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 REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF ANDREW PETER MURRAY ON BEHALF OF THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY Traffic and Transportation Including Walking and Cycling Dated: 20th June 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1 2. INTRODUCTION 2 3. PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCING 2 4. SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF EVIDENCE 3 5. EVIDENCE OF MR DAVID SMITH FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 5 6. EVIDENCE OF MR DUNCAN TINDALL FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 11 7. EVIDENCE OF MR ROD MARLER FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 14 8. EVIDENCE OF MR GRAEME MCINDOE FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 16 9. EWL CONNECTIVITY AT ALFRED STREET 19 10. EVIDENCE OF MICHAEL DAVIES FOR AUCKLAND TRANSPORT 28 11. EVIDENCE OF ANTHONY CROSS FOR AUCKLAND TRANSPORT 29 12. EVIDENCE OF MR STEPHEN BROWN FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 30 13. EVIDENCE OF MIMOUK HANNAN FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 32 14. EVIDENCE OF KATHRYN COOMBES ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL 34 15. EVIDENCE OF KATHRYN KING FOR AUCKLAND TRANSPORT 36 16. EVIDENCE OF LEMAUNGA SOSENE FOR THE MĀNGERE-ŌTĀHUHU LOCAL BOARD 38 17. EVIDENCE OF JOSEPHINE BARTLEY FOR THE MAUNGAKIEKIE-TĀMAKI LOCAL BOARD 39 18. EVIDENCE OF IAN CARLISLE FOR MERCURY NZ LTD 39 19. EVIDENCE OF JOHN PARLANE FOR KIWI PROPERTY GROUP LTD 40 20. EVIDENCE OF MARK LUKER FOR KIWI PROPERTY GROUP LTD 46 21. EVIDENCE OF DON MCKENZIE FOR PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED (POAL) 46 22. EVIDENCE OF DON MCKENZIE FOR JACKSON ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES 48 23. EVIDENCE OF JOHN BURGESS FOR TRAMLEASE 48 24. EVIDENCE OF WES EDWARDS FOR 8 SYLVIA PARK ROAD AND KERRY WILSON FOR 8 SYLVIA PARK ROAD BODY CORPORATE AND SYL PARK INVESTMENTS 51 25. EVIDENCE OF AMANDA KINZETT FOR ONEHUNGA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 56 26. EVIDENCE OF GREGOR HOHEISEL FOR ONEHUNGA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 57 27. EVIDENCE OF MR STEPHEN LASHAM FOR AOTEA SEA SCOUTS 59 28. EVIDENCE OF E. KIRK, MĀNGERE BRIDGE RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION AND THE MĀNGERE HISTORIC SOCIETY 60 ANNEXURE 1: ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS TO THE COASTAL EDGE 62 ANNEXURE 2: ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED CAR PARKING ACCESS TO THE COASTAL EDGE 67 ANNEXURE 3: ACCESS TO SH1 AND SH20 FROM ALFRED STREET 74 BF\57020889\1 ANNEXURE 4: CRASH ANALYSIS FOR ALFRED STREET INTERSCETION 75 ANNEXURE 5: CHANGE IN TRAVEL TIMES TO/FROM MT WELLINGTON HIGHWAY 77 BF\57020889\1 1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1.1 Subsequent to preparation of my EIC, I have read the evidence provided by submitters and participated in five conferencing sessions (expert and non-expert). I have also worked with the project team on revised drawings and designation Conditions that address many of the issues raised. I respond here to transport issues (including walking and cycling) to over 20 evidence statements, so I have not summarised those responses here. 1.2 I have however noted some key themes and outcomes from the evidence and conferencing process, including: (a) The experts recognise that, if approved, a subsequent detailed design process would be undertaken for this Project. A significant number of issues raised in evidence by submitters related to uncertainty about design details and the conferencing sessions were able to clarify the intent of many design features, especially in relation to property access; (b) The overall methodology for the transport assessment, including the modelling and associated benefits, has not been refuted by the transport experts. Some local modelling queries or issues were raised in Onehunga and Mt Wellington, however the results of the modelling have not been materially disputed. (c) Many issues raised in evidence relate to access, including to the coastal edge, Onehunga Wharf and specific properties. In this regard I have undertaken additional assessments, including: (i) Walking, cycling and vehicle access to the full coastal edge, which I conclude is significantly improved as a result of the Project (ii) Consideration of a full vehicle access to the EWL at Alfred Street, which I conclude would have significant detrimental effects on the transport outcomes of the Project; (iii) Access to properties on Sylvia Park Road, where I conclude that some movements may require a longer detour route, but in many cases this is off-set by improved access for other movements. There is a possibility that access to 8 Sylvia Park Road could be moderately affected if specific traffic features are not able to be confirmed as feasible in detailed design; and BF\57020889\1 Page 1 (iv) Revised modelling in the Mt Wellington area that confirms earlier assessments that a significant adverse effect of the EWL is not expected on Mt Wellington Highway. (d) I also consider that the majority of desired outcomes for walking and cycling facilities sought by submitters during the design process have been reflected in the revised and additional Conditions provided in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Hopkins. 1.3 Having reviewed the submitter evidence and attended conference I can confirm that my opinions expressed in EIC regarding the substantial travel time, travel reliability, bus access and walking and cycling benefits of the Project have not changed, and hence I still consider that it strongly meets the Project Objectives. 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 My name is Andrew Peter Murray. 2.2 I have the qualifications and experience set out at paragraphs 2.1 – 2.4 of my statement of evidence in chief (EIC) dated 12 April 2017. 2.3 I have been engaged by the New Zealand Transport Agency (the Transport Agency) to undertake an assessment of the traffic and transportation effects of the East West Link Project (the Project), for which the Notices of Requirement (NORs) and resource consent applications have been lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). My EIC described this assessment and its findings, and my rebuttal evidence responds to the evidence of submitters within my area of expertise. 2.4 I prepared two EIC statements: (a) 1: Assessment of Traffic and Transportation Effects (except walking/cycling); (b) 2: Assessment of walking and cycling facilities. 2.5 In this rebuttal statement I address both traffic and walking/ cycling issues. 2.6 I repeat the confirmation given in my EIC that I have read the 'Code of Conduct' for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that my evidence has been prepared in compliance with that Code. 3. PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCING 3.1 I attended the following expert and non-expert conferencing sessions; (a) Traffic and Transportation (expert), Wednesday 24th May 2017. BF\57020889\1 Page 2 (b) Waikaraka Park and Cemetery (multi-disciplinary expert), Friday 26th May 2017 (c) Access to individual properties (non-expert), Tuesday 30th May 2017 (d) Neilson Street Area (multi-disciplinary expert), Tuesday 6th June 2017 (e) Traffic and Transport (Mercury NZ Ltd Site) (expert), Thursday 8th June 20171 3.2 Throughout this statement I refer extensively to the expert traffic and transport Joint Witness Statement (24 May), which I refer to here as the JWS. 3.3 I have also attended liaison meetings with Auckland Transport, Bike Auckland and Auckland Council experts and staff on specific design detail and proposed Conditions. I am also aware that a ‘Consenting Phase Agreement’ is being developed between NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport (as discussed in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wickman). I understand this agreement addresses the ongoing working relationships between the agencies, especially to address any integration issues between the State Highway and Local road networks. 4. SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF EVIDENCE 4.1 In this statement of rebuttal evidence I address each statement of evidence as they relate to transportation matters within my area of expertise. Some common issues have been raised by more than one expert, so where possible I have used cross-references rather than repeated the response. The exception to this is in relation to the request from Auckland Council for full vehicle access to the EWL at Alfred Street, which I have addressed as a single topic. 4.2 In this statement of rebuttal evidence I will respond to the evidence of: (a) David Smith (Auckland Council - Panuku) (b) Duncan Tindall (Auckland Council) (c) Rod Marler (Auckland Council - Panuku) (d) Graeme McIndoe (Auckland Council) (e) Michael Davies (Auckland Transport) (f) Anthony Cross (Auckland Transport) (g) Stephen Brown (Auckland Council) (h) Mimouk Hannan (Auckland Council) 1 The report is incorrectly labelled as Thursday 7th June 207 BF\57020889\1 Page 3 (i) Kathryn Coombes (Auckland Council) (j) Kathryn King (Auckland Transport) (k) Lemaunga Sosene (Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board) (l) Josephine Bartley (Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board) (m) Ian Carlisle (Mercury NZ Ltd) (n) John Parlane (Kiwi Property Group Ltd) (o) Mark Luker (Kiwi Property Group Ltd) (p) Don McKenzie and Alistair Kirk (Ports of Auckland Limited - POAL) (q) Don McKenzie and Jim Jackson (Jackson Electrical Industries) (r) Wes Edwards (8 Sylvia Park Road and Kerry Wilson (8 Sylvia Park Road Body Corporate and Syl Park Investments) (s) John Burgess (TramLease) (t) Amanda Kinzett (Onehunga Business Association) (u) Gregor Hoheisel (Onehunga Business Association) (v) Stephen Lasham (Aotea Sea Scouts) (w) E. Kirk (Māngere Bridge Residents and Ratepayers Association and the Māngere Historic Society) 4.3 The fact that this rebuttal statement does not respond to every matter raised in the evidence of submitter witnesses within my area of expertise should not be taken as acceptance of the matters raised.