Before a Board of Inquiry East West Link Proposal

BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROPOSAL

Under the Resource Management Act 1991

In the matter of a Board of Inquiry appointed under s149J of the Resource Management Act 1991 to consider notices of requirement and applications for resource consent made by the New Zealand Transport Agency in relation to the East West Link roading proposal in Auckland

Statement of Evidence in Chief of Kathryn King on behalf of Auckland Transport dated 10 May 2017

BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS

A J L BEATSON SOLICITOR FOR THE SUBMITTER AUCKLAND LEVEL 22, VERO CENTRE, 48 SHORTLAND STREET PO BOX 4199, AUCKLAND 1140, DX CP20509, NEW ZEALAND TEL 64 9 916 8800 FAX 64 9 916 8801 EMAIL [email protected]

Introduction

1. My full name is Kathryn King. I hold the role of Walking, Cycling and Safety Manager at Auckland Transport (AT).

2. I hold a Master of Arts (Honours) in Environmental Policy from Kings College, University of London, and a Bachelor of Planning (Honours) from the University of Auckland. I am a Prince 2 Practitioner.

3. I have 13 years’ experience in transport planning, specialising in walking and cycling. In my current role, which I have held since January 2015, I manage the teams which plan, design and implement walking, cycling and safety projects and initiatives across Auckland.

4. Key projects I have been responsible for include the following:

(a) Completing AT’s Greenways design guidance in December 2016 which sets out design principles and standards for the design of local walking and cycling networks for Auckland;

(b) Franklin Road Local Road Improvement (2015-17). This involved a total redesign of the street due to required rehabilitation of the street. I was part of the team that approved the design, which included improvements for people walking including new crossing point. The project will also deliver new cycleways and a new roundabout to reduce traffic speeds. The project is currently under construction;

(c) Nelson Street Cycleway (January-December 2015). This involved new protected cycleways in the carriageway and the redesign of traffic signals on Nelson Street to accommodate space for a protected cycleway. This project has resulted in a significant increase in people cycling in the City Centre and was completed in December 2015;

(d) Quay Street Cycleway (January 2015-July 2016). This project delivered a new protected cycleway along Quay Street from Princes Wharf to Tangihua Street. It utilised turn lanes and parking spaces along Quay Street to deliver the protected cycleway;

20958869_4 1

(e) Karangahape Road Cycleway (June 2015-present). This is a project what AT is jointly delivering with Auckland Council and is currently in detailed design. The project has involved a significant engagement plan in order to deliver a complete street which accommodates people walking, cycling, bus users and general traffic; and

(f) Portobello Road Safety Upgrade (2012-14) in London, which is one of London’s busiest shopping streets. The project involved a comprehensive consultation process to agree improvements for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as general safety improvements.

Code of Conduct

5. While I am an employee of AT, I confirm that I have read the ‘Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses’ contained in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2014. I agree to comply with this Code of Conduct. In particular, unless I state otherwise, this evidence is within my sphere of expertise and I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express.

Scope of Evidence

6. My evidence explains the relationship of AT’s walking and cycling activities to the East West Link (EWL) project.

7. In particular, my evidence addresses:

(a) Walking and cycling in the context of AT’s transport planning and investment;

(b) AT’s forward programme for walking and cycling;

(d) My views on the specific walking and cycling infrastructure proposed to be delivered through the EWL project and conditions required to ensure good outcomes; and

(e) Construction effects of the EWL project on walking and cycling.

20958869_4 2

8. My evidence should be read in conjunction with the evidence of the other AT witnesses listed below, and defers to their expertise where necessary and applicable:

(a) Mr Theunis van Schalkwyk (corporate);

(b) Mr Anthony Cross (public transport);

(d) Mr Liam Winter (planning – conditions).

Walking and cycling in the context of AT’s transport planning and investment

9. AT is a Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) of the Auckland Council charged with contributing to an “effective, efficient and safe Auckland land transport system in the public interest”.1 The development, maintenance and promotion of the walking and cycling network all fall within this role.

10. Transport policy both in the Auckland context and nationally has reached a broad consensus in favour of a multi-modal approach to transport planning and investment including substantial investment in walking and cycling infrastructure. It is now widely recognised that walking and cycling can:

(a) Provide a viable alternative to the private car for a variety of trips, particularly access to jobs and schools;

(b) Provide safety benefits to all road users;

(d) Offer significant health and environmental benefits.

1 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, section 39.

20958869_4 3

11. In particular, the following strategic planning and policy documents demonstrate this broad consensus in favour of walking and cycling investment:

(a) The Auckland Plan, which sets the target of completing the Auckland Cycle Network (ACN) (which is discussed further below) by 2030 and achieving a 45% mode share for non-car based trips at the morning peak;

(b) The AT Statement of Intent (SOI), which sets out specific targets for cycling trips to the Central City, and cycling trips regionally, along with a target for the delivery of new cycleway infrastructure;

(c) AT’s Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) which includes an accelerated programme for the delivery of the ACN in the 2015- 18 period;

(d) The Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport Funding which includes investment objectives on transport choices and safe cycle networks; and

(e) The National Land Transport Programme (NLTP), which earmarks over $250 million nationally for the walking and cycling activity class.

12. The ACN was developed by AT as the long term aspirational plan for cycling in Auckland, and identifies a comprehensive region-wide hierarchy of cycle routes to be delivered. The Auckland Plan sets a target of delivering 70% of this network by 2022, and the entire network by 2030.

13. AT’s current 2015-18 Walking and Cycling Programme provides for over $200 million for walking and cycling infrastructure, which is sourced from Auckland Council, the NZTA and Crown funds via the Urban Cycleway Fund (UCF). This funding provides for the delivery of 52.4km of the ACN during the 2015-18 period. This includes $4 million for local board walking and cycling initiatives and $4.5 million to deliver new footpaths across the region for the same period.

20958869_4 4

14. AT is working with Auckland Council and Local Boards across the region to deliver a programme of Greenways. These are local routes that support walking and cycling to local destinations, and utilise quiet streets, parks and natural assets. They provide recreational opportunities, along with improved travel choice. The majority of walking and cycling trips currently made in Auckland are recreational and this programme is aimed to make it easier and more attractive to be active.

Auckland Transport’s forward programme for walking and cycling

15. AT, in conjunction with the NZTA and Auckland Council, are in the process of developing a joint Programme Business Case (PBC) for investment in walking and cycling at a regional level to set out the next priorities for investment beyond the current 2015-18 programme. This follows the earlier development of a Strategic Case for investment in walking and cycling which was completed in March 2016. The PBC is currently scheduled to be signed off by the AT and NZTA Boards in July 2017.

16. The PBC prioritises according to Investment Logic Mapping (ILM) and Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) (see Attachment A) which takes account of factors such as safety, access to jobs and schools, health inequalities and deliverability. Against these criteria, the project area for the EWL is not a sufficiently high priority to justify being included AT’s programme for the 2018-21 period, though Onehunga and Mangere Bridge are identified as longer term priorities for investment in future funding programmes.

17. I note for the avoidance of confusion that a number of proposed walking and cycling improvements are being funded as part of the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) and the Frequent Network 32 (FN32) projects. These are discussed further at paragraphs 19(d) and 21.

18. While some walking and cycling facilities exist in the area and are well used (such as the Waikaraka Cycleway), there are significant gaps in the network throughout the project area and limited ability for local people to access key destinations by bicycle or on foot. As such, AT

20958869_4 5

strongly supports the NZTA’s proposed delivery of significant walking and cycling infrastructure through the EWL project.

The East West Link in the context of Auckland Transport’s walking and cycling plans

19. I note from the evidence of Mr Andrew Murray for the NZTA that the project provides for over double the linear length of walking and cycling facilities in the project area compared with the existing network.

20. I further note that the walking and cycling desire lines that the project seeks to service are broadly consistent with the connections sought in the ACN and relevant Local Board Greenway Plans which are listed below.

(a) A main east-west desire line linking Taumanu Reserve, Onehunga, Waikaraka Park, Mutukaroa/Hamlins Hill, and the Sylvia Park metropolitan centre;

(b) A main north-south desire line at the western end of the project area linking established destinations including Maungakiekie/One Tree Hill, Onehunga Town Centre, Onehunga Wharf and Mangere Bridge via Onehunga Mall and Old Mangere Bridge;

(c) Alfred Street, which as a north-south connection without a direct vehicular access onto the EWL will have lower traffic volumes, thereby increasing the attractiveness to pedestrians and cyclists for north-south journeys;

(d) Walking and cycling improvements at the Sylvia Park end of the project area through the AMETI and FN32 projects which will open up perpendicular connections at the eastern end of the EWL to Sylvia Park, Otahuhu and beyond; and

(e) Relevant Local Board Greenway Plans, which identify a long-term aspiration of a Mangere Inlet Greenway. The EWL mainline clearly provides for this along the northern edge of the inlet. I support the future-proofing for further additions to the eastern and southern edges of the Inlet, and understand the NZTA has provided for this in a number of locations. 20958869_4 6

21. While each of these connections has some utility in isolation, the true benefit of each is fully realised when combined with investment in connecting routes. For example, the walking and cycling facilities on the EWL mainline, when combined with perpendicular connections, will cumulatively achieve a ‘network effect’ which opens up multiple journey opportunities. The impact of network connectivity is demonstrated through recent additions to the City Centre network which have delivered a 44% increase in cycling trips on routes linked to the North- West Cycleway, compared to a 6% increase in the City Centre routes overall.2

22. The evidence of Mr van Schalkwyk discusses the AMETI proposals for the Sylvia Park area. AT proposes a shared use path (SUP) for walking and cycling on the proposed link road between Sylvia Park Road and Sylvia Park metropolitan centre to be delivered through the AMETI project. The FN32 project will similarly be providing for walking and cycling improvements from Sylvia Park to Otahuhu and Mangere. I support continued engagement between AT and the NZTA to ensure that an integrated outcome is achieved so that the convergence of facilities at Sylvia Park achieves a network effect. To this end, I support the additions to condition DC.11 proposed in Mr Winter’s evidence which would require the Outline Plan to address how walking and cycling facilities from the EWL mainline connect to Sylvia Park.

Response to NZTA walking and cycling proposals for the East West Link

23. I understand that the project team has focused primarily on the location and connectivity of the walking and cycling paths rather than design details.3 As per paragraph 19 above, AT is in general agreement on the merits of the proposed connections from the perspective of general connectivity and desire lines. I also support the emphasis on the separation of facilities in the design philosophy to date, including the separation of recreational from commuter use.

24. AT’s walking and cycling specialists have been engaged throughout the course of the project to date. The AT submission sought the continued

2 This is referenced in the PBC, and in the 2016 Cycling Account which is to be published by AT shortly. 3 Andrew Murray W&C evidence, paragraph 5.10.

20958869_4 7

engagement of these specialists to ensure best practice outcomes are achieved at the detailed design stage. I understand from Mr Murray’s evidence4 that the NZTA supports this continued consultation.

25. This continued engagement is very important. Provision of a ‘connection’ does not automatically achieve the objective of improving safety and accessibility for cycling and walking within the study area. Connectivity is influenced by a range of attributes including level of service and amenity. The degree to which these elements are addressed will determine whether the connection is well utilised.

26. The AT submission identified a number of specific walking and cycling aspects of the project that require further refinement at the detailed design stage. These are listed as (a) to (e) below. I note that Mr Murray in his evidence5 generally supports further engagement with AT in respect of these matters:

(a) The quality of the north-south connection from Onehunga Town Centre, along Onehunga Mall and Onehunga Harbour Road, and across the EWL to Onehunga Wharf and the Old Mangere Bridge;

(b) Indicative design treatments on Onehunga Mall and Galway Street were identified as a key concern. Specifically, a separated cycle facility in place of a Shared Use Path (SUP) should be explored on Onehunga Mall given the acknowledged importance of the route as a desire line and the projected reduction in general traffic;

(c) Indicative design treatments on the EWL main alignment should consider a greater degree of separation/protection between the walking and cycling facilities and the general traffic lanes for safety and amenity reasons. Consideration should also be given to achieving greater consistency of treatments on the main alignment;

4 Murray, T&T evidence, paragraph 20.3 5 Murray, T&T, paragraph 20.3; W&C para 5.10.

20958869_4 8

(d) Achieving a seamless connection of the EWL walking and cycling facilities to the facilities being proposed as part of the Sylvia Park Link Road and the FN32 project at the eastern extent of the main alignment as per paragraph 20 of my evidence; and

(e) The indicative design of SUP facilities at the Princes Street Interchange were identified as a potential safety concern requiring review. One potential solution is a stand-alone walking and cycling bridge potentially linking the ends of Luke Street or Avenue Road. This is discussed further in paragraph 28 below which discusses potential conditions on this matter.

27. Since the notification of the proposal, I understand the NZTA has made further improvements to the EWL design, including widening the ‘land bridge’ between Onehunga Harbour Road and Onehunga Wharf/Orpheus Drive from 25 to 70 metres and the addition of a crossing facility to the eastern arm of the EWL intersection with Galway Street. I support both of these changes.

28. The NZTA has proposed a number of changes to the designation conditions in response to the above issues raised in the AT submission which are supported. In particular, I support the addition of reference to specific walking and cycling connections in condition DC.11, which identifies matters to be considered in Outline Plans. These are now proposed to include:

(a) A shared pedestrian and cycle path connection between Orpheus Drive, the new Old Mangere Bridge, and Taumanu Reserve (DC.11(b));

(b) A high quality pedestrian and cycle connection providing a linkage along Onehunga Mall to and from Onehunga Town Centre (DC.11(c)); and

29. I recommend a number of further changes to the conditions relevant to walking and cycling matters. These include:

20958869_4 9

(a) Addition of connectivity to the proposed new Old Mangere Bridge and Onehunga Wharf to condition DC.11(c) to enhance walking and cycling connections between Mangere Bridge and Onehunga (as per the EWL investment objectives);

(b) That the Outline Plan shows how greater separation of pedestrian and cycle facilities from general traffic on the EWL main alignment and greater consistency of those facilities can be achieved. This addition is sought for the reasons outlined in paragraph 25(c) above; and

(c) That the Outline Plan includes a feasibility analysis of an alternative dedicated walking and cycling bridge over State Highway 1 in the vicinity of Luke Street or Avenue Road, and a safety audit comparing a dedicated bridge to the currently proposed SUP facilities at the existing Princes Street Interchange. This addition is sought for the reasons outlined in paragraph 25(e) above.

Construction Effects

30. The EWL project will impact on the current walking and cycling network during the construction phase which requires a robust management plan framework and conditions to manage.

31. I support the preparation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) as proposed in the evidence of Mr Darren Wu for the NZTA. I also support condition CT.1 as proposed by Ms Lesley Hopkins in her evidence which includes ensuring safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and minimisation of delay for pedestrians and cyclists as part of the purpose for preparing a CTMP.

32. I support condition CT.2(i) which requires that the CTMP confirms that a SUP connection between Onehunga Harbour Road and Old Mangere Bridge is maintained at all times. I consider however that the currently proposed condition CT.2(j) is insufficiently directive in terms of its requirement for a temporary replacement to the Waikaraka Cycleway during EWL construction.

20958869_4 10

33. I recognise that sections of the existing cycleway will need to be closed to facilitate construction, and agree that measures to minimise the duration and extent of closure are helpful considerations to make as part of a CTMP. The provision of alternative facilities, however, needs to be guided by direction that requires an equivalent level of service to the existing facility and that the connection is adequately sign-posted. Mr Winter’s evidence provides specific wording for this amendment to condition CT.2(j).

Conclusions

34. My evidence has examined the EWL in the broader context of AT’s walking and cycling strategies and investment. I consider that the proposal will deliver significant new walking and cycling infrastructure, will fill gaps in the current walking and cycling network, and will deliver network benefits when viewed in the context of other planned investment. Continued engagement with AT will be essential as the EWL proceeds to the Outline Plan and detailed design stages to ensure best-practice outcomes for walking and cycling are delivered.

Kathryn King

10 May 2017

20958869_4 11

Attachment A

20958869_4 12