paragraph 42 please? 5 MR WILLIAMS: Right. MS VELLA: So paragraph 42 well, is explained in the previous paragraphs, but essentially it deals with the fact that your evidence questioned the correlation between the number of - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: Have you got paragraph 42 in front of you? MR WILLIAMS: Yes, I have, sir. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Just read it then ask him the question. MS VELLA: Okay. CHAIRPERSON: You don’t have to process part of the question – the question 20 takes on a novel like length, yes. Having read it, what do you want to ask him? MS VELLA: You’ve read it – thank you. So in paragraph 42, Mr Bell sets out 25 the assumptions that he makes in developing a super (INDISTINCT 2.11) model to assess the construction effects on – or the number of construction vehicles going through Hill Street, I just wondered whether you had had an opportunity to consider those assumptions and whether you had a view as to whether or not they’re appropriate? 30 MR WILLIAMS: No, I’m not privy to the modelling. Modelling is a skill and you put information in and you tweak the knobs and get a correlation and then you extrapolate forward from that for you - - - 35 CHAIRPERSON: But - - - MR WILLIAMS: The question is, is that a reasonable thing to do? MS VELLA: Mm'hm. 40 MR WILLIAMS: In most circumstances it is, but what I’m saying on this intersection, is that the choking that occurs on a random basis, due to big trucks, due to hesitant old ladies and people not being able to see, is very hard to model. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 378 When you model it, you must always verify the answers, it’s that verification that is the key to modelling. MS VELLA: And what does that involve, what are you saying needs to be 5 done in order to understand that properly – and I’m presuming this is what you’re referring to your addendum which talks about the “micro model” and you say “no verification appears to have been carried out on the micro model”, what needs to be done now in order to understand that properly? 10 MR WILLIAMS: Well the question is, they’ve got the main SATURN model, I’ve used a SATURN model for a job that’s probably of the same order as that. When I say “I’ve used it”, I’m not an operator of SATURN, I was a project manager of a - so I was overseeing it - and you just got to 15 – it’s a verifications - - - MS VELLA: Sorry, what I’m trying to ask you is, what does the verification involve, what do you actually have to do to verify that? 20 MR WILLIAMS: Well, on the macro scale you hide various information and then you see whether it comes up with the right answer, or else you do cross checks, and Mr Bell has carried that out, I don’t question he’s carried that out. He would have verified it himself on the macro scale and he would have had it peer reviewed. The question is that a minor 25 part of the bigger model, the micro part of the bigger model, Hill Street is a micro part and in that micro part, you could have a serious error in that micro part and it will not affect the overall model, but if you start asking questions about the micro part you also have to verify that micro part of the model. I do not know whether he has done that or not. 30 [4.20 pm] MS VELLA: Okay, the question I originally asked about paragraph 42 though is that he had made some assumptions about short lanes or the 35 approaches and that sort of thing, are you happy that those are the appropriate assumptions to make in the context of the model or you do not have a view? MR WILLIAMS: I personally do not believe that a SATURN model can cope 40 with an intersection with legs at this proximity, no. MS VELLA: So if you just have a look at paragraph, sorry at the beginning of paragraph 42, Mr Bell says he has actually constructed a SIDRA model which is different to SATURN, is it not? 45 MR WILLIAMS: That is correct. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 379 MS VELLA: You just answered referring to the SATURN model, do your answers in the knowledge that it is the SIDRA model and not SATURN? 5 MR WILLIAMS: Not really, but what concerns me is that this is a temperamental intersection. You can get congestion happening at any time of the day. That tells me that is not the problem, it is driven largely by geometry not by traffic flow. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Does this help counsel and indeed help answer the question because there was some cross-examination by you I think of Mr Bell about this this morning? Given the unique characteristics of this intersection, the arrival of a truck and trailer unit out at Sandspit Road at much the same time as the arrival of another heavy truck and trailer 15 unit out at Matakana Road coupled with somebody trying to turn right out of the Elizabeth Street portion of the intersection, these are all unique factors or if you like temperamental factors which have been virtually impossible to replicate inside a model, is that what you are saying? 20 MR WILLIAMS: That is what I am saying, sir, yes. CHAIRPERSON: Does that help? 25 MS VELLA: Thank you for that, sir. Mr Williams, just one final question and again it is in the context of the Hill Street intersection not being upgraded so if we can assume for a moment that it will not be upgraded prior to the project and again, talking about construction effects, do you have any views on what the management response at Hill Street should 30 be in terms of the construction effects on Hill Street assuming it stayed the way it is. MR WILLIAMS: I would not want to be in that position to make the decision. 35 MS VELLA: Does that mean that you would recommend to the Board that Hill Street be avoided in terms of construction? CHAIRPERSON: I think we have already worked that out, but avoided in what sense, Ms Vella? 40 MS VELLA: Completely avoided in so far as I asked Mr Bell earlier today whether there was an alternative route for construction traffic other than going through Hill Street, in your view I am assuming you consider it would be appropriate for this Board perhaps to impose a condition 45 which required an alternative route for all construction traffic so that it did not go through Hill Street, is that correct? MR WILLIAMS: In an ideal world that would be a good answer, yes. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 380 MS VELLA: Perhaps would an alternative be to restrict those traffic movements during the peak hours? 5 MR WILLIAMS: No. MS VELLA: Why is that? MR WILLIAMS: Because the problem, it is this triggering effect. Mr Bell 10 has also talked about, he said sometimes you get congestion and then it dissipates, that is exactly what happens. You do get congestion and it dissipates, sometimes that dissipation occurs in five, 10 minutes, sometimes at peak hours it might take the whole hour. It is that temperamental aspect of this intersection. A few incidents occurring 15 will trigger a problem and you will get congestion spreading back. [4.25 pm] MS VELLA: So it is not just a peak hour issue? 20 MR WILLIAMS: No, and that’s why I put the letter in from Wyatts because I asked them and they made the same conclusion as I did, that it can happen at any time. 25 MS VELLA: Okay. And if the Board weren’t minded to require an alternative route to Hill Street, ie avoid Hill Street altogether, would you then consider it appropriate that there be a specific condition requiring monitoring of the effects of construction traffic on the Hill Street intersection and then a review of as to whether or not Hill Street should 30 be avoid altogether? Would that be an appropriate approach? MR WILLIAMS: Yes, that would be reasonable. MS VELLA: Thank you. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Vella, those last questions were very helpful. Now, Mr Parsonson has got one question of you, Mr Williams. MR PARSONSON: Mr Williams, I am just referring to the figure 12 provided 40 in your presentation you gave us today. MR WILLIAMS: The hand-out, is it? MR PARSONSON: Yes, is it possible you could flick that up on the screen. 45 Yes, is that one, isn’t it. On the left hand side of the screen, the top box there, there is a – please correct me I am incorrect – the project Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 381 prediction is that there will be 13,700 vehicles a day on the project alignment in 2026, is that right? MR WILLIAMS: Yes, that’s correct, that’s how I read it. 5 MR PARSONSON: And the corresponding box on the other side, on the right hand side, once the project is constructed the prediction is on old State Highway 1 it is 14,500, is that correct? 10 MR WILLIAMS: That’s correct. MR PARSONSON: Firstly, is there any reason why the other number in that box 25,400 isn’t the sum of the two numbers? 15 MR WILLIAMS: I don’t know, I didn’t provide this information. MR PARSONSON: No, okay. My second question though is - - - MR WILLIAMS: It is of a similar order I think. 20 MR PARSONSON: Yes, a similar order, 3,000 out. My other question though to you, and perhaps in a verbal bullet point form, is could you just summarise why you think that in 2026 there will be less vehicles using the four lane motorway compared to old State Highway 1? 25 MR WILLIAMS: Well, one reason is I don’t – no, I can’t answer that. That was the question I was trying to ask Mr Bell this morning. All I can say is that you can increase the number of vehicles using the project and decrease the number on State Highway 1 by adding south 30 directional ramps in the southern half of Warkworth. I won’t say where because it’s not my job to choose. MR PARSONSON: Thank you. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Ms Brosnahan, it may well be the Board at some subsequent stage wants Mr Bell to come back so we can ask more questions of him so if he could be on standby. I take it he is not going to disappear from Kohimarama in the near future? 40 MS BROSNAHAN: Okay, sir. CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you. Mr Williams, that has been very enlightening and I am speaking for all the Board when I say we were impressed with the research and the thoroughness with which you have 45 put into your evidence, thank you. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 382 MR WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Now, I think next then we have now got to Campaign for Better Transport, is that where we are going next? Right, Mr Pitches, the floor is yours. Do you want to just give evidence straight up or do you want to make a submission first and then give evidence, what is easiest for you? 10 MR PITCHES: I have a presentation, it is all in the same presentation CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 15 MR PITCHES: Thank you, I guess I should begin with an apology for my outburst before to the Board and to the hardworking people on the EPA. CHAIRPERSON: You probably sort cut yourself a bit short on lunch. Do we 20 need to swear him in, is anybody going to cross-examine this gentleman? We had better be sworn in please, Ms Duffy. Do you want to take an oath or an affirmation? MR PITCHES: Either or? 25 CHAIRPERSON: Well, whichever you feel comfortable with. MR PITCHES: Affirmation will be fine, thank you. 30 [4.30 pm] MR PITCHES: Right, let’s begin. My name is Cameron Pitches, and 35 professional I’m a software developer, and today I represent the campaign for ‘Better Transport’, which is a non-partisan voluntary incorporated society that was formed in 2002. We currently have 50 financial members. 40 I speak today under the heading of “Lay Evidence” however, I have made numerous submissions to government organisations over the last 16 years. In the past I have successfully worked to achieve the restoration of rail services to Onehunga, and in a few weeks’ time we will witness the successful outcome of our campaign to electrify 45 Auckland’s rail network. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 383 In 2007 I mediated through the Environment Court with Transit New Zealand to establish a rail corridor to the west of the Manukau Harbour crossing. In 2011 I was a guest speaker of the Institute of Professional Engineers presenting to the Modelling Users Group on the topic of 5 Modelling Public Transport. The issues that are left in contention are whether the project protect the traffic volumes, the project routes and existing State Highway One route are realistic; whether a supporting economic analysis should be 10 supplied; whether the alternatives have been adequately considered and whether unsafe sections of the existing State Highway One require mitigation. On issue one. The importance of a realistic forecast cannot be 15 overstated. The proposed toll road will most likely be with us for hundreds of years along with the significant environmental impacts that come with its construction and operation. A realistic forecast that has considered all relevant scenarios is vital and is worth spending some time and effort making sure we get it right. 20 I have a significant number of standard concerns with the traffic modelling put forward by the applicant. This has a considerable impact on the areas that we see here before us. 25 Environmental Economic Safety, and of course the traffic volumes. Firstly, I want to look at the base case that’s contained within the traffic assessment report, this is figure 9. While this chart from page 27 of that report shows growth in traffic volumes of four percent, it is important to note that this growth is not uniform across the entire 30 project area. In particular, this is not the expected growth in traffic to Northland. The NZTA has referenced and observed a growth rate of 4.1 percent, which relates to actual traffic counts just south of Mckinney Road. 35 Using that 4 percent forecast, it appears to be in fact not a bad match, however, my argument about using Mckinney Road is that it’s not representative of all traffic in the corridor, there’s growth caused by localised transport patterns. Proposed project is not a viable alternative for these trips and not all traffic volumes in the corridor will grow by 4 40 percent. If we look further north to the north of the Northern Junction, south of Kaipara Flats Road, you can see that that 4 percent forecast trend is not valid, and in fact the actual traffic growth has been pretty much flat 45 since between 2008 and 2012. These figures come from the traffic count data that I’ve supplied in the bundle of documents. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 384 CHAIRPERSON: Just pausing there, and don’t let me hold you up, but have you yourself got any explanation for that flattening out as opposed to the projection? 5 MR PITCHES: It’s a nationwide phenomenon, it’s been observed across all our state highways in the last five years that in fact traffic is not growing. 10 To reconcile that, looking a bit further north, and at Waipu for instance, we see a similar trend as well. In the applicant’s rebuttal evidence, Mr Bell concurs and provides the average annual growth rates for a number of points beyond on the 15 project and within the project as well. And you can see that south of Mckinney Road is really an outlier in terms of historic growth. Given one of the primary goals of the project is to improve traffic flows further north, it seems irrelevant to examine how many vehicles are 20 estimated to travel from a point south of Pūhoi to a point further north of Warkworth, and so on about the 23rd of March I asked NZTA for this information and received the response last Thursday. And you can see the 2009 base case (ph 0.15) model says there were 4,460 trips that make that journey beyond the north of Warkworth, and the 2026 25 project model projecting 5,930. [4.35 pm] Now, to me that’s surprisingly low because we know the figure on the 30 project route has been predicted to be 13,700 journeys. So as a proportion, if you measure it at north of Kaipara Flats, that’s only now 23 percent in 2026. That represents a straight line annual growth of 1.9 percent versus the 35 3.2 growth of traffic north of Kaipara Flats Road. CHAIRPERSON: Now, just so that we understand that revised figure (if that’s what it is) of 5,930, is that northbound trips? 40 MR PITCHES: It’s both ways, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Both ways? All right. MR PITCHES: Now, I’ve been surprised that a lot of discussion has been 45 around this Figure 13 because last Thursday the NZTA advised that this figure is incorrect and they told me that they’d advised the Board Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 385 that the figure was incorrect, but clearly from the discussion today that hasn’t happened. So, zooming in (and I think Mr Williams alluded to this before) 5 previously, it looks like there is an error where I have highlighted that figure of 5,700, because that’s actually on the project route. And I suggested to the NZTA that, well, that can’t be right because it should be 13,700, which is the figure at the south end of the project. 10 So they replied on Thursday and said yes, that’s correct, it is a mislabelling, and have now supplied this revised version of Figure 13. You will also note the NZTA have now dropped their figures for the northbound and southbound split coming off the new project route. I’m 15 unclear why that is, no explanation has been given for that. On the new Figure 13 I can still see some areas of concern. For instance, on Hudson Road, the highlighted figure on the bottom left hand side is 14,000 vehicles a day, so that’s about the same volume of 20 traffic as the project route. Clearly that’s incorrect and I advised NZTA last Friday and am yet to have a response, but I just assume again it’s a labelling error because in fact the 2009 base case volumes were 900 vehicles a day. 25 I’ve also highlighted the Matakana Road figure because you can see after the project is completed projected figures are 11,100 vehicles a day, both ways. MR PARSONSON: Mr Pitches - - - 30 MR PITCHES: Yes? MR PARSONSON: - - - could you just pause there? The very top left box, under project, you’ve got a number (19,200), or NZTA has, moving 35 backwards and forwards along State Highway 1. MR PITCHES: Yes? MR PARSONSON: Is that correct? Before you’d said from the project route 40 there would be 5000 and something heading north? MR PITCHES: So that was the number of trips making entire journeys south of Pūhoi to north of the process. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 386 MR PARSONSON: Right. So is the implication you are understanding that that 19,000 comprises a lot of traffic that’s heading along State Highway 1 into Warkworth or somewhere nearby? 5 MR PITCHES: Well I’m having trouble reconciling that because the only reason that figure is greater than 5,900 or whatever it is would be traffic travelling from Warkworth through to Wellsford, which is why I say as a percentage only 23 percent of the traffic north of Kaipara Flats is actually making the long journey from Pūhoi north. It’s something I 10 haven’t been able to reconcile. On the Matakana figure, the 2009 base case is 10,400 trips a day. The 2026 base case is 10,900, so only three percent growth is anticipated. If you look at the base case holiday end volumes figure it’s predicted to 15 be lower in 2026 (that is the do nothing option), traffic volumes are predicted to be lower in 2026 than they are in the base case of 2009. So that is, 2009 it is 560 at the holiday end and 2026, it drops to 540. [4.40 pm] 20 I don’t know why that would be, there’s plenty of sections for sale in Matakana. Here’s one where there’s 27 sections for sale. I can only assume that there’s been no growth assumption for housing or trips to Matakana that’s been undertaken by the NZTA. 25 MR WITHY: Can I just check a figure on that previous – you said three percent, as I heard you? I read .3 percent. MR PITCHES: Sorry, which figure? 30 MR WITHY: Next table. CHAIRPERSON: The Matakana Road figures? 35 MR WITHY: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: I think he said – well, I read him as .3 but you may be right. MR PITCHES: It’s 0.3. 40 MR WITHY: That’s the correct figure? MR PITCHES: So that’s the implied annual growth over 17 years that has come from NZTA’s model. 45 MR WITHY: Sorry, I may have heard you wrong. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 387 MR PITCHES: That’s all right. So like I say, I can’t see how that could possibly be correct. 5 Another serious issue I have with the modelling of the project is the western collector. So the base case includes a number of assumptions – and I’m talking about the 2026 base case (this is the do nothing option) – so despite doing nothing there is an assumption that the western collector will be built and that’s used in the transport model. 10 However when we look at the routes that are used within the report you can see for trips to Woodcocks area the new route (the western ring route) is not used. And similarly coming down from the north to the Woodcocks area the new route is not used; only the existing roads are 15 used. So if you – is there a pointer on this, sorry? MR ……….: (INDISTINCT 2.09) 20 MR PITCHES: What I was going to zoom in on is the new western ring – western collector would turn left at the south, at Mckinney Road and be a significant shortcut to the Woodcocks area. 25 So that has an impact on – sorry, the clicker has stopped. I’ll keep talking. So that has an impact on the base case travel time savings predictions because in fact by not including the most direct route it makes some of the trips look worse than they probably would be in 2026. 30 I’ve highlighted in here, they’re on the table. So the base case, remember, is without the project, and you can see trips to the north and the assumption here is that travelling through Hill Street will be worse by just three minutes during most times of the day. For trips to the 35 Woodcocks area, which ideally would use the western collector, this table is saying the trips will be 2.7 minutes longer. But my argument is that, well, that’s because you’re going the long way. If you took the most direct route to Woodcocks that absolute 40 change would be a lot smaller. So I’ve covered off some flaws with the base case modelling; now I want to move to the 2026 Project Scenario. So the key thing is Figure 22 here, and you can see on the left hand side we’ve got the base case 45 2009/2026 – that’s the do nothing option. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 388 And so using that four percent implied growth for all traffic in the corridor there’s a prediction that traffic volumes will be around 25,000 trips a day. And also when we look at when the project is implemented it’s a fairly equal split between traffic volumes on the project route and 5 the existing State Highway 1 to give a corridor total. However, it was revealed to me that the assumption in the modelling was that there would be no additional charge for travelling between Pūhoi and the northern gateway that – sorry, the northern junction of 10 the project – that is not a realistic assumption because NZTA have confirmed the road will be classified as a toll road and this is from their rebuttal evidence. No decision on the quantum of the toll has been made. 15 [4.45 pm] If a toll was applied to the project, depending on the level of that toll that would likely be a reduction in traffic on the new project route and a corresponding increase in traffic on the existing State Highway, which 20 makes more sense as people would like to take the free route. So because of the failure to model the effect of the toll, there is significantly less benefits on the project for the same environmental cost. 25 The NZTA economic evaluation manual says, “If a proposal relies on traffic growth for a positive evaluation, we will require sensitivity testing to determine the level of reliance on growth”. I note the “sensitivity testing” has only been done on the one percent assumption, 30 because if we go back to our chart here, there’s an additional assumption of an extra one percent growth to give that corridor total on the right, so that’s an overall five percent increase over the 2009 base case, so while some scenario sensitivity testing has been done on the one percent, the four percent assumption has not been tested in any 35 modelling. Now the overseas experience, the impact of toll roads, so they’re notoriously difficult to get right: Brisbane Clem7 toll road, the company that was promoting the project forecast 160,000 vehicles on 40 opening. Now on opening they made it toll free. The independent forecast said 120,000 on opening. The actual number on opening was only 77,000. So this project carries significant risk. The actual – an as soon as tolling came on, the actual toll volumes dropped to 53,000 vehicles per day. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 389 And there’s examples too in the United States, a turnpike is again a toll road (it’s the American equivalent), beginning a 2.5 billion dollar project in New Jersey, turnpike officials said, “The project was necessary to reduce congestion and cope with future traffic”. However, 5 one third of the way through the 27 year forecast the turnpike traffic is actually about 10 percent lower than it was in 2005. So I’ve included a whole lot of examples in the bundle of documents that show examples of this effect. 10 CHAIRPERSON: When were those toll projections for the New Jersey pike, when did they come into being, do you say? I remember, I pay tolls on New Jersey turnpike 40 years ago, is this an upgrade? 15 MR PITCHES: This was in addition – it was to widen it, so before beginning the project to widen the New Jersey turnpike, officials had said “construction was necessary” and they predicted it would increase by 68 percent but – yeah, so I’m not too actually sure, so it’s a recent project, sometime in the last 10 years. 20 CHAIRPERSON: These things are a – have to be seen in a context though, don’t they, I mean the Auckland Harbour Bridge is probably New Zealand's best example of before and after with tolls, original toll, taking the toll off, reducing the toll, putting it back on again, etcetera - - 25 - MR PITCHES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: - - - and I would suggest to you, the only people who are 30 going to be significantly influenced by tolls, are those who are commuting along a toll road every day, where you got a weekly or even a five day or six day toll for two way journeys involved. MR PITCHES: Yes, but it’s important to realise, the fastest trip for a lot of 35 people if they’re going to Warkworth or the eastern beaches will be the existing State Highway 1 anyway, so they’re not going to be (INDISTINCT 4.14) a scene at the top. The other difference between that and the Harbour, you know, the 40 Harbour Bridge in this scenario, is that there is a free alternative, and if that free alternative is no quicker – is just as quick, sorry – as the existing toll bridge - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 390 MR PITCHES: - - - then you’re unlikely to want to pay an extra $5 or whatever it is to use it. CHAIRPERSON: Right. So just – I’m searching for the relevance, is this a 5 fair assessment of – is this a fair summary, the point you’re making, that the imposition of a toll, may well lower NZTA’s projection for the use of this project? MR PITCHES: Yes it will and that is NZTA’s conclusion that I’m showing 10 you there in their evidence. CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. Right. MR PITCHES: So I’ve spent some time on traffic forecasting which is issue 15 1, because it is so vitally important, so to recap, there’s issues with the northern junction. We know from the revised figure 13 we no longer know the north south split. We do know that the number of cars actually travelling north is only 5,900 and something both ways. 20 [4.50 pm] We know the Hudson Road volumes are 14,000 vehicles a day that is inconceivable. Matakana growth assumption is unrealistic. The western collector has not been used for travel time calculations. The no toll 25 assumption is unrealistic and that has a huge impact on State Highway 1 and Hill Street. An empty motorway is not a good environmental outcome obviously and sensitivity testing is insufficient. Moving now to economic evidence so the issue is whether it is 30 supporting economic analysis consistent with NZTAs manual should be supplied, obviously we think yes is the short answer here. The planned economic benefits are summarised in this diagram which is in the executive section of the AAE. It says there is an increase in economic activity in Auckland and Northland during construction when in fact 35 there is no evidence been supplied by the applicant to back that up. There is reductions in vehicle operating costs but without knowing the toll we do not actually know what those reductions might be. It says there is opportunities for commercial and residential development and 40 economic growth in northern Auckland and the Northland regions but there is no quantum of how much benefit there will be and says the effects on the project and businesses on the existing State Highway 1 are adverse as well. There is no assessment on any of these points that are included in the executive summary. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 391 The comment is made quite often that this project will lead to economic growth in Northland, but again there is no economic evidence to back that up. Two weeks ago Statistics New Zealand published the GDP figures for the regions and here we have the Northland GDP. In 2009 5 the Northern Gateway Toll Road opened, a travel saving of up to nine minutes. You can see immediately after opening GDP decline and has been flat ever since. MS HUNT: Are you suggesting that that is because of the Toll? 10 MR PITCHES: No, I am suggesting that there is no correlation between a travel time saving on the Northern Gateway Road and the Northern Gateway. 15 MS HUNT: Right. MR PITCHES: Which is disappointing I understand for the people of Northland to learn today but that is the reality. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Well just drilling down a little bit more on to there why would the extension of what was Auckland’s northern motorway to the Johnston’s Hills Tunnels why would that benefit in any significant way Northland GDP? I mean you do not even get into Northland there do you? 25 MR PITCHES: That is a very good point sir and it is the same argument though, this being used for this project which offers a travel time saving to the north of what is it seven minutes at most times of the day, do you see what I mean? 30 CHAIRPERSON: So if there is going to be economic benefit, it would come when an improved highway creeps closer like maybe to the top of the Brynderwyn’s perhaps? 35 MR PITCHES: Perhaps, but even then there may be no correlation between those things. I mean does it really matter if oranges from Kerikeri get to the supermarket seven minutes quicker in Auckland? MS HUNT: I think it is more a case of the orchards working in a productive 40 manner to get the oranges from Kerikeri to Auckland? MR PITCHES: That is right, yes so anyway, I think that is probably enough about the lack of correlation between economic growth and travel time savings. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 392 I want to talk about the travel time projection so this is table seven, it is important to realise here that third column along which is 2026 project using the fastest route. The reason it says the fastest route is because the fastest route will still be State Highway One for a number of these 5 destinations, I’m talking about travelling north. There’s a southbound equivalent. So if you’re travelling to the eastern beaches, Omaha, Matakana, the Woodcocks area, Warkworth town city, it could well be existing State Highway One is the fastest alternative, with the benefit you don’t have to pay an extra $5 for the toll or however much it’s 10 going to be. [4.55 pm] The other point I wanted to make, is those travel time savings too are 15 minuscule, so I am looking at travel times for eastern beaches, Woodcocks and Warkworth, you can see that absolute change from the 2026 base case is only one or two minutes at most times of the day. So I think it’s up to the Board to consider whether this project is really 20 worth it for travel time savings of one or two minutes. I said before I think NZTA should be providing economic evidence-in- chief, and here’s an example from the Basin Reserve, and this is supplied by Mr Copeland in the Basin Reserve Board of Inquiry, 25 “NZTA can see that the economic wellbeing of people in communities and the efficient use of resources are relevant considerations under the RMA.” And for that project, the project will enable people in the communities to provide for their economic wellbeing and represents an efficient use of resources. We don’t have that statement for this project. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Well this is, with respect a mantra, which is just trotted out in so many RMA cases, isn’t it, but if I was to adopt your quite partial analogy about economic benefit to Northland and getting Kerikeri oranges down to the Auckland supermarkets seven minutes faster or 35 whatever, it’s hard to see how the economic benefit of Wellington, let alone the nation, is improved by putting a flyover the Basin Reserve, isn’t it? MR PITCHES: Thank you, sir. Yes, I agree. 40 MR WITHY: Do you know the author of that statement? MR PITCHES: Yes, Mr Michael Copeland. 45 MR WITHY: Thank you. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 393 CHAIRPERSON: Who is he, sorry, I should I know. MR PITCHES: I think he’s an independent consultant engaged by the NZTA in Wellington. 5 CHAIRPERSON: So, again, I just wanted to test where this is going, because these are very principled arguments, if I may say so, but effectively what you’re saying is that economic benefit under the RMA is a very powerful factor, and indeed a mandatory factor for this Board to 10 consider, but the evidence which NZTA has provided doesn’t in any compelling way back up their assertions. Is that an accurate summary of what you’re saying? MR PITCHES: Very accurate, sir. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR PITCHES: Just to go on a bit more about the Basin Reserve, so at 3.11 a typical economic analysis used in transport is you factor in travel time 20 savings, you factor in CO2 emissions, you factor in the cost of the project and you come up with a number called the “benefit cost ratio”. In this case they’ve come up with a number of 1.2. So that means for every dollar that is spent on this project, you know, wider economic benefits totally a $1.20. Again that information has not been supplied 25 for this project. CHAIRPERSON: Well putting on my devil’s advocate hat again, and looking at it from a national perspective rather than a Northland perspective, 18.5 kilometres of motorway, given the amount of traffic on it and 30 given the bypass in which inevitably with result for all northbound traffic and trucks of Hill Street at the moment, and evening out hills, that must save a significant amount of fuel. MR PITCHES: Only for the 5,900 vehicles that are actually travelling north 35 and are most likely to use that. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it’s still - - - MR PITCHES: We don’t know the – I agree with the sentiment of what you’re 40 saying - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR PITCHES: - - - but the problem is we don’t know what the split is at that 45 northern junction, because NZTA have removed those figures from figure 13, so we can’t really make out realistic assessment. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 394 CHAIRPERSON: But anyone – I mean just assume it’s some random family travelling north in the weekend to go to the Matakana – stop/start, stop/start, stop/start all the way from the tunnels up to the Warkworth, 5 is going to consume an awful lot of fuel compared with what they’re going to be using as they cruise up the so-called – cruise up the highway, and whether you factor in that 4,000 movements a day or 5,000 movements a day, extrapolated out over a year that’s a significant volume of fuel which is not being consumed and wasted. 10 [5.00 pm] MR PITCHES: Perhaps, but the average journey times only 15 minutes between Pūhoi and Warkworth so, you know, the – you know, 15 percentage wise yes, but if it’s – it’s mostly likely only going to be a couple of litres either way. CHAIRPERSON: You don’t like filling up your tank any faster than you have to though, do you? 20 MR PITCHES: No, no, I don’t. CHAIRPERSON: No. Okay, thank you. 25 MR PITCHES: So in summary, the applicants provided no proof of economic benefit, there’s no link to economic growth in Northland. Economic evaluation is relevant for the Resource Management Act and we contend it should be required. The NZTA should not be able to pick and choose when to supply an economic evaluation. 30 MS HUNT: Have you had a look at the submission that’s been – the submissions that have come in from the councils within Northland themselves? 35 MR PITCHES: Yes I have. MS HUNT: Okay. And - - - MR PITCHES: Well they contend that the project is of benefit, and I think the 40 Northland Regional Council, the District Council, they contended that, but again they didn’t supply any evidence, which is a shame because, you know, if Northland were really thinking about, where it would be a good place to spend 780 million dollars, I’d suggest to them that perhaps some of it around the roads of Kaitaia or Bay of Islands or 45 Kerikeri, might actually lead to economic growth rather than this project which is several hundred kilometres south of this area. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 395 Sir, it’s 5 o'clock, I said I would be happy to come back tomorrow morning unless you want me to continue. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Well I think, I think what the Board decided was, that as a matter of courtesy to you and also to make up some time so other’s aren’t – I mean, it’s like a “tailback” - - - MR PITCHES: Yes. 10 CHAIRPERSON: - - - people get stacked up, so we decided we're happy to still till 5.30 if that would help you. MR PITCHES: Thank you, your Honour. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Can you manage that? MR PITCHES: Yes, although NZTA want to cross-examine me anyway for half an hour, so - - - 20 CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, well we’ll see how, we’ll see - - - MR PITCHES: - - - I’ll be coming back tomorrow anyway. 25 CHAIRPERSON: - - - see how we’ll go, with Ms – for half an hour was it? Are you cross-examining this man? MR HINCHEY: Yes I am, sir. 30 CHAIRPERSON: All right, well we’ll just see how we go. MR HINCHEY: Sorry, carry on, sir. 35 CHAIRPERSON: We’ll pull up – yes please, we’ll pull up stumps at half past five and it may be your arguments so compelling that counsel prepare to cross-examine you truncates, we have no idea. MR PITCHES: Thank you, and thanks everybody for - - - 40 MR WITHY: Can I just put a question in before he changes issues? CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 45 MR WITHY: Just going back to your diagram of the GDPs over time. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 396 MR PITCHES: Yes. MR WITHY: I can’t help but notice that 2007/08 happens to coincide with a global economic issue which have affects in this country, you turn your 5 mind to that? MR PITCHES: No I haven’t, whether these are sort of delayed response in the following year in that 2009 year, I’m not familiar with how the Statistics Department collated these figures either, but it was the best 10 figures I could find. MR WITHY: But your point remains, I guess, that even though there may have been some other variables at work, there is no, in your opinion, “demonstrable” economic benefit from the opening of the - - - 15 MR PITCHES: Yeah, well this – so the chart establishes that there’s no correlation between the travel time saving and increased growth - - - MR WITHY: In terms of evidence? 20 MR PITCHES: Yes. MR WITHY: Thank you. 25 MR PITCHES: Okay. CHAIRPERSON: You’re happy to go on? MR PITCHES: Sorry? 30 CHAIRPERSON: You’re happy to proceed? MR PITCHES: Yes, thank you. 35 CHAIRPERSON: On you go. MR PITCHES: So issue 3 is the consideration of alternatives, so in the context of the RMA, it’s two points, whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites or routes, and whether the work and 40 designation are reasonably necessarily for achieving the objectives of the requiring authority, it’s clear within the eyes of the law that the working designation is a separate thing to the objectives, so that might sound like an abstract thing to be saying. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Well we understand that. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 397 MR PITCHES: Okay. But I point out, the NZTA objectives are to increase the corridor capacity blah, blah, blah, blah, and then at the end, through the addition of a four lane route. 5 [5.05 pm] So I put it to you that that, the addition of the four lane route is, in fact, it’s the work and designation. There are other alternatives that might achieve the true objectives of corridor capacity but then NZTA have 10 combined the work that they want to do as the objective. Do you follow? Other notable objectives are there is an increased time inconsistency and then the major one here is point 3, “Alleviate congestion at 15 Warkworth by providing a Warkworth bypass for through traffic”. So again there is an element of the work and designation being included in the objectives. There could well be other alternatives that achieve the same true objective of alleviating congestion, and we heard 20 from Mr Williams with his ideas as well. And that is just a slide of what I have just said. So the obvious issue is a four lane reasonably necessary? You imagine if NZTA had stated their objective was to build an eight lane route or a 16 lane route the 25 Board would, I hope, want to inquire whether that was reasonably necessary. So my argument to you is that, well, is a four lane route reasonably necessary because it is only a matter of degree. CHAIRPERSON: You can pass on a four lane route? 30 MR PITCHES: True. On the issue of Hill Street, I have been hearing all day some discussion about whether the project will have adverse effects on Hill Street. If you look to page 15 of the Traffic Assessment Report, you can see that in the modelling that was used by the applicant for the 35 2026 project scenario, they outlined three changes that they included in their computerised traffic model. And so there was a widened additional left turn to Sandspit Road, there is a lane allocation change and then there is – oh, a few other things but 40 you can see clearly in their computer model they made those changes, and we all know that NZTA have now said they are not going to make these changes until after the project has been completed. So the interesting line on that, on page 14, is Mr Bell states, “We took 45 this approach because the change in travel patterns at the Hill Street intersection, that we expect will occur following construction of the Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 398 project, without these changes delays at the Hill Street intersection were forecast to increase significantly. We therefore consider it feasible that some low cost changes to this intersection could be made to make it operate more efficiently”. 5 And on the following page there is another statement that the peer reviewer agreed with this approach noting, “The layout at State Highway 1 Hill Street is assumed to change as a result of the project. This seems entirely reasonable as the traffic patterns will change 10 significantly in the area so the layout should respond to these changes”. Because the guts of it is that without these changes those modelled traffic time savings will not occur. The other thing that we want to bring to the Board’s attention is the 15 scale of the project so a four lane motorway, it is generally accepted that 1,800 cars per motorway lane per hour is the generally accepted flow rate. So that gives us a total capacity both ways of 1,800 times four gives us 7,200 vehicles per hour. We already established, through my inquiries to the NZTA, that there is only 5,930 trips per day further 20 north. So my argument to you is the scale of this project is not warranted given the huge environmental impacts. To provide some context, I have got a chart here of relative traffic volumes. On the left hand side we have got the Roads of National 25 Significance and key Auckland routes, so going left to right is the Harbour Bridge and Newmarket Viaduct, Victoria Park and so on. The one I have highlighted is just about the smallest average daily traffic volume and it is State Highway 1 south of Warkworth. And that figure I think it is around 18,000 vehicles a day. It should tie in with what we 30 have been hearing all day. [5.10 pm] But remember, like I say, there is only 5,900 vehicles, that true number 35 we’re talking about catering for is even smaller than that by constructing this proposed toll road. Consideration of alternatives. So we submitted back in 2010 a study to the ARC called “Operation Lifesaver” – when I say “we” I mean the 40 Campaign for Better Transport, that’s focused on the entire corridor from Puhoi to Wellsford. We supply back to NZTA in our facilitation meeting that we had, we got some feedback through the NZTA rebuttal evidence. It was analysed in about six paragraphs. It said “the design and construction was not adequately scoped. There are practical 45 difficulties of construction that can be considered. It could easily take six to seven years to complete. It would still remain the only through- Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 399 route between Puhoi and Warkworth. It was ill-conceived, and the actual cost may be many multiplies of CBT estimates, it’s a significantly inferior overall performance compared to the project”. 5 So I’ll take that criticism constructively and suggest that there are still elements, because it was an old – a relatively dated idea that we put forward back in 2010 but there is elements that are directly applicable, we believe, as an alternative solution to this project. So the key improvements we think can be made are Warkworth bypass, Pohuihui 10 widening, Shedway’s Hill improvements and safety upgrades. We think this alternative would have significantly less environmental impacts, potentially a superior benefit cost ratio if a study was done into that, and at least 500 million dollars cheaper, and that’s principally 15 why we think it would have a superior benefit cost ratio. So I just want to talk about the key improvements that we could make, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water for our 2010 study, let’s just have a look at some of these things. 20 So the first idea is the Warkworth bypass and/or Matakana link. So that would be an approximately 8 kilometre bypass of Warkworth, it would originate somewhere around Perry Road or perhaps Valerie Close. It could fit largely within the existing designation, and it 25 wouldn’t preclude finishing the Puhoi section later if traffic demand warranted it. There was criticism that the CBT didn’t really have a good handle on the costs, so I looked at State Highway 2, Mangatawhiri, which is at a 30 comparable distance, it’s got two kilometres of culverts because it’s a flood plain, it runs for seven kilometres and it was built, I understand for 46 million dollars, according to the NZTA. This is what that potentially could look like, I don’t want the residents 35 of Perry Road to become alarmed, but it also ties into what Mr Williams was saying, in that there would be considerable benefit because of the southern link at Perry Road. So ignore south of Perry Road, what I’m suggesting is that that part is not going to build but the bit that will bring the most benefit would be a bypass originating 40 somewhere around Perry Road, continuing north through the existing project designation and building Matakana Link Road. That would, I believe, significantly alleviate congestion at Hill Street and is potentially a far more local intersection rather than through traffic. So that’s Warkworth bypass number. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 400 Pohuihui widening. We did an IOA Act back in 2010, the cost NZTA quoted of widening the Pohuihui viaduct to those specifications was 4.2 million, it had a benefit cost ratio or 3.2, so for every dollar you spend you’ll get $3.20 back in economic benefits. 5 Shedway’s Hill. Similar thing. Now admittedly these estimates possibly are a bit old, but NZTA determined three options in 2002 on varying degrees of complexity. All of them came out with a positive benefit cost ratio and varying costs. And also safety upgrades. But the 10 changes to Shedway’s Hill could probably address the third one, and also these black spots – sorry, to give context were identified in the traffic assessment report, so they’re the top four worst problem areas for accidents on the State Highway 1. 15 [5.15 pm] CHAIRPERSON: The rebuttal evidence on Shedway’s Hill suggested that this would be an extraordinary expensive project because to get any widening at all or softening of the bends you would have to build 20 retaining walls. I mean you sort of as you travel up Shedway’s Hill going north on your left hand side, the western side is shear rocks. MR PITCHES: Yes. 25 CHAIRPERSON: It is sort of like a mini Brynderwyn. MR PITCHES: Yes, well as I say the NZTA estimated the cost back in 2002 at $70,000,000 at the most for that. I am not saying it is without its challenges. As I said to the NZTA about facilitation meeting. They 30 managed the inline upgrade of the Newmarket Viaduct, probably the busiest motorway section in New Zealand while keeping it open. I am sure they could manage Schedways Hill. Coupled with this because safety is a focus, it is a focus right now for 35 State Highway 2 there is projects underway to improve the safety of that road and we firmly believe safety should be a priority. We are suggesting there is changes that could be made to some of those safety black spots that we have on our existing grid. 40 We think the advantages of investigating this are these, the environmental impact is minimal because we avoid cutting through kauri forests and removing tonnes and tonnes of dirt and the risk of sedimentation flowing into Pūhoi River and all those issues are avoided because we are not going to be building that bottom section until we 45 need it. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 401 It will be cheaper to build so if I conservatively double the previous estimates that I showed you for those four components, that is $240,00,000 and that is doubling so it is half a billion dollars cheaper than what the NZTA, and I know the Environment Court is not 5 concerned about the amount of money being spent, the real emphasis is probably in the environmental impacts. I think it directly advantages all users of State Highway 1 through the provision of a southern link and a Matakana link. The accessibility to 10 Warkworth and Woodcocks and the eastern beaches in particular will be improved through Matakana link. I think admittedly, I have not done the modelling. We are a voluntary organisation, we have limited funds, but we think it would address the Warkworth congestion to a greater degree than the project. 15 We think it would be faster to implement and we think it could be staged as well. The key thing is it does not preclude the construction of NZTAs desired project. 20 MS HUNT: Earlier I think in your slide there was something you have indicated a $500,000 saving? MR PITCHES: $500,000,000. 25 MS HUNT: $500,000,000 saving, if you had complete control over where to then divert that $500,000,000 where would that go? MR PITCHES: As a policy our group is very strong on doing an objective benefit cost analysis and so in an ideal world NZTA would be drawing 30 up a list of projects, figuring out the benefit of cost ratios for each of these projects, figuring out how much money they have got to spend and then drawing a line that equates to how much money they have got to spend. 35 MS HUNT: Given the nature of your organisation though you must have some list somewhere about the priority as you see it in New Zealand with respect to transport? MR PITCHES: Yes, we advocate for public transport because we believe that 40 this is money well spent and as I said before we are very proud to be associated with electrification coming up on the rail network, that came at not an inconsiderable cost, but we believe the benefits will be worth it over the next 50 years or the life of those trains. 45 MS HUNT: Thank you. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 402 MR PITCHES: The thing that I probably regret most is that a lot of transport decisions have been politicised to a large degree and what we are asking for is some sort of objectivity about economic costs and benefits. Okay, we are going good, thanks everybody. 5 Issue number three summary so the work and designation should not be classified as being an objective. The objective to alleviate Warkworth congestion will not be met. The scale of the project is not warranted, alternatives other than a four lane expressway have an inadequately 10 considered and I have just put forward a better transport alternative for you. [5.20 pm] 15 The final issue and we're nearly there, is whether the unsafe sections of the existing State Highway 1 require mitigation – this is figure 26 so you can see anyone choosing to travel on the toll road will enjoy three times the safety benefits than if they chose the existing State Highway 1, that’s the green bar graphs on the left. 20 So the tall one, “annual injury accidents”, have been modelled in 2026 to be – I don’t know, about 13 accidents a year on the existing State Highway 1. If you pay the toll and travel on the project route, there’s a greater chance you’ll get through safely – three times safer. 25 There’s no – the reason for that partly, is that, State Highway traffic volumes will not reduce from the current levels and we’ve seen that before, it’s likely the toll will force more onto the relatively unsafe State Highway 1 that will result in a higher number of crashes forecast. 30 There’s also a social equity issue going on here, in that, if you can’t afford the toll, then you’re forced onto a relatively unsafe route. Just because the modelling says that the overall accident rate within that total corridor is X number, 16 crashes a year, that doesn’t mean we 35 have to accept that, and my understanding is, part of the Boards of Inquiries remit is that, they should be able to consider society impacts caused by any project and safety for the community as well - and as I say, there’s four safety black spots on the existing road. 40 Our preferred Board decision is that, they cancel it, the requirements cancel. The project objectives will not be met, they’ll continued congestion at Warkworth. The safety of the existing State Highway 1 in that corridor is unchanged, and there’s significant adverse environmental effects of construction without identified benefits. 45 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 403 The alternative decision, is that, approval – at a minimum – approval should be contingent on supporting evidence, from a peer review – not – preferably an independent peer review that is paid for, not by the NZTA but some other independent source – a peer review of traffic 5 assessment, in particular a scenario analysis for the tolling, because as I said, there’s been no analysis of that. It should be contingent on supplying economic evaluation manual compliant, economic assessment, because it shouldn’t be a choice for 10 the environment – for the Board of Inquiry – and evaluation alternatives including inline upgrades and the options that we’ve just put forward to you, and there’s some obvious project amendments that could happen, State Highway - safety upgrades for existing State Highway 1 and also addressing the concerns of people around Hill 15 Street and including the Matakana link road as part of the project as well actually. So we got to the end of that. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I think rather than Mr Hinch – I’m sorry, Mr Hinchey, is that right. MR HINCHEY: Yes. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Cross-examining, which has certain disadvantages from Mr Pitches point of view because he’s under cross-examination overnight, we could perhaps fill in the next three or four minutes with any questions the Board members might have and then we’ll – well you could start cross-examination Mr Hinchey at 10 o'clock tomorrow – are 30 you Wellington Council? MR HINCHEY: No. CHAIRPERSON: That’s all right. Yes, Mr Chandler. 35 MR CHANDLER: Mr Pitches, in the light of your comments about the reduced traffic, it’s likely to flow on this project, have you considered that the road could perhaps be built as a high quality two lane rural road expressway at a reduced cost in much the same way, if you cast your 40 mind back the north-western motorway out of Auckland was originally a two lane road? [5.25 pm] 45 MR PITCHES: Yes. Ah, no, I have not considered that as an option. I still think certainly it could form part of an evaluation of that alternative. I Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 404 still tend to think that an eight kilometre bypass of Warkworth would deliver 80 percent of the benefits for, you know, a fraction of the costs of what the current proposal is. 5 MR CHANDLER: So the Warkworth bypass would be a number one priority before any work on this project, if it were to be approved, should be done? You would do the Warkworth bypass first? MR PITCHES: Yes, and as I say, it doesn’t preclude the Pūhoi section being 10 built at a later date if and when it’s required. MR CHANDLER: Thank you. MR PARSONSON: Thanks, Mr Pitches. Just one question, and I’m definitely 15 not trying to trip you up here, but you made comment about the electrification of the Auckland Rail Corridor? MR PITCHES: Yes. 20 MR PARSONSON: And that project is going ahead at a not significant cost. MR PITCHES: Yes? MR PARSONSON: Do you know what the benefit cost ratio was for that? 25 MR PITCHES: There was – it goes back a long way. In 2002 there was a study by Boston Consulting and they established that there was a positive benefit cost ratio for that. I can’t tell you the absolute quantum. 30 There’s considerable benefits because there’s reduced maintenance costs, there’s no fuel cost, there’s environmental benefits because of there are not diesel trains and they’re faster and quieter and more pleasant to use. 35 MR PARSONSON: But in your memory it was positive? MR PITCHES: Yes. 40 MR PARSONSON: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: I have no questions at the moment but we may have some further questions for you tomorrow. 45 All right, well before we retire for the evening can you just give us some idea, counsel or Ms Tsang, (ph 2.07) as to what awaits us Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 405 tomorrow. We will resume, Mr Pitches gets back into the box, you’ll be cross-examining him. Are you wanting to cross-examine, Mr Dillon? Probably not? 5 MR DILLON: I might formulate a question overnight, sir, but not at the moment. CHAIRPERSON: No. There won’t be any service centres on the Warkworth bypass he is proposing I suspect. 10 MR DILLON: I would like to cross-examine the cost benefit analysis of cycleways. CHAIRPERSON: Well, that’s – yes that comes - - - 15 MR DILLON: Because I’ve got a factor of 24 percent - - - CHAIRPERSON: - - - that comes in – counsel for the Board, do you anticipate much here? 20 MS VELLA: No, perhaps one question. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the economic benefit is probably the only area. Do we know, is anyone from Auckland Transport still here? 25 MS BROSNAHAN: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON: No, all right. And then what happens after – so I suspect – how long’s your cross-examination? 30 MR ……….: About 20 minutes, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So I suspect you’ll be out of here by 10.30 tomorrow with a bit of luck. 35 MR ……….: Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Then what happens? 40 MS TSANG: (INDISTINCT 3.07) CHAIRPERSON: Right. And they are self-represented, are they? Is somebody from Generation Zero here? 45 MR HINCHEY: Yes. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 406 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good afternoon, sir. Thank you for your – or good evening, sir. Thank you for your patience, and we’ve read your submissions and evidence with some care. Are you making a presentation or what? 5 MR HINCHEY: Yes, I’m making a presentation and it’s short. CHAIRPERSON: Mm’hm? 10 MR HINCHEY: 10 minutes. CHAIRPERSON: And then you are happy, in the same way as you seen this afternoon, to be cross-examined? 15 MR HINCHEY: I wasn’t expecting cross-examination. CHAIRPERSON: I see. So you want to do it in terms of the NZ Heavy Haulage approach, do you? 20 MR HINCHEY: I - - - CHAIRPERSON: You make a presentation and that’s it. MR HINCHEY: That’s what I was expecting, yes. 25 CHAIRPERSON: All right. And yours will take how long? MR HINCHEY: 10 to 15 minutes. 30 CHAIRPERSON: And then where do we go? Are we on to Auckland Transport then or to Asia Pacific? MS TSANG: Asia Pacific. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Asia Pacific – and an hour perhaps, Mr Dillon, is that right? All right, so we’ve now got up to, say – yes, we’ve probably got - - - MS TSANG: We’re up to about 1 o’clock, sir. 40 CHAIRPERSON: We’re what? MS TSANG: We’re up to about 1 o’clock. CHAIRPERSON: Already, are we? It’s not my calculations, but never mind. 45 We’ve got 30 plus 15, plus an hour. What have you done with Auckland Transport – kicked them out until Monday? MS TSANG: Until Monday, yes. Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14 Page 407 CHAIRPERSON: All right, well that’s a doable day. Are you happy with that, Ms Brosnahan? MS BROSNAHAN: Certainly. The only thing was landscape – is that not 5 tomorrow we’ll call them up? Okay, we’ll work with you. CHAIRPERSON: Who is landscape? MS BROSNAHAN: We’ll work with you. Mr Pryor was due today, sir. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see. Yes. Well that is 45 minutes and I can see you eating up about an hour Mr Dillon if not a bit longer than that, anyway it looks as if we have got some wriggly tomorrow and this does not create too much chaos for next week or if it does you are going to sort 15 it out. [5.30 pm] MS BROSNAHAN: We are endeavouring to. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Excellent, well thank you, it has been a long day. MR ...... : Do you need to keep him in though. 25 CHAIRPERSON: No, he is not being cross-examined yet, that is the whole point of this, he can do whatever he likes overnight, including having a good dinner. We will adjourn. No, he is not being cross-examined which is not Mr Bell’s predicament. 30 MS BROSNAHAN: I appreciate that, sir. CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn till 10 tomorrow. Thank you. MATTER ADJOURNED AT 5.31 PM UNTIL 35 THURSDAY, 10 APRIL 2014 Northridge Country Lodge, Auckland 09.04.14