BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROJECT

UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA)

AND

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

STATEMENT OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF DARREN WU ON BEHALF OF THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY

Construction Traffic Impacts

Dated: 12 April 2017

Barristers and Solicitors Auckland

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

CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1 2. INTRODUCTION 3 3. CODE OF CONDUCT 4 4. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 4 5. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND MY ROLE 4 6. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 5 7. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 8 8. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION 10 9. RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS 19 10. CONCLUSION 30

BF\56808835\9

1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

1.1 I have assessed the Construction Traffic Impacts from the Project based on the proposed construction activities as described in Section 7 of the AEE for the Project. I undertook my assessment on the assumption that a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Site Specific Traffic Management Plans (SSTMPs) would be produced. Overall I consider that the effects can be effectively managed to ensure safety and minimise disruption through the implementation of the management plans.

1.2 All temporary traffic management is governed by the Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM) and any proposed work must have an approved SSTMP from the relevant Road Controlling Authority. In my experience, these processes will require the contractor(s) to assess any potentially significant impacts and set out mitigation and management measures.

1.3 The assessment that was carried out has considered the effects on capacity of existing carriageways due to construction works, construction site accesses, public transport, pedestrians and cyclists and property accesses and parking.

1.4 For the purpose of my assessment, a proposed construction period of 2018 to 2025 was used for the assessment of traffic impacts, with a baseline environment set for 2018 which considered a road network after the opening of the Waterview tunnel connection.

1.5 The 2025 end of construction year assumes a road network before the Project has been complete. The two ends of the construction programme spectrum were used to assess the State Highway network impacts.

1.6 The analysis of the proposed work on State Highway 1 and 20 assumed that they did not occur at the same time. The assessment suggested that the impacts would be of greater significance if the work on State Highway 20 took place in the later years of the proposed construction programme. In my opinion, prioritising the SH20 works earlier in the programme would be beneficial. In both cases, whilst some transfer of vehicle route choice is predicted from the disrupted State Highway to the un-disrupted one, the effects on travel time by this was minimal.

1.7 Access to work sites will need to be reviewed and developed on a site by site basis as part of SSTMPs taking into account the potential mitigation measures identified.

1.8 There is no significant impact anticipated for public transport. The Project will make use of scheduled block-of-lines for rail for the construction of over-rail bridges. Some bus

BF\56808835\9 | Page 1

routes are affected at Panama Road and Princes Street Interchange but all routes will be maintained.

1.9 The most significant impact on pedestrians and cyclists is the potential full or partial closure of the Waikaraka Walkway. In other areas, pedestrian and cycle movements must be provided with a safe route through or around the work area as required in CoPTTM.

1.10 Access to private properties will generally be maintained and individual property owners consulted to discuss specific impacts.

1.11 A Construction Traffic Management Plan Framework (CTMPF) was developed as part of this assessment. This document guides the philosophy that the Project will follow in the delivery of all temporary traffic management. It summarises key processes and considerations for an engaged contractor(s) to develop into a CTMP.

1.12 In addition, a number of proposed conditions were developed to set the requirement for a CTMP and the required content. Conditions were also developed to note important considerations for a contractor(s) when developing an SSTMP for any proposed work activity.

1.13 I have reviewed the submissions received that have raised concerns or issues with regarding construction traffic effects. The majority of submissions were specific in the issues that were raised. As a result I have proposed a number of possible amendments to the draft Construction Traffic conditions to address these.

1.14 In my opinion, other issues raised by submitters, such as site specific access issues, can be managed via the original or amended proposed draft conditions or through the processes and procedures as detailed in the CTMPF.

1.15 Overall, I do not consider the potential effects of the Project’s construction works on traffic to be significant. The Transport Agency has notable experience in successfully managing traffic effects through major road projects and this will be carried through to this Project. In addition, I believe that the proposed conditions, CTMP and approval processes for SSTMPs will require more detailed consideration of traffic management meaures that a contractor(s) will adopt to mitigate, manage and minimise effects once the construction methodology is developed in detail. With the proposed conditions and management plan framework in place, I consider that the effects of construction activities on traffic can be appropriately managed.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 2

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 My full name is Darren Wu. I have a Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering with Honours from the University of Canterbury (2006) and am a Member of the Transportation Group of IPENZ.

2.2 My role on the East West Link Project (the Project), is a technical specialist for the assessment of construction traffic impacts by the proposed construction staging. I am familiar with the transport environment in which this Project sits.

2.3 I currently hold the position of Associate at Beca Limited (Beca). I have 10 years’ experience in traffic engineering in Auckland, New Zealand with specific skills in the areas of understanding and mitigating operational impacts to a road network by construction staging. I hold a Level 2/3 STMS qualification from the NZ Transport Agency for temporary traffic management on New Zealand roads and have built my experience primarily through major capital projects in Auckland.

2.4 On the Victoria Park Tunnel Project, I was the principal traffic engineer in the temporary traffic management team and was responsible for all planning, temporary design and approvals of construction staging on the local road network as the cut and cover tunnel was built. For the Newmarket Viaduct replacement project, I led the development of two of the three full motorway closure traffic management strategies. In recent times, I have been largely serving as a traffic management advisor to support the assessment and planning of major construction events for the Western Ring Route (WRR) projects and also the Southern Corridor widening project on SH 1.

2.5 I have also had some exposure to this field of work in Australia where I have been managing a traffic staging design package for a seven kilometre section of rural Pacific Highway in northern New South Wales for the department of Roads and Maritime Services.

2.6 I have been engaged by the New Zealand Transport Agency (the Transport Agency) to undertake an assessment of the effects on traffic of the construction staging works for the Project (for which the Notices of Requirement (NORs) and resource consent applications have been lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). My evidence describes this assessment and its findings.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 3

3. CODE OF CONDUCT

3.1 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person.

4. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

4.1 This evidence highlights the key points from Technical Report 10: Construction Traffic Impact Assessment, and Technical Report 10 Supplementary Assessment, which formed part of the Assessment of Effects on the Environment (AEE). With the exception of any updates noted in this evidence I confirm the content and accuracy of those reports. Together with my colleague Martin Peake, I also assessed the Great South Road intersection grade separated design. Technical Report 10 – Supplementary Assessment contains the results of that assessment. With the exception of any updates noted in this evidence I confirm the content and accuracy of those reports.

4.2 My evidence addresses the following matters:

(a) Project description and my role in the Project;

(b) Assessment methodology;

(c) A description of the existing environment relevant to my assessment;

(d) Assessment of effects and proposed mitigation;

(e) Response to submissions; and

(f) Overall conclusions

4.3 I have relied on the evidence of Mr Noel Nancekivell and Mr Andrew Murray.

5. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND MY ROLE

5.1 The Project has been described in Sections 6 and 7 of the AEE and the evidence of Mr Noel Nancekivell.

5.2 An outline of the proposed construction activities for the Project (Section 7 of the AEE) was carried out for the proposed design solution. This has been the primary input to inform the likely arrangements and programme of the construction staging for my traffic

BF\56808835\9 | Page 4

impact assessment. The available traffic models, as used by the Transport assessment, have been used for the purposes of testing traffic impacts during construction.

5.3 I led a small team of supporting Traffic Engineers for this Construction Traffic Impacts Assessment and was responsible for establishing the assessment requirements and methodology in addition to actual technical assessment for each sector. I was also the key point of contact between the planning and legal teams and other relevant disciplines.

5.4 The Project Team engaged with Auckland Transport during the design and assessment period and feedback was delivered back to the wider team. I was a part of a series of internal Construction Alignment workshops which had representation from the various technical experts. These workshops collectively discussed the potential impacts and provided feedback to the design team with respect to options that minimise construction traffic impacts.

6. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

6.1 In undertaking this assessment, I have used CoPTTM (part of Traffic Control Devices (TCD) Manual)1 and the Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCOP) as the two overarching documents to base all planning and arrangements of potential temporary traffic management activities required for the construction of the Project.

6.2 Temporary traffic management is regulated by the Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) who are the Auckland Motorway Alliance and Auckland Transport for the affected road networks on this Project. All traffic management plans need to be assessed by the RCAs for their impact and compliance with CoPTTM before approval is granted.

6.3 In my opinion, both the Transport Agency (primarily through the Auckland Motorway Alliance) and Auckland Transport have well established traffic management processes and experience with contractors delivering major capital infrastructure projects that require careful consideration of any potential significant impacts to the road network.

6.4 It is important to note that the detailed construction methodology will be developed once a contractor(s) is engaged and detailed design is developed. For this reason, I have focussed on the high level impacts that are likely to occur based on the proposed construction activities for the Project (as outlined in Section 7 of the AEE) .

1 Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management – Part 8 of Traffic Control Devices Manual, NZ Transport Agency.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 5

6.5 I have considered the high level timing of different work areas where it has influence on the traffic impacts and these are summarised in Technical Report 10.

6.6 The construction traffic effects across both the State Highway and local road network were assessed based on the following categories for each sector:

(a) Impacts on capacity of existing carriageways;

(b) Impacts arising from temporary closure of existing carriageways;

(c) Impacts arising from site access locations and movements;

(d) Impacts on public transport provision;

(e) Impacts on pedestrians, cyclists, and mobility routes or crossings; and

(f) Impacts on property access, parking and manoeuvring.

6.7 My assessment of temporary traffic effects is primarily based on first principles traffic engineering and has been supported by traffic modelling for State Highways using the following available Project SATURN (or Network) models:

(a) 2017 Do-Minimum (includes opening of the Waterview Connection); and

(b) 2026 Do-Minimum (includes opening of the Waterview Connection, excludes EWL).

6.8 Traffic Model tests using SATURN were not carried out for the local road temporary traffic management effects as most of these only generate localised effects that would not be within the accuracy limits of SATURN. Where appropriate, localised intersection modelling (SIDRA) has been undertaken.

State Highway Network Impact Assessment

6.9 Whilst first principles traffic engineering was used to assess the majority of the construction traffic effects listed above, the State Highway network assessment made use of the additional SATURN traffic modelling.

6.10 The EWL construction programme is estimated to take place between 2018 and 2025 post opening of the Waterview Connection (scheduled in mid 2017). Based on the available traffic models, the 2017 Do Minimum (DM) traffic model has been used to represent the Base Case for the initial year of construction (2018) due to the similarity in the year of representation and more importantly because it captures the Auckland

BF\56808835\9 | Page 6

network after the Waterview Connection is open. At the other end of the construction programme, the 2026 DM traffic model has been used to represent the final year of construction namely the End of Construction Base Case.

6.11 Tests were conducted for both the Base Case and the End of Construction Base Case with 5% and 10% capacity reduction on the State Highways (SH1 and SH20), in the locations where construction is to occur. These were undertaken to assess the effects of temporary construction layout such as lane narrowing and a temporary speed limit. These reduction figures are assigned manually into the model test and are calculated based on an understanding of capacity reduction during traffic management from a number of completed projects on motorways in the Auckland Region in which both lane narrowing and temporary speed limit were applied.

6.12 A further sense check was undertaken to validate the 2017 DM traffic forecasts for the base case initial year of construction. This was undertaken by applying the following method:

(a) Obtain the actual traffic counts for roads of key interest (from SCATS and TMS website) for the current 2016 year (before Waterview Connection is open);

(b) Adjust the current 2016 traffic counts by applying a Waterview Connection growth factor (this was obtained by comparing the 2013 Base model with the 2017 DM model) to obtain an alternative Waterview Connection post-opening scenario; and

(c) Compare the 2017 DM model traffic data with the adjusted traffic counts to check if they are similar.

6.13 The sense check exercise showed that the Base Case traffic model flows for SH1 and SH20 were generally higher than the adjusted flows from the 2016 count data using a Waterview Connection growth factor. This meant that the testing through the SATURN traffic model would be unlikely to underrepresent the effects based on the available information options.

Local Network Impact Assessment

6.14 I primarily assessed the potential construction traffic impacts on the local road network using first principles traffic engineering on the categories of construction effects listed previously.

6.15 The effects of the anticipated temporary layout for the Sylvia Park Road / Mount Wellington Highway intersection were assessed using SIDRA. SIDRA was primarily used

BF\56808835\9 | Page 7

to test any loss of lanes or lane lengths as a result of the construction work area required near the intersection. Sydney Co-ordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS) count data from March 2016 was used for this assessment as it was largely consistent with Base Case (2017 DM) traffic model flows.

6.16 At the Waikaraka Walkway, site surveys were carried out to understand the volume of pedestrians and cyclists using this facility. This informed the scale of disruption for construction work activity in the vicinity of this facility.

6.17 The assessment of the Great South Road grade separated intersection was carried out after Technical Report 10 was complete and is summarised in a Supplementary Assessment. The content of the Supplementary Assessment replaces the assessment of the previous design in Section 8 of Technical Report 10.

6.18 A Construction Traffic Management Plan Framework (CTMPF) was developed using the findings from the assessment. This document is based on CoPTTM and can be found in Appendix A. It details key processes and focuses for mitigation of impacts. It will serve as a foundation for the engaged contractor(s) to develop a CTMP for the delivery phase.

6.19 A more detailed description of the assessment methodology can be found in Section 3 of Technical Report 10.

7. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

7.1 I have provided a brief summary of the existing environment below. A more detailed description of the existing environment for each Sector can be found in Section 4 of Technical Report 10.

7.2 The existing environment of the Project relevant to the construction traffic impacts will be for a road network during the construction years, forecasted to be between 2018 and 2025.

7.3 Whilst the immediate road network area affected by the Project extents will largely be the same as present day, the vehicle volumes and wider network operations could be notably different once the Waterview Tunnel connection is open (mid 2017). Therefore, traffic models have been used to inform the existing traffic environment, rather than just use projected growth figures.

7.4 The naming convention of the traffic models used to describe the existing environment for this technical assessment were:

BF\56808835\9 | Page 8

(a) Base Case Year – the 2017 DM model that represents the initial year of construction in 2018; and

(b) End of Construction Base – the 2026 DM model representing a final construction year of 2025

The traffic models were primarily used to paint the picture for State Highways 1 and 20. Table 7-1 provides a summary of the hourly flows on SH20 and SH1 at the Neilson Street and Mount Wellington Highway interchanges respectively. More detailed numbers can be found in Section 4 of the report.

Table 7-1 Base Case and End of Construction Base Case Hourly Flows from SATURN for SH20 and SH1

SH20 NB at SH20 SB at SH1 NB at Mt SH1 SB at Mt Neilson St Neilson St Wellington Wellington Intchg Intchg Hwy Intchg Hwy Intchg

Base Case AM 4,350 vph 4,700 vph 5,200 vph 5,000 vph Hourly Peak Base Case PM 5,600 vph 3,700 vph 3,900 vph 5,900 vph Hourly Peak End of Construction 4,900 vph 5,800 vph 5,200 vph 5,450 vph Base Case AM Hourly Peak End of Construction 5,900 vph 4,200 vph 4,500 vph 5,900 vph Base Case PM Hourly Peak

7.5 Projected growth figures were used to carry out a sense check of the traffic models to validate that the forecasts were within an appropriate range. Projected growth utilised present day traffic count data (at the time of the technical assessment) provided from the Transport Agency’s TMS website and also from SCATS counts available from the Auckland Traffic Operations Centre (ATOC).

7.6 The degree of change on the local network as a result of the Waterview tunnel opening will be less than that for the State Highways. For this reason, the local road network

BF\56808835\9 | Page 9

existing environment utilises available traffic count data (mostly from March 2016) to describe the traffic conditions.

7.7 The existing environment for active mode users (pedestrians and cyclists) largely focuses on the Waikaraka Walkway as it is the key pedestrian and cycle facility within the Project Area. The survey carried out (as described in Section 6.17 of my evidence) provides numbers for current pedestrian and cycle movements on a weekend and weekday. There are also important cycle and pedestrian facilities linking across Mangere Bridge and along the waterfront on Onehunga Harbour Road and Orpheus Drive. Elsewhere on the local network, there are generally only pedestrian footpath facilities that are available where construction activity is proposed.

7.8 I have described the public transport services based on the future bus network that will be implemented in 2017 and present day rail operations.

8. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION

8.1 The potential traffic effects of construction works on the road network, pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and property access were assessed and possible measures to mitigate the effects have been identified as a basis for development of future SSTMPs .

8.2 The assessment undertaken has been split into a number of categories:

(a) Impacts on capacity of existing carriageways;

(b) Temporary closures of existing carriageways;

(c) Impacts arising from site access locations and movements;

(d) Impacts on public transport;

(e) Impacts on pedestrians and cyclists; and

(f) Impacts on property access, parking and manoeuvring.

8.3 The assessment has been carried out with a focus on the high level impacts resulting from an outline of the proposed construction activities for the Project (Section 7 of the AEE). It is important to note that the detailed construction methodology will be developed by the engaged contractor(s). In my opinion, there is also a robust set of processes that will be set in place through CoPTTM, the CTMP, SSTMPs and by the RCAs for more detailed assessment of potential impacts before traffic management works are approved.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 10

Capacity and temporary closures

8.4 Whilst the works in Sector 1 and 5 vary significantly, they will adopt similar traffic management staging that includes the narrowing of existing lane widths, the implementation of a temporary speed limit and barriers to form traffic shifts that set up the required work areas. The same number of lanes will be maintained for all movements for the majority of the works and any lane or road closures are anticipated to be discrete and will take place in low volume periods (for example, overnight).

8.5 At Panama Road, at least a single lane will be maintained at all times on the over-bridge which can allow for both directions of traffic to continue to function.

8.6 For Otahuhu Creek Bridge, the new local road bridge to the east of the motorway alignment will be the first to be constructed. Of the three existing lanes of southbound traffic, the two outside lanes will then be shifted onto the new bridge whilst the third lane (closest to the median) will be separated and stay on the existing motorway bridge to create a working space inbetween. Whilst the layout may be different, three lanes will generally be maintained on the southbound carriageway at all times.

8.7 At Princes Street interchange, the new over-bridge duplicates the existing two-lane capacity and will be built in two halves to generally maintain a two-lane operation over SH1 until fully complete.

(a) Sectors 1 and 5

8.8 Reduced capacities are anticipated on SH1 (Sector 5) and SH20 (Sector 1) due to traffic management such as lane narrowing, reduced speed limits and lane shifts required for construction. Based on experience from other projects undertaken on the Auckland motorway network, capacity reductions of 5% and 10% have been assessed. This is to determine the likely range of effects. Capacity reductions on SH1 and SH20 have been assessed separately as it is assumed that works which reduce capacity would not be undertaken on SH1 and SH20 simultaneously. This is because there is likely to be transfer of some traffic between the two routes.

8.9 For SH20, the effects of the reduced capacity affect a wider area of the network and to greater levels in the End of Construction year. The Base Case impacts are generally lower and more localised around the SH20 Neilson Street interchange where the capacity reduction will occur due to the works at the interchange. Journey times on SH20 (between Hillsborough Interchange and Auckland International Airport) are forecast to increase by between 19% (2 minutes equivalence) and 50% (8 minutes equivalence)

BF\56808835\9 | Page 11

depending on the year, direction of travel and the capacity reduction test that was carried out.

8.10 The assessment shows that when there is reduced capacity on SH20 there appears to be some transfer of traffic from SH20 to SH1. However, the impacts on SH1 journey times (between the Greenlane and the SH20 / SH1 Interchanges) were negligible. In the Base Case year, journey times were at most affected by an additional 1% journey time and in the End of Construction Base Case, the range was between 0 – 6% additional journey time or between 0 – 1 minute extra. The full results can be found in Tables 6-1 and 6-2 in the Technical Report 10.

8.11 For SH1, the effects of reduced capacity largely occur on the SH1 mainline and with some transfer of traffic to parallel routes of Great South Road and Mount Wellington Highway. Overall, there is little effect on SH20 due to capacity reduction on SH1. Any observed increases in travel time on SH20 ranged between 0 – 3% (0 – 1 minute equivalence) depending on the route and year of assessment. In my opinion, the greater range of alternative routes for SH1 is a key part of why the effects on SH20 are minimal.

8.12 This is also true for the 2-1 southbound lane split arrangement to construct Otahuhu Creek Bridge. This type of arrangement has been successfully implemented on other major motorway projects in Auckland and there is confidence that as long as the same number of lanes are maintained then capacity impacts are likely to be similar to those outlined below.

8.13 In my opinion, the impact of works on SH1 undertaken later in the overall construction programme appears to be less when compared to those of SH20. This is reflected in the forecast journey times on SH1. In the southbound direction along SH1 (between the Greenlane and the SH20 / SH1 Interchanges) similar percentage increases in journey times are forecast between the Base Case year (25% or approximately 5 minutes in time equivalence) and the End of Construction year (27% or approximately 6 minutes in time quivalence). There is a greater effect on northbound traffic (also between SH20 / SH1 and Greenlane interchanges) in the future year (19% or 2 minutes in time equivalence) compared to the Base Case year (12% or approximately 1 minute in time equivalence).

8.14 Based on the analysis, it is my opinion that the works at SH20 should be undertaken towards the beginning of the overall works construction period so as to minimise adverse network traffic effects. SH1 works could be programmed later as this appears to be less sensitive to future traffic conditions.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 12

8.15 The vehicle volumes over Panama Road over-bridge are in the order of 450vph in each direction for the AM peak and can likely be managed by single lane traffic controlled signal operation.

8.16 With two lanes maintained for the Princes Street over-bridge, similar capacity to the existing arrangement will be available for use.

(b) Sectors 2, 3, 4 and 6

8.17 The works in Sectors 2 and 3 are constructed primarily off line and those works will therefore not reduce network capacity. The exception to this is at the Great South Road /Sylvia Park Road intersection which is proposed to be enlarged to incorporate a grade separated EWL above the intersection.

8.18 At the Great South Road Intersection, it is anticipated that the existing number of lanes will generally be retained at the intersection during construction at peak times, although some narrowing of lanes may be required. There may also be some movements which change from being priority controlled to signal controlled.

8.19 My assessment of the impacts at this intersection was a comparative (first principles traffic engineering) analysis of the lane and movement provisions at the intersection to generally identify if there would be significant impact on capacity. Intersection modelling was not carried out because it requires specific detail of the intersection layout to facilitate the construction activity which will not be available until developed by the engaged contractor(s). There was also no reason at this stage of the design to suggest that the intersection would lose lanes in order to build the viaduct. Once specific changes to the intersection are identified, traffic modelling (using intersection assessment tools like SIDRA) will be useful to help understand the likely effects and inform the development of an SSTMP for this work.

8.20 Based on the comparative analysis, the likely impact to the intersection capacity is not expected to be significant. The actual operation of the intersection will depend on the construction staging, which will be determined by the chosen contractor(s). This is discussed further in my response to the submission by Auckland Council.

8.21 The anticipated truck movements to service the construction activity for the embankment was estimated at approximately 110 vehicles per day (vpd). This covers both bringing material to the site and removal of material from site. It is expected that most of these truck movements can take place during off-peak hours when there is greater spare capacity to accommodate these. The vehicle volumes and origin-destinations will be

BF\56808835\9 | Page 13

further detailed by the contractor(s) and specific considerations made to distribute between the various the construction yards and develop other measures to reduce impacts on traffic.

8.22 Sector 4 involves constructing the EWL along Sylvia Park Road including the intersection with Mount Wellington Highway. A single lane (with capacity of approximately 1000vph for a collector road) in each direction will be maintained along this road during the works as per the existing layout. This has been assessed as having sufficient capacity for the traffic flows using Sylvia Park Road for the westbound direction which has peak hourly demand of around 600vph. In the eastbound direction, the forecasted demands are similar to those observed in March 2016 of just under 1,000vph. Whilst this is near the theoretical capacity of a single lane road, the effects will be largely goverened by the intersection at Sylvia Park Road and Mount Wellington Highway.

8.23 Significant changes are required at this intersection as the EWL will be grade separated at this point. The anticipated road layout during construction has been assessed using a SIDRA model. This intersection has been modelled as unlike the Great South Road / Sylvia Park Road intersection, changes are anticipated to either the number of lanes or length of lanes. The tests indicate that the intersection would operate at a similar level of performance as the existing intersection. However, it is noted that its operation is dependent on queues extending back from the SH1 / Mount Wellington Highway Interchange which vary from day to day . In my experience, the previously described processes for approving temporary traffic management works will likely require the engaged contractor(s) to carry out more detailed assessments nearer to the time of the works.

8.24 In my opinion, works on Sector 6 will generally not have a significant impact on capacity as these are generally minor works such as road markings.

Access to construction areas

8.25 Access to work sites will be managed on a location by location basis. Restrictions on turning movements, number of vehicles using accesses or operation of intersections with site accesses may be required. Potential issues have been identified and possible mitigation measures proposed (in Sector relevant section of TR10). Actual management of accesses will be developed as part of the SSTMPs process.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 14

Public Transport

8.26 There is generally no significant impact on public transport. The exception is for rail where works are required for construction of bridges above freight lines into MetroPort and across the southern rail line. Making use of any scheduled block-of-lines may be required to undertake these works. These would need to be planned in advance with discussions and agreement with KiwiRail and MetroPort. Rail replacement buses would be required where passenger lines are affected.

8.27 Existing bus services were identified on Panama Road and Princes Street and will continue even after the new bus network is introduced.

8.28 The proposed single lane signal controlled operation on Panama Road will affect the bus services here. However, in my opinion, the vehicle volumes are low and therefore impacts are not likely to be significant. Details of the traffic signal operation have yet to be developed and could be optimised to better suit bus services.

8.29 There is one bus service on Princes Street that operates east-west and along Frank Grey Place. This will be maintained in the new network and there will be a new Connector bus route which will use the south facing motorway ramps. All will be able to operate without diversions as all movements will be maintained similar to the existing arrangement during construction.

Pedestrians and Cyclists

8.30 For pedestrians and cyclists, the most significant impact is on the Waikaraka Walkway. Full or partial closures of the route will be required for the construction of the EWL along the Māngere Inlet. Closures will be minimised in terms of length along the shared path and duration. Improvements may be required on alternative pedestrian and cycle routes. The extent of such works may be dependent on the timeframe of the closure.

8.31 Section 7.2 of my technical report suggested that there were approximately 75 cyclists per day (weekday) in March 2016 which was higher than the 55 cyclists identified from our winter survey. It has since been identified that this is for a nearby location that is not the Waikaraka Walkway. Another survey was conducted recently in April 2017 and identified approximately 45 cyclists for the same survey period. This similar result does not present any notable difference for our considerations noted above.

8.32 Our April 2017 survey however, did include additional information about origin – destination and showed that the majority of the commuter trips by cyclists remained local

BF\56808835\9 | Page 15

to and from nearby suburbs. This provides confidence to the mitigation measures proposed (as summarised in Table 8-1 below).

Access to Properties

8.33 Access to properties affected by the works are generally maintained. Some accesses may need to be temporarily relocated or where properties have more than one access, secondary accesses may require closing to facilitate works. Individual property owners will be consulted to discuss specific impacts and any organise alternative arrangements.

Potential Mitigation Measures

8.34 A CTMP Framework has been developed for this Project (Appendix A to Techincal Report 10). The CTMP Framework will inform the CTMP once the detailed construction methodology is finalised. The CTMP Framework also provides guidelines and processes for the preparation of the SSTMPs.

8.35 The detailed CTMP will need to be reviewed and signed off by the Transport Agency and Auckland Transport and will therefore need to appropriately identify and cover considerations that are important to both road controlling authorities (RCAs).

8.36 An approved SSTMP is required, for all temporary traffic activity anywhere on existing roads, by the relevant RCAs. Each SSTMP will be specific to the road network where construction activity is required and more detail regarding measures identified to mitigate effects included if necessary. Where potential impact could be significant, the RCA approving the SSTMP will often test and check that the contractor(s) satisfactorily addresses these before approval is granted.

8.37 The contractor(s) may need to identify possible mitigation measures to satisfactorily address the construction impacts on traffic and the road network for each of the sectors. These mitigation measures will need to be detailed in each SSTMP.

8.38 A summary of the mitigation measures identified in Technical Report 10 are provided in the following table:

BF\56808835\9 | Page 16

Table 8-1 Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures

Sector 1

 SH20 construction works should be undertaken early in the construction programme. This will need to be considered in the early phases of procurement planning to ensure the feasibility of this is not precluded.  Construction works on SH20 and SH1 that concurrently reduce mainline capacity should be avoided where possible.  VMS signing should be used in advance of significant changes to the road layout or capacity.  Alternative routes or detour routes should be optimised to minimise the overall network delay caused by the works on SH20.  Point-to-Point Speed Enforcement (PPSE) should be implemented to improve compliance with lowered speed limits.  Close liaison with passenger transport agencies and operators to minimise the impact of traffic management measures on passenger transport services.  Close liaison with major traffic generating activities and sites and sensitive stakeholders in the area, for example the Ports of Auckland, Auckland International Airport and Dress Smart.  Communication campaigns should be aimed at diverting traffic onto alternative routes and minimising the level of demand through the Project area and construction period.  Integration with employer travel plans to recommend alternative routes, modes or travel times to minimise the demand on the road network.

Sector 2

 Programming of works shall be carefully planned to minimise the length of any closure period with Waikaraka Walkway and that temporary openings and closures are avoided to minimise confusion for users.  Early notification and consultation with affected pedestrians and cyclists should be undertaken.  Separate media campaigns should be devised to address the needs of recreational and commuter cyclists.  Safe alternative route(s) for commuter cyclists through the Onehunga area should be investigated and minor safety improvement works considered, if necessary, if the Waikaraka Walkway facility is to be closed for a significant period of time. This may include the temporary removal of parking on Church Street to provide an adequate alternative cycle facility.  Trucks movements importing fill (or removing material) should where possible be spread across the Sector 2 site access points.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 17

Sector 3

 Measures to mitigate the effects on the Waikaraka Walkway as outlined for Section 2.  Consider restrictions to work site access points at Great South Road / Sylvia Park Road intersection on movements allowed and times for access and egress so not to adversely affect the road network.  Early engagement with AT and ATOC to discuss amended intersection arrangements and phasing at the Great South Road / Sylvia Park Road intersection.  Staging of the amendments to the Great South Road / Sylvia Park Road intersection including possible weekend or night works.  Alternative provision for pedestrians should be considered to provide a safe route along the western side of Great South Road or an additional signalised pedestrian crossing on the northern arm of the Great South Road / Sylvia Park Road.  Consider measures that reduce the impact on buses along Great South Road and through the Sylvia Park Road intersection, including discussions with AT Metro.  Early engagement with property owners and / or tenants should be undertaken where property access is affected.  Advanced notice provided to motorists and businesses should be provided of changes to parking so that motorists may be able to make alternative arrangements.  Advanced notice of closures at Great South Road / Sylvia Park Road intersection using variable message signs and appropriate media.

Sector 4

 Introduce performance measures around queue lengths or delays or monitoring requirements at the Sylvia Park Road / Mount Wellington Highway intersection to minimise effects on the interchange and intersection.  Manage access and movements to site access on Mount Wellington Highway opposite Sylvia Park Road. Measures could include limiting traffic movements to left in and left out only as priority control rather than under signal control, or restricting the number of vehicle movements.  Early consultation where access is affected to properties.  Where pedestrian facilities are removed on Sylvia Park Road, alternative facilities or pedestrian routes should be considered.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 18

Sector 5

 Coordinate works on SH1 at Mount Wellington Highway Interchange and Princes Street Interchange to minimise traffic effects between the locations.  Construction works on SH1 and SH20 that concurrently reduce mainline capacity should be avoided where possible.  Keep Panama Road bridge open to traffic, at least as a single lane, due to minimise effects on the bus route along Panama Road and the local access function.  Manually operate any temporary signals at the Panama Bridge to minimise delays to buses, particularly at peak travel times.  Coordinate site access and egress points on the motorway mainline and ensure appropriate sight lines and signage provided to guide construction traffic and advise general motorists of the access/egress points.  Where construction activity may require access from private property, early consultation with affected property owners and tenants and the specific effects such as the number of truck movements carefully assessed.  For diversion / detour routes, where possible and practical, non-local roads (such as arterials or collector roads) should be used for diversion of traffic.  For any road closures, assess the volume of traffic affected and adjust timing of closure to minimise the effects on the operation of the diversion route and on those motorists affected by the proposal.  Provide sufficient advanced warning to motorists of road or lane closures through appropriate advertising in the media, websites and on motorway and / or local roads including utilising VMS (temporary or permanent).  Clear communication and guidance from temporary signs will be required for the bull-run lane arrangement on SH1 southbound at Ōtāhuhu Creek.

Sector 6

 Consultation with affected property owners and tenants should be undertaken early prior to works affecting access to local properties.

9. RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

9.1 I have read and considered the submissions addressing the potential impact of the Project construction works on traffic, and my responses are set out below.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 19

Submission by Auckland Transport (126354)

9.2 Auckland Transport (AT) largely agrees with the scope of potential traffic effects identified and the corresponding conditions for the management of construction effects on the local network (page 5 of submission). They are generally seeking specific relief in the form of amendments to the proposed conditions. The changes AT seek are on pages 9 and 10 of its submission. My responses are below.

9.3 AT seeks changes to proposed condition CT.1 to include provision for public transport, walking and cycling, car parking and site access routes for heavy traffic. Conditions CT.1(a) and CT.2(d) to (g) currently provide for public transport and walking and cycling to be considered in a CTMP. Any temporary removal of car parking during construction will need to be approved through a SSTMP of which the process is which is covered in CT.4. I believe that the culmination of the above details within the current set of proposed conditions sufficiently covers this issue.

9.4 AT seeks changes to proposed condition CT.2 to include traffic modelling for evaluation of temporary traffic effects, bus route consideration, level of service for bus and rail services and rail closure processes.

9.5 With respect to traffic modelling, my opinion is that traffic modelling is not practical, or of assistance, in every case and needs to be considered appropriately. The current proposed condition CT.2(c) specifies that significant effects by any reduction in road capacity needs to be identified and has the intention of ensuring that the engaged contractor(s) consider traffic modelling if that is the most appropriate way to identify the potential effects. More importantly, the same proposed condition requires the consideration of measures to minimise delays. In my experience, the Road Controlling Authority that approves the SSTMP will specifically request that a traffic impact assessment be carried out if there is likely to be notable potential effects on their network.

9.6 With respect to bus route consideration and level of service considerations, both CT.1(b) and CT.2(d) discuss the purpose of minimising delays to all road users, including those raised by AT, and the inclusion of measures to avoid closures and restrictions on bus movements. For rail services, the proposed construction activities did not identify any need to instigate block-of-lines for construction work activity. However, this does not preclude the use of any block-of-lines that may be in place for other requirements. In my opinion, the aforementioned satisfactorily sets a platform for the concerns to be addressed.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 20

9.7 AT seeks changes to proposed condition CT.3 requesting AT’s full involvement to the CTMP development. In my opinion, the foundation of the CTMP is largely based on contractor and project specific information and that the 40 working day period advance sharing of a draft CTMP allows for an eight week period for engagement with AT before the CTMP is finalised. I also note that the 40 working day period is a minimum and therefore does not preclude a contractor(s) from engaging with AT earlier.

9.8 AT seeks conditions for the assessment and monitoring of potential damage to local roads by project related heavy vehicles. I agree that the current proposed conditions do not specifically address this concern. I support the inclusion of a condition that would achieve assessments of the relevant areas prior to the construction activity beginning and development of an on-going monitoring plan to assess pavement condition.

Submission by Ministry of Education (126360)

9.9 The Ministry of Education (MoE) largely agrees with the scope of potential traffic effects identified and the corresponding conditions. They are generally seeking amendments to some conditions.

9.10 The MoE seeks changes to proposed condition CT.1 to include an additional clause for the CTMP, to enable 'ongoing safe pedestrian and cycle connectivity during the Project, particularly for school students travelling to and from school’.

9.11 The current proposed condition clause CT.1(a) already defines consideration requirements for safe passage of pedestrians and cyclists in a CTMP. I would support revising CT.1(a) to add connectivity as a consideration.

9.12 With respect to the specific addressing of school students, my opinion is that the intent of the condition was to provide equal priority and importance across all pedestrians and cyclists. This includes school students which use facilities affected by the Project during construction and therefore specific mention of students is unnecessary.

Submission by Transpower (126378)

9.13 Transpower's concerns are largely about access to structures during project construction (Appendix A of the Transpower submission). Access concerns have been highlighted for Towers 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 15b, 20, 31, 32, 34. Transpower are generally seeking confirmation of sustained access throughout the construction period.

9.14 The current proposed conditions require both a CTMP and SSTMP to minimise disruption to property access (CT.1(c)) and identify measures to maintain, where practicable,

BF\56808835\9 | Page 21

existing vehicle accesses (CT.4(e)). In my experience, a contractor(s) is also required to consult with affected property occupants as part of their consideration of the construction methodology. This enables the needs and/or requirements by a property occupant to be identified.

Submission by Onehunga Business Association (126230)

9.15 The Onehunga Business Association (OBA) opposes the Project and has expressed concerns about potential construction related traffic effects on the local roads and town centre. OBA have also expressed concerns regarding access to the port/wharf (paragraph 26 and 41 of the Onehunga submission respectively) during construction.

9.16 I acknowledge the concerns from the OBA and would like to note that the majority of the works are isolated to the border between the State Highway and Auckland Transport (local road) networks i.e. at or near motorway interchanges. There are no significant works anticipated for the local road network within the Onehunga town centre. In all cases, the proposed construction activties has indicated that a large proportion of the works will generally maintain the same number of lanes and key movements as is currently available. Of greatest significance to the OBA will be the closure of Onehunga Harbour Road once the new Galway Street connection has been completed. In this scenario, the permanent design will come into effect with Galway Street providing the key connectivity to and from Neilson Street northbound on and off ramps. If lane closures are required, a SSTMP will need to demonstrate the management and mitigation of any potential effects resulting in impacts as part of the approval process.

9.17 SH20 is a major route for motorists travelling to Onehunga via the Neilson Street interchange. Works on the State highway are required for the Project. The existing lanes are expected to be retained but would be narrowed to accommodate the construction works. My assessment of the operation of the SH20 with the construction works is presented in Technical Report 10. This assessment indicates that the effect on travel times due to construction works is largely unaffected if works on SH20 are undertaken towards the beginning of the construction period with just marginal increases in travel times along the motorway of typically up to 4% or in the order of around 1 minute with some journeys (refer to Table 6-1 of Technical Report 10). In the PM peak one of the journey times assessed is 19% greater although this is only around 2 minutes and is based on the upper range of capacity reduction due to traffic management measures on SH20.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 22

9.18 In contrast, travel times are forecast to be substantially higher if construction works are undertaken towards the end of the construction period.

9.19 As I have previously stated and have identified as suggested mitigation measures, it would be preferable for works on SH20 to be undertaken early in the construction period. As a result, in my opinion, motorists travelling to Onehunga via SH20 would only experience a small increase in travel time over what is likely to be a longer journey from the wider regional area.

9.20 In Section 6 of Technical Report 10, I discuss the assessment carried out for the proposed works at the Neilson Street Interchange area (Sector 1). The assessment showed that the most notable changes in the flows as a result of the work on State Highway 20 (SH20) would be confined to the State Highway network. The changes to the flows on the local road network near the Onehunga Town centre were noted as minimal (examples of the flow difference plots can be found in Figure 6-1 and 6-2 of Technical Report 10). Based on the assessment of the major works for the Neilson Street interchange, it is of my opinion that the influence on flow movements in the Onehunga Town centre will be minor. There will be a number of specific details that remain to be developed by the contractor(s) when planning for the works that may further be able to identify mitigation and management measures to address the OBA’s concerns. The effects of such measures will be assessed as part of the defined procedures for the development of SSTMPs.

9.21 Regarding port access from Onehunga Harbour Road, the proposed construction activities identified that entry and egress will largely be maintained for this property. Any discrete closures will need to be approved as part of an SSTMP. In my experience, a contractor(s) is also required to consult with affected property occupants as part of their consideration of the construction methodology. This enables the needs and/or requirements by a property occupant to be identified.

Submission by NZ Heavy Haulage Association (126376)

9.22 NZ Heavy Haulage Association largely supports the scope of potential traffic effects identified regarding the efficient and safe transport of Freight in the Area. However, in relation to over dimension and overweight vehicles, they consider that there should be an active consideration of these issues before the SSTMPs are signed off.

9.23 I would support a change to the conditions that would enable consultation with the freight industry when considering over dimension and overweight routes in SSTMPs.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 23

9.24 Additionally I have reviewed the official over-dimensional routes within the surrounding area and note that Sylvia Park Road is the only existing over-dimensional road that may be affected. There are feasible alternatives for both north and southbound journeys.

Submissions by Stratex Group Limited (126326) and Tram Lease Limited (126484)

9.25 Both Stratex Group Limited (Stratex) and Tram Lease Limited (Tram Lease) have provided submissions regarding the property at 19-21 Sylvia Park Road. Both parties identify concerns about site accessibility during construction.

9.26 In particular, there are concerns with any temporary loss of access as they are a 24 hour period, seven days a week operation.

9.27 The submitters have requested that the notice of requirement be modified to ensure that there is no disruption to the business operations during the construction period and ensure that the Site enjoys the same level of vehicle access and egress as currently provided.

9.28 As outlined in conditions CT.1 and CT.4, a contractor(s) will be required to consider the impacts to vehicle crossings and in my experience, the affected property occupier will be consulted with when more details about the likely impacts are developed. In my opinion, this process will allow for the property access requirements to be considered as part of detailed planning.

9.29 The left turn in and out restrictions on the vehicle movements for this property have been largely governed by the permanent design solution and more details regarding this can be found in the evidence of Mr Nancekivell (section 15 of his evidence) and Mr Murray (Traffic and Transportation).

9.30 With respect to any potential closure of vehicle accesses into and out of the property at 19-21 Sylvia Park Road, the current proposed conditions require both a CTMP and SSTMP to minimise disruption to property access (CT.1(c)) and identify measures to maintain, where practicable, existing vehicle accesses (CT.4(e)). In my experience, a contractor(s) is also required to consult with affected property occupants as part of their consideration of the construction methodology. This enables the needs and/or requirements by a property occupant to be identified.

9.31 Tram Lease also raised concerns with construction traffic related effects on their property at 1-7 Sylvia Park Road. This property is to be acquired for the Project during construction, there will therefore be no construction traffic effects on this Property.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 24

Submission by Auckland Council (126336)

9.32 Auckland Council has raised concerns about congestion impacting public amenity during construction.

9.33 The Council has requested additional information about the assessment of effects of construction on the Neilson Street interchange, Great South Road, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport (paragraph 2.7a, page 14 of the Council's submission).

9.34 As previously stated, at this stage the exact construction methodology is not known. As a result, my assessment is based on the general principle that, where possible, the existing number of lanes at intersections and along roads would be maintained, all be it with possible reduced lane widths.

9.35 I acknowledge that there may be times when lane or road closures may be necessary but these would be subject to assessment as part of the SSTMP approval process as set out in detail in Appendix A to Technical Report 10. This process will consider factors such as the times of the closure, the duration of the closure and the effects of the closure on road users. Auckland Transport in their submission has confirmed their involvement with the process and supports the associated proposed draft conditions.

9.36 Therefore, in my opinion, I believe that this process is sufficiently robust to address specific effects particularly as Auckland Transport (a Council Controlled Organisation) is a key stakeholder that will either be consulted with or be the approving authority for TMPs depending on the location of the works.

9.37 For the reasons outlined above only a high level assessment has been undertaken; to undertake a detailed assessment would require numerous assumptions that would have no firm basis.

9.38 I deal with each of the areas specifically identified by the Council in turn below with respect to the construction traffic assessment of effects.

9.39 For Neilson Street interchange, I discussed this intersection in Paragraph 6.2.1.2 in Technical Report 10. This states that the existing number of lanes would be retained but with possible narrowing or realignment. This is consistent with the principles highlighted above. Staging of works may require the alignment of lanes to be moved around but I believe that this is unlikely to have any notable effects on the overall operation of the interchange.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 25

9.40 My assessment indicated that there may be an increase in traffic flows on the northbound off ramp in the PM peak period in the Base year of around 125vph due to construction works on SH20 (base traffic flows on the ramp are 850 in the Base year and 950 in the End of Construction Base year). This level of increase is of the same order of forecast increase in traffic on this ramp between 2018 and 2026 in the Do Minimum case (i.e. without East West Link). Mitigation for construction traffic effects on SH20 and SH1 include undertaking construction on SH20 early in the proposed construction programme. Therefore I believe that the effect of the forecast increase in traffic on the northbound ramp simply brings forward the forecast increase traffic, all be it temporarily, and hence the operation of the ramp should be no worse than 2026 without EWL.

9.41 The Great South Road intersection is discussed in my Addendum Report to Technical Report 10 (paragraph 3.2.2). I have applied the same general principles described for the Neilson Street interchange to this intersection in assessing the traffic effects due to construction.

9.42 The existing number of lanes and traffic movements are anticipated to be retained but these may require narrowing or realigning at various stages of construction. I have undertaken a high level assessment of the operation of the intersection considering the traffic volumes and complexity of the intersection and consider that the impact of temporary changes are likely to be minor and can be managed through the procedures outlined in the CTMPF once the construction methodology is known in more detail. Please refer to my evidence above (items 8.18, 8.19 and 8.20) for more information on this.

9.43 The Council has raised pedestrians as a specific concern. As much of the construction works will be undertaken off-line, pedestrians are not affected in these locations and pedestrian routes are expected to be kept operating in the most part. The exception being pedestrians which is discussed below It is mostly at interfaces between EWL construction works and the existing road network where pedestrians are most affected. Technical Report 10 discussed for each sector of the project, the effects on pedestrians. A mandatory requirement of the CoPTTM for any SSTMP is that they should be “ensuring, so far as reasonably practical, the safe and efficient movement of all road users through and around work space, particularly pedestrians and cyclists”.

9.44 Therefore, in my opinion the effects on pedestrians due to construction have been appropriately identified in the report and the proposed conditions adequately ensure pedestrians are considered in the Construction Traffic Management Plan.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 26

9.45 With respect to cyclists, specific facilities that are directly affected by construction works occur in discrete locations, mainly connections between Onehunga Harbour Road and Old Mangere Bridge and the Waikaraka Walkway. These have been discussed for each Project Sector in Technical Report 10.

9.46 For the Waikaraka Walkway, at this stage the exact construction methodology along the Mangere Inlet is not known and hence the extent or duration of a closure of the pedestrian and cycleway cannot be determined. As a result, in my opinion, actual mitigation measures to address effects on cyclists due to this closure can only be determined once this information is known. This is because measures should be appropriate for the extent and duration of the closure. Possible measures identified include providing safe alternative cycle routes and limiting the number of closures of the cycle route to a single closure where possible.

9.47 As discussed below, I consider the proposed draft conditions to be appropriate to manage the mitigation of effects on cyclists.

9.48 For public transport, there are only limited locations where public transport is affected. These have been identified within Technical Report 10 and mitigation measures have been suggested within the report. As for other road users, site specific effects can only be determined once the construction methodology is known. The Auckland Transport Corridor Access Request (CAR) process references Public Transport services disruption.

9.49 I believe the effects on public transport that can be assessed at this stage are adequately addressed by the suggested mitigation measures in Technical Report 10 and the proposed consent conditions.

9.50 The Council seeks to add a new clause to the Draft Condition CT.2 (paragraph 2.7c, page 14) to refer specifically to cyclists. The proposed condition is identical to the existing draft clause CT.2 (e) except that instead of pedestrians it refers to cyclists. Unlike pedestrians who are affected at most interfaces of EWL with the existing road network, this is not the case for existing cycle facilities which are generally discreet. Clauses CT.1(a), CT.2(c), CT.4(f), all address the needs of cyclists in general whilst draft clauses CT.2(f), CT.2(g) deal specifically with different existing cycle facilities that are affected by the proposed works. As I outlined above for pedestrians, a mandatory requirement of CoPTTM is that the safe and efficient movement of cyclists are required to be addressed where practicable. Therefore, in my opinion the proposed condition is not required.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 27

Submission by Big Bite Lunch Bar (126246)

9.51 The submitter is concerned about the impact on accessibility of the property and resulting effects on their business. The Big Bite Lunch Bar is located at 20 Sylvia Park Road and is affected by works on Sylvia Park Road which affects access to this property and ability for pedestrians to cross Sylvia Park Road directly outside of the submitter’s property.

9.52 The particular property affected is to be acquired for the Project during construction. As a result there will be no construction traffic effects on this Property.

Submission by Owners Committee, 2 Onehunga Harbour Road (126275)

9.53 The submitter is partially opposed to the Project and has raised concerns regarding loss of car parking (paragraph 5.1, fifth bullet point) and seeks to have information on access routes for emergency services available throughout the construction works (paragraph 5.1, seventh bullet point).

9.54 Car parking is affected both during construction and in the final design. Effects on parking are dealt with in the evidence of Mr Murray (Traffic and Transportation).

9.55 With regards to access routes for emergency services, these will largely be unaffected by the proposed construction works as the existing roads in the vicinity of 2 Onehunga Harbour Road will remain open. Where road closures are required, such as overnight, access routes for emergency services will be considered as part of SSTMPs. These SSTMPs will be subject to the rigorous approval process detailed in the CTMPF (included as Appendix A to Technical Report 10). As a result, I do not consider that specific conditions requiring the availability of emergency vehicle access routes are required.

Submission by Onehunga Mall Residents2

9.56 The Onehunga Mall Resident submitters are partially opposed to the Project. They have requested that vehicle access be retained to the Onehunga Mall cul-de-sac at all times during construction and that no construction vehicles should park on this street.

9.57 Access to the Onehunga Mall cul-de-sac will be maintained during construction. On occasions, road closures may be required to perform some construction operations. If this occurs it is likely access for residents will still be provided. In the rare event that

2 (#126363, 126365, 126366, 126367, 126369, 126370, 126371, 126372, 126373, 126374, 126388, 126389, 126390, 126391, 126393, 126395, 126396, 126398, 126400, 126401, 126402, 126403, 126408, 126458, 126474, 126478, 126462, 126480, 126497, 126539, 126542, 126544)

BF\56808835\9 | Page 28

resident access cannot be provided, past experience suggests that contractor(s) will liaise with residents and the length of such closure minimised. It is likely that such a closure would occur at times that have least impact, such as overnight.

9.58 With regards to construction vehicles parking on the street, it is not possible to prevent construction workers parking private vehicles on a public street. However, the Project can introduce measures in theConstruction Management Plan to limit locations where construction vehicles (e.g. trucks) may park.

9.59 It is anticipated that some parking would be available in site compounds, however, the layout of site compounds is not known at this stage and availability of parking for workers within the project area cannot be determined.

9.60 In my opinion, rules in the Construction Management Plan with regards to truck parking and likely availability of parking within the project site compounds, minimises the possibility of parking on Onehunga Mall cul-de-sac. It is my experience that on these types of projects, that local issues such as these are often dealt with via Stakeholder Engagement forums.

Submission by Ports of Auckland Limited (126346)

9.61 Ports of Auckland (POAL) partially oppose the Project. No specific issues have been raised by Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL) on construction related activities. POAL seeks to ensure that full turning movements into and out of their property is provided after the construction of the project (paragraph 39, page 6). During construction, access arrangements to the wharf may be affected, such as relocating or repositioning the access. At times, turning movement restrictions may be required. However, POAL would be consulted as part of the development of any measures to relocate or restrict turning movements to the wharf during construction. A SSTMP following the process outlined in the CTMPF will be developed for any works on the roads in this area.

Submission by Sanford (126340)

9.62 Sanford’s concerns are similar to POAL and relate to access during construction and the requirement for 24/7 access. Please refer to my response to the POAL submission above for this issue.

9.63 The evidence of Mr Nancekivell has also provided relevant response to this issue.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 29

10. CONCLUSION

10.1 I have undertaken an assessment of the traffic impacts that are anticipated to arise from the construction of the Project. I have identified impacts based on an indicative construction methodology. Traffic engineering first principles have been used as the basis of the analysis.

10.2 Based on the assessment and the COPTTM a CTMPF has been developed. This document details the processes and procedures that will need to be followed in developing SSTMPs once more detailed construction methodologies are known. The document also includes details of proposed mitigation measures that have been identified in the assessment of effects.

10.3 The modelling undertaken shows that during works on SH20 there is expected to be some transfer of traffic from SH20 to SH1, although there was no significant change in journey times on SH1 as a result of the transfer (increase by up to 1 minute). For SH20 there were significant differences between journey times in the base case year (2 minute increase) and the end of construction year (8 minute increase).

10.4 For SH1 the capacity reduction effects were confined to SH1 with some transfer of traffic to immediately parallel routes (Mount Wellington Highway and Great South Road). Effects on SH20 were minimal, which in my opinion is due to the availability of alternative routes. There was little change in journey times between the base case year and the end of construction year with the southbound journey time increase being 5 minutes in the base year and 6 minutes at the end of construction; northbound the increase ranged between 1 and 2 minutes between the start and end of construction.

10.5 As a result of my assessment, it is my opinion that works on SH20 should be undertaken towards the beginning of the construction programme and works on SH1 programmed later due to the SH1 works being less sensitive to capacity reduction.

10.6 I have reviewed the submissions received that have raised concerns or issues with regarding construction traffic effects. The majority of submissions were specific in the issues that were raised. As a result I have proposed a number of amendments to the draft Construction Traffic conditions as outlined below:

(a) More specific conditions on the effects on pedestrians and cyclists.

(b) Greater emphasis on identifying and addressing effects on public transport.

BF\56808835\9 | Page 30

(c) Identify site access points for heavy vehicles and measures to repair damage to existing road infrastructure as a direct result of construction traffic.

(d) Ensuring Auckland Transport input and involvement occurs in the development of the Construction Traffic Management Plan.

(e) Inclusion of a requirement to specifically assess and minimise the effects on on- street parking.

(f) Ensure the freight industry is consulted as part of consideration of over dimension and over weight routes.

10.7 There are well established traffic management practices and methods for construction of a Project of this scale and the Transport Agency has extensive experience in managing contractors and traffic management measures. Detailed issues will be addressed once a specific final construction methodology is developed. As is normally done through the CTMP and SSTMP process, the traffic management methodology and understanding of the associated impacts will undergo further refinement through the detailed design, and upon involvement of the contractor.

10.8 In conclusion, my assessment is that there are no overall significant traffic effects as a result of construction.

10.9 Whilst the assessment has been undertaken at a high level, as the detailed construction methodology is not yet known, it is my opinion that the proposed CTMPF provides processes and procedures that ensure more detailed analysis will be undertaken when SSTMPs are prepared. Furthermore, my experience suggests that the Road Controlling Authorities and the SSTMP approval process will require the contractor(s) to appropriately demonstrate the management of potential effects where necessary. I consider that these procedures together with the proposed draft conditions are sufficient to appropriately manage the construction traffic effects of the Project.

Darren Wu

12 April 2017

BF\56808835\9 | Page 31