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 Closing Legal submissions on behalf of Auckland Transport dated 13 September 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] MAY IT PLEASE THE BOARD Introduction 1. Auckland Transport (AT) supports the East West Link (EWL) Project. It considers the EWL Project will result in the following key transport related benefits: (a) It responds to an identified need to improve freight and general traffic efficiency. The EWL will improve travel times and travel time reliability between businesses in the Onehunga-Penrose industrial area and State Highways 1 and 20; (b) It improves cycling and walking facilities with over double the linear length of walking and cycling facilities in the project area compared with the existing network, and related safety and accessibility improvements between Mangere Bridge, Onehunga and Sylvia Park; (c) It improves journey time reliability for buses between State Highway 20 and the Onehunga Town Centre; and (d) Network resilience, lower traffic volumes on residential streets and arterial routes, and improved connectivity between Onehunga Town Centre and Onehunga Port. 2. All of the issues raised in AT’s submission and/or evidence have been addressed either through agreed amendments to the conditions, or through a separate agreement (referred to as the Consenting Phase Agreement). We have attached to these submissions those agreed conditions of particular importance to AT. Syl Park Investments Limited and 8 Sylvia Park Road Body Corporate 3. Mr Allan for Syl Park Investments Limited and 8 Sylvia Park Road Body Corporate stated at the hearing yesterday that if an agreement cannot be negotiated with the owner of 1 Pacific Rise then either AT or NZTA should designate the site. 21518350_2 1 4. Mr Allan referred to Mr Winter’s evidence that if NZTA is unable to formalise access across 1 Pacific Rise then AT could become involved in that matter.1 For completeness, this was not an agreement by AT to designate the site and AT does not designate and acquire land for private accesses. Mr Winter stated that the easement which was being negotiated would be the most appropriate way of dealing with the issue.2 Potential Effects on Sylvia Park Effects of EWL 5. AT and NZTA do not consider that the EWL will have an adverse effect on the local road network in the Sylvia Park area.3 6. AT, as Road Controlling Authority, already undertakes monitoring of its network, including Mount Wellington Highway.4 Nevertheless, AT has agreed with Kiwi to undertake additional monitoring of traffic conditions in the vicinity of Sylvia Park. Criticisms of AT 7. Mr Parlane and Mr Luker made a number of criticisms and assertions about AT during questioning by the Board, including that AT had stated that the Link Road can only be for buses, that no one from AT has produced evidence about the Link Road, and that Kiwi cannot meet with the relevant AT staff who consider the Link Road should only be for buses. 5 1 Closing Submissions on behalf of Syl Park Investments Limited and 8 Sylvia Park Road Body Corporate dated 12 September, para 22 2 Lines 11-13, page 2353 of the Transcript 3 Lines 33-37, page 2590 of the Transcript. Rebuttal evidence of Michael Davies on behalf of Auckland Transport dated 20 June 2017 at [7]; Rebuttal evidence of Andrew Murray on behalf of NZTA dated 20 June 2017 at [19.24]-[19.25]. 4 Lines 21-26, page 2583 of the Transcript 5 Pages 4773, 4785 and 4786 of the Transcript 21518350_2 2 8. We consider these comments are a red herring, unrelated to the EWL, and outside the scope of this process. In any event, the assertions made are not accepted, including because: (a) AT has not stated to Mr Parlane or Kiwi that the Link Road can only be for buses. As noted in AT’s evidence and by Mr Cross at the hearing, AT has made no final decision in respect of this matter; (b) AT has discussed and shared the findings of modelling of traffic on the Link Road with Kiwi; (c) AT has arranged meetings with the relevant people from both AT and AT’s consultants about the Link Road.Kiwi has also met with, and continue to be in communication with, the Chief Executive of AT. Kiwi’s concerns 9. Mr Luker and Mr Parlane both agree that the expansion of the Sylvia Park Shopping Centre will result in increased traffic on the local road network.6 However, Mr Luker adopted the concept of good congestion (generated by the Sylvia Park Shopping Centre) and bad congestion (unplanned through traffic).7 10. From AT’s perspective, it does not accept this distinction and monitors increased traffic flows irrespective of potential causes and assesses increased congestion from a network perspective. AT agrees with Mr Bickers’ questions to Mr Parlane - that any baseline monitoring should also identify what effects the extension and development at Sylvia Park might be having on the network.8 6 Lines 10-17, page 4767 of the Transcript; lines 32-45, page 4785 of the Transcript 7 Lines 17-30, page 4766 of the Transcript 8 Lines 19-25, page 4787 of the Transcript. We note Mr Parlane made a number of statements about the modelling undertaken to support Sylvia Park and the plan provisions. However, these statements related to the Operative Plan not the Unitary Plan process or provisions. 21518350_2 3 11. Mr Luker for Kiwi Property Group Limited (Kiwi) confirmed that: (a) Rat running on Carbine Road and Clemow Drive is unlikely to affect retail activity at Sylvia Park due to the complementary timing of commuter and retail traffic peaks;9 and (b) Kiwi’s concern is that the EWL is going to conflict with existing and future employment traffic.10 12. However, both Mr Luker and Mr Parlane acknowledged offices and other employment, which are part of the Sylvia Park Metropolitan Centre, are particularly suited to public transport.11 In fact recent analysis shows there is a trend away from private vehicle use to public transport at Sylvia Park, which has good access to public transport and usage at Sylvia Park Station “is definitely going up”.12 13. Mr Parlane’s own assessment for an office building at Sylvia Park was that a significant increase in services as a result of the City Rail Link will make rail even more attractive to commuters, a sizeable number of people travelling to and from Sylvia Park could change their mode of travel, and the City Rail Link could mean a reduction in traffic on both Mount Wellington Highway and Carbine Road.13 14. Mr Parlane relied on existing and future public transport facilities and the Sylvia Park Travel Management Plan as the basis for concluding the adverse transportation effects of office development at Sylvia Park were mitigated.14 15. Given the above context it is difficult to understand why Kiwi is concerned that the EWL is going to conflict with existing and future employment traffic at Sylvia Park. Moreover it appears that Kiwi is attempting to use peak-hour congestion to substantiate transport 9 Lines 19-47, page 4767 of the Transcript 10 Lines 1-4, page 4768 of the Transcript 11 Lines 29-48, page 4768 of the Transcript; and Line 18, page 4782 of the Transcript 12 Exhibit W and lines 1-27, page 4770 of the Transcript 13 Lines 14-44, page 4793 of the Transcript 14 Lines 46-48, page 4793 of the Transcript and line 1, page 4794 of the Transcript 21518350_2 4 infrastructure improvements that would support its retail activities which can occur across the evening peak and weekends. Kiwi’s requests 16. Kiwi seeks a number of measures to mitigate the potential effects of the EWL. Yet even its own witness Mr Parlane accepted that there is an element of conjecture as to whether or not there is going to be an adverse effect from EWL.15 17. Mr Parlane also accepted just because there is increased traffic does not mean there is always going to be a mitigation requirement.16 The need for and implementation of mitigation will also depend on available funding and other priorities across the network.17 18. One of the mitigation measures Kiwi seeks is private vehicles being allowed on the proposed Link Road. Neither Mr Luker nor Mr Parlane had read Anthony Cross’ evidence for AT on this matter, despite it directly addressing their evidence.18 Mr Luker deferred to Mr Parlane, who considered there is capacity to use the proposed Link Road for other traffic.19 Mr Parlane confirmed he had not undertaken any modelling to support this view but it was based on some “rough estimates”.20 Kiwi did not question Mr Cross as to whether or not there is likely to be a capacity issue if private vehicles are allowed to use the Link Road.21 19. Mr Cross’ evidence is that the original primary purpose of the Link Road is to improve bus performance and reliability in the Sylvia Park area, and to enable a direct interchange facility with train services.22 In his view the Link Road should remain bus-only as originally proposed 15 Lines 22-31, page 4783 of the Transcript 16 Lines 46-47, page 4789 and line 1, page 4790 of the Transcript 17 Lines 20-41, page 4791 of the Transcript 18 Lines 29-32, page 4770 of the Transcript; Lines 1-6, page 4792 of the Transcript 19 Lines 26-34, page 4781 of the Transcript 20 Lines 13-25, page 4792 of the Transcript 21 Mr Allan asked Mr Cross whether it is possible to design an access way in such a way that enables both private vehicles and the buses to co-exist, lines 26-27, page 2609 of the Transcript 22 Lines 30-34, page 2607 of the Transcript 21518350_2 5 to maximise the benefits for public transport users.23 However, AT has made no final decisions in respect of this matter.