BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARING PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 anD the Local Government (AucklanD TransItIonal ProvIsIons) Act 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of Topic 017 RUB South AND IN THE MATTER of the submIssions set out In the PartIes anD Issues Report ________________________________________________________________ JOINT STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF COLIN EDWARD GEARY MACARTHUR AND DAVID JOHN ROBERT SMITH ON BEHALF OF BOB DEMLER 16 NOVEMBER 2015 ________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 30 1 SUMMARY 1.1 This Is a joint statement of evIdence prepared by ColIn MacArthur and Dave SmIth of Abley TransportatIon Consultants LImIted (Abley) who have been asked to evaluate the development and consequences of selectIng the Southern RUB for inclusion in the Preliminary AucklanD Unitary Plan, specIfIcally to determIne at a high level, If these processes are suffIcIently robust enough to Demonstrate the outcome represents an effIcIent anD effectIve use of lanD. 1.2 Our analysIs IDentIfIes a number of short comIngs In terms of thoroughness of the evaluation process anD consIDeration of alternative RUB areas that may offer more effIcIent land use than the current proposed Southern RUB. The analysIs demonstrates that greenfIeld development partIcularly in the vicinity of Pukekohe will result in greater adverse Impacts across the AucklanD transport network than alternatIve sites, resulting in less than optimal lanD use anD transportation integration. 1.3 These greater effects wIll necessitate signIfIcant transportatIon infrastructure investment to accommoDate the likely growth in traffic assocIated wIth Pukekohe. At present, these Investments are not planned or funded. 1.4 We concluDe that there remaIns an inaDequate Demonstration of a comprehensive assessment of all viable areas or total construction anD servicing costs, either through the applIcatIon of transportatIon moDellIng or DerIveD from a fIrst prIncIples approach. ThIs Is supporteD by the ‘Cost of ResIdentIal ServIcIng’ Study whIch reinforces the challenges In valIDating the Council’s assumptions anD recommenDs further analysis. 1.5 Consequently the lack of a region-wiDe technIcal analysIs suggests the PAUP Does not optImIse lanD use anD transportatIon IntegratIon. 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Our full names are ColIn EDwarD Geary MacArthur anD DavID John Robert SmIth. We have been askeD by Russell Bartlett QC to provide Page 2 of 30 transport planning evIdence on the Southern RUB provIsIons of the Proposed AucklanD UnItary Plan (PAUP). 2.2 ColIn MacArthur holds the position of Associate Director at Abley. He holds a B.Eng. CivIl EngIneerIng degree from KIngston UniversIty, United Kingdom, Is a member of the InstItutIon of CIvil Engineers anD InstItutIon of ProfessIonal Engineers New Zealand, and Is a Charters CivIl EngIneer registers through both organisations; anD has 23 years’ experience in civil engineerIng, wIth a particular focus In transportation plannIng, desIgn and project management. 2.3 ColIn currently manages the AucklanD office which he established in AprIl 2014, buIlDIng on hIs past AucklanD experIence of 10 years, managIng transportatIon plannIng anD engIneerIng consultancy teams. He has also held desIgn and project management roles in the development of key transportation infrastructure improvements arounD AucklanD incluDing the SH16/18 Western Ring Route (HobsonvIlle SectIon), the Hill Road to Takanini 4 LanIng anD the Papakura TransportatIon Plan. 2.4 DavID holds the posItIon of AssocIate wIth Abley. He Is a Chartered Member of the InstItute of LogIstIcs anD Transport, an affIlIate member of the InstItute of ProfessIonal EngIneers New Zealand (IPENZ) and a member of the NZMUGS transportatIon moDellIng subgroup of IPENZ. 2.5 His technical qualIfIcatIons are Bachelor of Technology (with Honours) in InDustrial Operations Research anD Master of Philosophy in Operations Research from Massey UniversIty. He has 15 years of transportatIon planning and moDellIng experIence anD has manageD hIgh profIle transport moDelling projects incluDing moDellIng to support the Franklin DistrIct Growth Strategy. He has DevelopeD, maintaineD anD applieD transportation moDels throughout New ZealanD, Australia anD Malaysia anD was appoInted by the EnvIronmental ProtectIon AuthorIty to provIDe inDepenDent transport planning anD moDelling expert aDvice anD evIDence In the Basin BrIDge Proposal hearIngs. 2.6 Full details of their qualIfIcatIons and relevant past experIence are incluDeD at Attachments A anD B. 3 CODE OF CONDUCT Page 3 of 30 3.1 We confIrm that we have read the CoDe of ConDuct for Expert WItnesses contaIned In the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 anD that we agree to comply wIth It. We confIrm that we have consiDered all the materIal facts that we are aware of that might alter or Detract from optIons that we express, and that this evIdence Is wIthin out areas of expertIse, except where we state that we are relyIng on the evIDence of another person. 4 SCOPE 4.1 This submIssIon reports on the transport effects of further greenfield development In the vIcInity of Pukekohe that would form part of the Southern Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), incluDing analysis based upon 2013 StatIstIcs New Zealand census data. 4.2 We are concerneD that the selection of the RUB areas originates from the ‘Greenfield Areas for Investigation’ document IdentIfIed In the AucklanD Plan. The subsequent Transport in Greenfield Areas (TIGA) Report, If completeD, was never formally releaseD (though some of Its contents were referreD to in the Section 32 Report for the PAUP) so this work whIch Is referenceD numerous tImes In PAUP submissIons anD relateD reports, cannot be challengeD. References to it Does, however, imply that it eliminateD further options for consIDeration. As subsequent analysis has simply taken the areas IDentIfIed In the TIGA as the only area to be assesseD, a holistic methoDical approach has not been demonstrated that assesses all locatIons to determIne the most effectIve anD effIcient lanD use. 4.3 In an attempt to establish whether the outcomes of the TIGA report are flaweD, we have unDertaken a number of pieces of technical analysis towards aDvancing our assessment of the Southern RUB. 4.4 Our analysIs focuses on five specifIc tasks: • ForecastIng the lIkely traffIc growth due to Southern RUB development incluDing reference to the Franklin District Growth Strategy; Page 4 of 30 • AnalysIs of the growth In commuter travel patterns between Pukekohe anD AucklanD between 2001 anD 2013; • ComparIson of greenfIeld development In Paerata anD Pukekohe against other alternatIve areas outsIde of the Southern RUB; • ConsIderatIon of the consequentIal cost effectIveness of the proposed RUB locatIons; anD • ConsIderatIon of the InclusIon of Pukekohe In the proposeD RUB against the objectIves of the UnItary Plan. 5 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IN THE SOUTHERN RUB 5.1 A hIgh-level analysis of the growth in traffic volumes anD Development between 2006 and 2013 has been undertaken to understand the relationship between lanD use growth and the Increase In the use of SH1 anD SH22 to travel between AucklanD anD Pukekohe (anD the surrounDIng areas). 5.2 Census data has been sourced from StatIstIcs New Zealand for 2006 and 2013 anD Is shown In Table 1, where Pukekohe Is DefIneD as the urban area anD the ImmedIate surrounDs (combInIng Pukekohe North, Pukekohe West, Paerata-Cape Hill, Buckland and Eden RoaD-Hill Top Census Areas Units) and ‘WIder Catchment Is the area bordered by the WaIkato RIver In the south, SH1 In the east anD the coast on the west as far north as LinwooD RoaD. Both areas are shown In Figure 2. Table 1 2006 and 2013 Census Data Totals Area Land use 2006 2013 Growth Pukekohe Households 6,060 7,182 +922 PopulatIon 17,349 20,511 +3,162 Jobs 6,258 7,116 +858 ‘WIDer Households 16,365 18,555 +2,190 Catchment’ PopulatIon 47,157 52,134 +4,977 Jobs 13,123 15,171 +2,048 Page 5 of 30 5.3 The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) publIsh average annual daily traffIc (AADT) volumes every year for the State Highway network. This Data has been used to determIne the growth In traffIc over the perIod 2006 anD 2013, In respect of aggregatIng the major entry points between Pukekohe anD AucklanD (approximatIng a screenlIne). These entry points relate to the traffIc volumes on the north facIng ramps at the SH1 Mill RoaD anD SH1 Ramarama (ArarImu RoaD) Interchanges, together with the SH22 count sIte to the east of Great South RoaD to quantify the total traffic movements between the ‘WIDer Catchment’ anD the remainDer of AucklanD City. The publisheD AADT volumes are presenteD in Table 2. Table 2 AADT Traffic Volumes on Key Links between Pukekohe and Auckland Location 2006 2013 2006-2013 Daily Daily Traffic Growth Traffic SH1 (MIll Rd) NB on ramp 4,932 5,734 +802 SH1 (MIll Rd) SB off ramp 4,801 5,379 +578 SH1 (Ramarama) NB onramp 1,661 1,767 +106 SH1 (Ramarama) SB off 1,594 1,802 +208 ramp SH22 (N of Great South 20,824 23,492 +2,668 Road) (Two Way Volume) TOTAL Daily Volume 33,812 38,174 +4,362 5.4 In 2006, there were 16,365 households (occupieD Dwellings) in the WiDer Catchment anD 33,812 trIps between thIs area anD the remaInDer of AucklanD, corresponDIng to approximately two trIps per householD per day. 5.5 Between 2006 and 2013 the WIDer Catchment has experienceD growth of 2,190 households, which corresponds to approxImately 310 households per annum. Over the same perIoD the two-way traffic volume between thIs catchment anD AucklanD has Increased by 4,362 Page 6 of 30 vehIcles per Day whIch corresponDs to an approximate Increase of 620 vehIcles per Day for each year since 2006. 5.6 Subsequently the relatIonship between traffIc InteractIon wIth Auckland anD Development In Pukekohe anD the wIDer catchment area Is approximately 2.0 trIps per householD every Day anD Is consistent wIth the 2006 trip rate.