IN THE MATTER of applications pursuant to the ... - hamilton.govt.nz · level in the investigation...

IN THE MATTER of applications pursuant to the

Resource Management Act 1991

BY Weston Lea Limited

FOR land use and subdivision consents for a large scale residential development and associated land use activities and sites works at Peacocke, Hamilton

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE (TRAFFIC)

Alasdair Gray

29 March 2019

1 INTRODUCTION 1. My name is Alasdair David Angus Gray. My qualifications and experience are

as follows:

a. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree (Civil Engineering, 1986) from the

University of Aberdeen. I am a Corporate Member of the Institution of

Professional Engineers New Zealand and a Chartered Professional

Engineer. I hold a Ministry for the Environment Making Good Decisions

certificate.

b. I have worked in the transportation field as a civil/transportation

engineer for more than 30 years and have been involved at a senior

level in the investigation and development of projects in Hamilton City

and the Waikato region for more than 20 years. I am based in Hamilton

and established my own consultancy, Gray Matter Ltd, in January 2006.

For 5 years prior to that I was Group Engineer, Asset Development, with

Opus International Consultants Ltd in Hamilton, managing

approximately 30 technical staff in a range of road projects. For the

previous 5 years I was a senior civil/transportation engineer with

AECOM’s predecessor in Hamilton.

c. I am familiar with the transport issues arising in and around Waikato,

having provided advice to Hamilton City Council, Waipa and Waikato

District Councils and other local authorities, Waikato Regional Council,

NZ Transport Agency, and developers on projects in the area over the

past 20 years. I have the following specific experience with respect to

the matters currently in front of the Hearing Commissioner Panel:

i. Traffic engineer supporting NZ Transport Agency, Hamilton and

Tauranga City Councils, and Rotorua, Waipa, Waikato and

Matamata Piako District Councils in transport-related aspects of

District Plan changes, reviews and variations including the

Ruakura Board of Inquiry;

ii. Consultant civil/transportation engineer for developers,

landowners and local authorities assisting in preparing and

reviewing Notices of Requirement for road projects and consent

applications, including in Peacocke Stage 1A;

iii. Assisting NZTA with traffic engineering and transport planning

for the state highway network, including two years’ experience

as the network safety engineer for the Manawatu State highway

network, investigation and implementation of the SH3/Airport

Road roundabout, and advice on responding to the impacts of

development on the SH3 corridor in south Hamilton;

iv. Assisting Te Awa River Ride Trust, NZTA, Waikato DC, Waipa

DC and HCC in investigations and funding applications for the

Ngaruawahia to Horotiu and Cambridge to Hamilton Sections of

the cycleway;

v. Project Manager for HCC and NZ Transport Agency for the

Southern Links Investigation and Notice of Requirement relating

to the arterial road network to the south of Hamilton, including

the Peacocke arterials;

vi. Assisting HCC with preparation of the Indicative and Detailed

Business Cases for the successful application for funding from

the Housing Infrastructure Fund, including traffic engineering and

transport economics, option selection and evaluation, and the

management case for implementation;

vii. Assisting HCC and NZTA with feedback on the draft transport

assessment for this application and supporting investigations;

and,

viii. I am currently project managing the implementation of the

Peacocke network infrastructure, including strategic transport

and wastewater packages.

2 EXPERT CODE OF CONDUCT 2. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the

Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and have complied with that practice

note in preparation of this evidence. I agree to comply with it in presenting

evidence at this hearing.

3. I have the following relationships with the parties to the hearing. None of these

are material to the outcome of the hearing and my role in relation to the

applications by Weston Lea Limited does not conflict with these relationships:

a. I and my company, Gray Matter Ltd, regularly provide expert

transportation advice to HCC. This includes advice to HCC as

regulatory authority and as road controlling authority. There are no

other matters which I or my company are providing advice on which

conflict with the advice I have provided in relation to the Weston Lea

Limited applications;

b. My company, Gray Matter Ltd, has been engaged by HCC/NZTA as a

joint commission to provide project management advice for the

Southern Links Project, and for design of related works (HCC) including

the SH3 Ohaupo Road/East-west arterial roundabout and the Bader

Street safety works. This role and the nature of the advice I provide to

those parties does not conflict with my opinions in relation to the

applications by Weston Lea Limited

c. I am the project manager engaged by HCC for the Peacocke network

infrastructure. This includes provision of the bridge, road, and

wastewater connections. My engagement is to deliver infrastructure

and extends to the start of construction. This engagement was

confirmed on 8 August 2018. While the delivery of this infrastructure is

relevant to the Amberfield development, my role in its delivery is not in

conflict with the opinions I have provided in my evidence.

4. The evidence that I give is within my area of expertise, except where I have

stated my reliance on other identified evidence. I have considered all material

facts that are known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I

express in this evidence.

3 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 5. I have been retained by HCC to provide traffic engineering and transport

planning advice relating to the consent applications by Weston Lea Limited

(the applicant).

6. I am familiar with the existing and planned road network near the site. I have

travelled along and visited Peacocke Road on several occasions to observe

traffic conditions on Peacocke Road and connecting routes, including Bader

Street.

7. The purpose of this statement of evidence is to address matters raised in the

applications relating to transport and consideration of submissions in this

regard.

8. My evidence covers:

a. A summary of my conclusions and an update of key changes planned in

the area.

b. Review and assessment of applicant’s traffic assessment (this includes

assessment against relevant statutory provisions (e.g. RMA, Regional

Policy Statement, District Plan;

c. The status and programme for planned transport infrastructure in the

area;

d. Current and expected traffic conditions;

e. Responses to submissions related to transport and traffic;

f. Discussion of some aspects of the Proposal;

g. Comments from expert caucusing;

h. Recommended conditions; and,

i. My conclusions.

9. In preparing this evidence I have participated in expert conferencing and

reviewed the following:

a. Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared by Merestone Ltd, and

its:

i. Appendices A, B, and C – Objectives and Policies, Rules and

Criteria;

ii. Appendix I – Integrated Transport Assessment Report;

iii. Scheme Plans;

iv. Engineering Design Drawings (high level review);

b. s92 further information responses relating to transport, received 17

August 2018, including:

i. Appendix L – Traffic and Transportation;

ii. Appendix O – Scheme Plan Update;

c. Submissions relating to traffic and transport;

d. Addendum of changes on 25 Feb 2109 including an updated staging

plan.

e. Additional information received 28 March 2019 an updated staging plan.

10. I participated in expert conferencing for traffic witnesses between December

2018 and January 2019. I have attached the Joint Witness Statement

prepared at the final conferencing session, which shows general agreement

between the participants about the likely level of effects and suggestions for

conditions to manage them to acceptable levels.

4. SUMMARY AND NETWORK CONTEXT UPDATE 11. In summary, I consider that subject to appropriate conditions as set out in the

S42A report, the adverse effects of the development can be managed to an

acceptable level. This is because:

a. The location of the development, closer to the town centre and key

destinations, will have a relatively beneficial effect compared to more

distant development.

b. The Waikato Expressway will provide some improvement in conditions

when it is operational (late 2020/early 2021).

c. The proposed Waikato River Bridge should be operational in 2023.

d. Construction traffic is most likely to be in the opposite direction to peak

demand and can be managed through temporary traffic management.

e. Traffic effects from dwellings would commence around mid-2021, so

would be around 225 dwellings occupied by 2023 and 350 dwellings by

2024.

f. Development is likely to be less than my proposed 350 dwellings

threshold for monitoring and control before the new bridge is

operational.

g. My proposed limit of 500 lots before the bridge is operational provides

protection against unexpected conditions or a delay in the bridge

resulting in unacceptable effects.

h. Works within the Southern Links designation will require the approval of

HCC as the requiring authority.

12. It would be desirable for the applicant and HCC as road controlling authority

and requiring authority to resolve differences in some of the proposal’s design

features to reduce the risk of disagreement during detailed design. In particular

these relate to:

a. Conflicting demands and operations in narrow roads – e.g. stormwater

treatment space, parking, driveways, refuse collection. (internal roads –

HCC as road controlling authority)

b. Alignments and activities in Hamilton Southern Links designation (refer

paragraph 50 for more detail).

13. The main effects relate to development in advance of the proposed new

Waikato River bridge being completed. The effects will relate to safety,

efficiency and accessibility effects mainly on the Peacocke Road, Norrie

Avenue, Bader Street corridor with potential adverse effects on safety at

Raynes Road and other connections to SH3. These can be mitigated through

improvement works and monitoring and controls restricting development or

requiring additional mitigation.

14. It is worth highlighting that HCC is currently implementing changes to the

Peacocke road network as part of the Peacocke programme (refer Figure 1

below). These are designated and funded for construction. Land acquisition is

under way.

15. These projects change the transportation network context from existing

conditions, through road construction phases and temporary traffic

management, to different long term operational conditions by 2024, at the

same time as construction and occupation of the Weston Lea development

takes place.

16. The key works relevant to the application are:

a. A new arterial road connection from Peacocke across the Waikato River

with associated local road works:

i. This is currently being designed with the bridge to be complete

by June 2023.

ii. The arterial will connect Peacocke to the Wairere Drive/Cobham

Drive interchange currently under construction and provides an

alternative transport connection, reducing demand on Bader

Street; and,

b. An upgrade of Peacocke Road to an urban minor arterial for the

northern portion of the Weston Lea Frontage. This is due to be

complete by June 2024.

c. An east-west minor arterial road due to be linked to Peacocke Road by

June 2025. Enabling works for the SH3 Ohaupo Road roundabout are

due to commence within a few months, with the roundabout complete

by late 2020.

Figure 1: Peacocke Programme (solid red lines for construction)

17. Since the Weston Lea application has been prepared so as not to rely on the

HCC infrastructure changes it means that if the consent is granted, it would be

desirable for relevant conditions to allow for different infrastructure to be

provided by HCC.

5. REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT – GENERAL OVERVIEW

18. In June 2018 I reviewed the Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) for the

Amberfield Subdivision and concluded that:

a. The ITA (TDG, May 2018) met the information requirements in the

District Plan Section 1.2.1 for a Broad ITA (Table 15-3b); and

b. More detail was required to confirm the accuracy of the information and

how it affects the scale and extent of the effects.

19. I subsequently contributed to HCC’s further information request and checked

the response for adequacy. I concluded that the response was adequate but

that some discussion was still needed to resolve the network performance

discrepancies.

20. The ITA Section 2 provides detailed descriptions of the existing transport

network, including crashes, traffic volumes and turning movements. I note that

the traffic data is from 2016 but do not consider that a significant deficiency. My

review is based on current traffic flows from HCC counts and modelled using

the turning proportions from the 2016 counts.

21. The ITA Section 3 provides a description of the planned transport network but

later concludes that all of the subdivision traffic can be accommodated without

significant infrastructure additions (for example, the Southern Links arterial link

to the bridge over the Waikato River). I do not agree with this as discussed

below.

22. The ITA Section 4 describes the proposed subdivision including details on road

widths and cross-sections, with some intersection layouts and alignments

including for Peacocke Road. The applicant’s team presented some of this

information during pre-application engagement. HCC staff raised concerns in

relation to some of the features, particularly relating to road widths and the

ability of corridors to accommodate their other transport corridor functions,

including stormwater, utility servicing, waste management and other service

vehicles in operation, and passenger transport. HCC prefers cross sections

consistent with the Waikato Regional Technical Specifications1. The proposal

continues with narrower corridors in some areas, and provides information

such as swept paths and conceptual bus routes to demonstrate adequacy. My

assessment is on the basis that detailed design will be to HCC’s satisfaction as

road controlling authority and I focus on the adequacy of the corridor width,

with some comments in principle on details. I suggest that where there is

potential dispute on standards, these are explicitly listed in conditions.

23. The ITA Section 5 reviews the Hamilton District Plan objectives, policies and

rules. In general, the proposed subdivision appeared consistent with the

Hamilton District Plan, but I have concerns about the basis for staging and

options for passenger transport, and the cumulative impact of minimum

standards, even with the updated staging plan.

24. The transportation assessment states that specific consideration has been

given to effective staging. My understanding is that although the extents of

stages are fixed with the updated staging plan, the sequence and timing is not.

This presents risks for connectivity and makes forecasting and managing the

effects of development more difficult.

Using passenger transport as an example, ITA Figure 24 shows a possible Stage 1

bus route turning in roads that will not exist until later stages (See Figure 2 below). I

have suggested that for each stage a requirement for passenger transport

accessibility is included in conditions.

1 https://www.hamilton.govt.nz/our-council/council-publications/manuals/Pages/default.aspx The Regional Infrastructure Technical Specifications (RITS) have been adopted by the Hamilton City Council in June 2018. The RITS sets standards for design and construction of public infrastructure and is intended to provide clarity and consistency for contractors, developers, and consultants in the Waikato region. It includes standards for earthworks, transportation, water, wastewater, stormwater, landscapes, and accepted materials. WRITS is a technical guideline document with more detailed information than the District Plan and prepared more recently than the District Plan. It includes, for example, typical cross-sections, inspection regimes, design criteria, etc.

https://www.hamilton.govt.nz/our-council/council-publications/manuals/Pages/default.aspx

Figure 2: Bus Route and Staging

25. Section 41c of the S92 response (Table heading Basis of Modelling / Trip

Generation/ Network Impacts) states that the first stage of the subdivision is

unlikely to be completed before 2020 with the remainder of the subdivision

likely to be completed over the following seven years. I have relied on that

timing in my review.

26. I consider that there is a higher risk of poor operational performance where

minimum standards are applied and a combination of narrow roads, limited

space on sites for parking, and multiple demands on the road corridor

combine. For example, section 5.1 considers that that the transportation

network “is affordable, sustainable and responsive…” with a contributing factor

being “…the provision of on-street parking to improve integration of the

infrastructure with land use”. In my opinion, the proposal has to be specifically

designed to manage on street parking and provide a minimum standard

because the combination of narrow frontages in some areas, and the need for

driveways, landscaping and stormwater management reduces the space

available for on street parking, increasing the risk of inappropriate parking at

driveways, bends and intersections, and compromising widths and visibility.

To reduce the risk of conflict between road controlling authority expectations

and the Consent-holder’s proposals, it would be desirable for the Applicant to

demonstrate at the hearing how the proposed layouts will meet the operational

demands on the roads and consider specific features to be incorporated in

conditions. This should consider:

a. Activities such as:

i. Coordination of design and construction of driveways, parking

bays and landscaping with bus stops, refuge islands, and

intersections;

ii. Maintenance - channel cleaning, clearing swales, etc.

iii. Deliveries and collections by large vehicle (such as house

moving and construction deliveries),

iv. Managing conflicting demands, e.g. stormwater and parking,

v. Refuse collection (noting HCC has committed to wheelie bins

using trucks fitted with automatic lifting arms commencing July

2020); and,

b. Scenarios where roadside parking, where available, is occupied.

27. The original ITA traffic forecasts (Section 6) are based on the previous WRTM

model (WRTM 900 zone 2006). They use a vehicular trip generation per

household of 8 trips/household/day and suggest that only 6500veh/day will

travel beyond the subdivision. In the long term, although still slightly low in my

opinion, this is reasonable and consistent with NZTA Research Report RR453

for Trips and Parking relating to land use 50th percentile rates. However, in the

short term, with no passenger transport service commitments, no shops and no

schools, I expect that almost all of the trips will be external, so the trip

generation per household will be higher. This becomes relevant if conditions to

manage traffic effects relate traffic generation to household numbers. The

assignment of the traffic to the network is reasonable, with most using the

Bader Street corridor (Peacocke Road, Norrie Avenue, Bader Street). The S92

response (41a, 41c) states that the critical scenarios and worst case for the

Amberfield analysis are the 2021 base with subdivision. I do not agree with this

and consider that a longer timeframe should have been considered. Typically,

I would consider a minimum 10-year period consistent with HCC’s 10-year plan

to be appropriate since it matches infrastructure spending and implicit levels of

service based on a statutory consultation process. For major arterial corridors

I would expect a longer period, but since the SH3 corridor has a planned

alternative (Southern Links) and the Peacocke Programme will implement

significant network changes this is less relevant.

28. Section 6.2 of the ITA discusses 2013 WRTM modelling (WRTM 2500 zone

2013) I arranged as part of the Southern Links and Housing Infrastructure

Fund Detailed Business Case. This results in total traffic volumes consistent

with the 2006 WRTM modelling. In general, I consider the traffic generation

and assignment to be reasonable. I note that there is some traffic forecast to

use Dixon Road, but I am not sure why, when Peacocke Road is a more

convenient route south and there are better alternative routes for destinations

north of Dixon Road. I do not consider the traffic expected on Dixon Road to

take place and do not consider it further. I expect that the preferred route to the

south will be Peacocke Road.

29. ITA Section 6.2 notes the relieving effect of the proposed Waikato River Bridge

and how the relative timing of the subdivision completion and the bridge being

constructed would need to be monitored to determine if the proposed upgrade

of the Normandy Avenue / Lorne Street intersection is necessary as what

would potentially be an interim mitigation measure. I do not consider that the

Lorne Street left turn lane mitigation suggested will be effective enough to

make a significant difference.

30. ITA Section 7 considers the transportation effects and concludes that the

effects of the subdivision traffic are relatively minor because the Peacocke

Road, Norrie Avenue, Bader Street corridor generally has priority and in the

rest of the network in the area the relatively large volumes of traffic on the

roads associated with the network make the effect of the subdivision traffic

relatively minor. Section 7.2 considers intersection performance. The

modelling suggests that intersection performance2 will remain satisfactory with

the only significant deterioration being a morning peak change in level of

service from D (35 – 50 seconds average delay/vehicle) to E (50-80 seconds

average delay/vehicle) but my understanding is that this relies on diversion of

2 Bader Street/Normandy Avenue is the intersection of most interest and potential concern.

other trips away from the main affected intersections of Normandy

Avenue/Bader Street and Normandy Avenue /Lorne Street intersection. The

S92 response (43vi) notes that the 2013 WRTM also indicates an issue at the

Ohaupo Road/Raynes Road intersection with LOS D and concludes that this is

an existing issue not significantly aggravated by the proposed subdivision

generated traffic. In my view this is based on efficiency and does not consider

safety sufficiently.

31. Section 7.3 considers road safety and relies on a proposed shared path

between the subdivision and the existing urban area on Peacocke Road, and

on improvements on the Bader/Norrie corridor planned by HCC in response to

Peacocke Stage 1A development.

32. Peacocke Road south of the subdivision is raised as an existing safety concern

in the ITA but no mitigation is proposed and concludes that the additional traffic

does not make improvements necessary. The Peacocke 10-year programme

does not extend south of the Amberfield site, where Peacocke Road is

relatively fast and winding. I consider that a combination of HCC speed

management options, temporary traffic management and progressive

infrastructure should deal with this and manage adverse effects adequately.

33. ITA Section 8 on mitigation sets out the Peacocke Stage 1 mitigation (SH3

Ohaupo Road/East-West Arterial Road roundabout and

Waterford/Norrie/Bader traffic management) currently being designed) and

suggests that would reduce Stage 1 traffic that would use the Peacockes Road

– Norrie Street – Bader Street route. These have been adopted for

implementation by HCC and construction on Bader Street is planned to be

commenced within a few months. Peacocke/Norrie should be constructed next

year. I do not consider that there will be any significant reduction from the

roundabout south of Dixon Road and traffic management on the

Waterford/Norrie/Bader corridor except during construction, when delays are

likely.

34. The ITA also describes a sealed and lit shared path to provide for safe access

for pedestrians and cyclists and mitigate effects on existing pedestrians and

cyclists on Peacocke Road. Depending on the timing of the Peacocke Road

urban upgrade, this may not be needed, since the upgrade includes pedestrian

and cycle facilities.

35. Section 8.3 describes changes at the Normandy Avenue/Lorne Street

intersection proposed as mitigation by applicant if traffic monitoring

demonstrates this is required. These comprise an additional 30m left turn only

lane from the south to increase capacity on this approach by separating

through and left traffic allowing more efficient signal phasing. In my opinion the

effectiveness of such a short lane would be marginal because the through

traffic queues would be longer and obstruct the lane. In addition, the extra lane

and narrower through lanes have adverse safety effects. The NZTA

submissions states that this should not be relied upon as mitigation. As the

intersection road controlling authority, this means that the intersection

alteration may not be authorised.

36. The ITA does not consider construction traffic effects or management. The S92

response (50) does not provide information on construction traffic timing or

quantities. It comments on Raynes Road as an option, but raises concerns

about speed and safety, suggesting Dixon Road and Waterford Road as a

possible alternative to Bader Street. I note that Waipa DC raised concerns

about use of Raynes Road. In my opinion, construction traffic effects will be a

sensitive issue for the community. There will be construction traffic for the

subdivision as well as for the Peacocke infrastructure programme

implementation.

37. I consider that contractor staff trips are likely to dominate traffic demands. I

understand that the Weston Lea earthworks achieve cut-fill balance, so bulk

earthworks movements should not result in off-site traffic. For simplicity,

assuming 2km of development infrastructure network/year, a road formation

width of 12m and a nominal depth (pavement, trenches, etc. of 1m, a nominal3

truck capacity of 12cum would mean around 2,000trucks/km/year equivalent to

8 trucks/day (loads) or 16 vpd (two way traffic). A factor of three should be

sufficient to allow for inefficiencies and extra trips for different development

phases, disciplines and deliveries (roads, pipes, etc.), and means a nominal

allowance around 50 vpd. Assuming around 25 contracting staff and one car

3 Mix of 8cum truck and 20cum truck and trailer deliveries.

each means staff traffic of around 50 vpd mainly in the opposite direction to

existing peak traffic. My estimate of typical construction traffic is therefore

around 100 vpd and 30-40vph in peaks, but mainly in the opposite direction to

commuter traffic. That is equivalent to less than a 2% change in existing Bader

Street daily and peak traffic. Daily traffic can vary by 10% so the construction

traffic should not result in significant issues.

38. It would be desirable for the Applicant to provide additional information on the

nature and level of construction traffic at the hearing to confirm it will remain

manageable.

39. Following the first phase of construction, house building will commence. That

traffic. Although there will be busy phases, where there may be more than 7 –

10 trips/day/dwelling, house building traffic is likely to be less than typical

household traffic and during peak periods in the opposite direction to

commuting traffic. I do not consider that housebuilding traffic will be a

significant issue.

40. Construction traffic management will need to be carefully planned and

managed. The S92 response suggests a construction traffic management plan

as a condition of consent. I consider that to be appropriate and suggest that it

should be consistent with the relevant conditions applicable to the Hamilton

Southern Links designation. A construction traffic management plan prepared

prior to construction when staging and timing is known can minimise the

adverse effects of construction traffic. Including planning for heavy traffic

routes and monitoring pavement condition reduces the potential for avoidable

noise and vibration. This is reflected in the draft conditions.

6. LOCAL TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMME 41. HCC and NZTA plan significant transport infrastructure improvements affecting

the Peacocke area as part of the Waikato Expressway and the Hamilton

Southern Links Project.

42. When operational (expected 2020) the Hamilton Section of the Waikato

Expressway is expected to reduce traffic through Hamilton slightly and provide

some relief to the Cambridge Road approach to the city by providing easier

access to Hamilton’s arterial network at Ruakura Road and the Greenhill Road

interchanges. It is also expected to attract some SH3 and SH39 traffic across

via SH21 Airport Road. These should combine to reduce traffic in the vicinity of

Bader Street/Normandy Avenue/Lorne Street but I expect that the relief will be

taken up quickly by redistribution of traffic currently avoiding congestion, and

by traffic growth.

43. The Wairere Drive/Cobham Drive grade separation is under construction and

likely to be complete within 12 – 18 months. This will provide an efficient

connection to Wairere Drive once the Waikato River Bridge to Peacocke is

complete, and also provide a useful construction access for the river bridge,

and potentially other early projects in the north end of the Peacocke area.

44. The State Highway components and HCC’s north-south arterial are currently at

pre-implementation stage, including environmental monitoring, with active

property acquisition under way for NZTA. In the long term these will transform

the traffic environment, especially on SH3, by providing more direct routes and

additional arterial connections between the south and west of Hamilton to the

city centre and to the ring road in the east, including a new river bridge west of

Hamilton Gardens carrying an additional two lanes parallel to the existing

Cobham Bridge. However, they are not programmed for construction within the

current National Land Transport Plan, so I have not considered them as

anything other than long term changes that would be likely to reduce the

impact of the subdivision.

45. The Peacocke transport network infrastructure, including most of the HCC

Southern Links arterials, are at implementation stage. Design, construction

and property funding approved by NZTA and MBIE, including from the Housing

Infrastructure Fund, with no further approvals required. The works being

progressed to construction include:

a. The Waikato River bridge linking Peacocke Road to east Hamilton and

north via Wairere Drive: Design consultant appointed and under way

with procurement for physical works commencing by June 2020, and

the bridge operational by 2024 at the outside and desirably earlier

(during 2023);

b. The SH3 roundabout south of Dixon Road is currently finalising

design, with enabling utility works planned this year and the main

works commencing next year, with completion in 2021;

c. The Peacocke east-west arterial (SH3 roundabout to Peacocke Road)

is programmed for completion by 2025. I have brought the design

forward to allow construction to take place when required.

d. The Peacocke Road urban upgrade timing is expected to be

completed by 2024.

46. The traffic management works proposed for the Peacockes Road – Norrie

Street – Bader Street route are shown in Appendix B of the ITA. These are

currently being designed with construction expected within two years. Current

consultation plans are attached.

47. NZTA’s submission highlights concerns at the Raynes Road/SH3 intersection.

A right turn bay was installed recently but the intersection is still of concern to

NZTA for safety. Investigations are under way but no funding is committed.

48. HCC expects to spend around $220M in Peacocke on transport infrastructure

over the next ten years, and more than $360M in total on trunk utilities.

Including the proposed Weston Lea development, HCC expects residential

development to deliver around 3,700 houses over the next ten years. That will

result in a very complex and changing environment in terms of the transport

network, frontage development, construction traffic and temporary traffic

management.

49. The proposed subdivision layout along Peacocke Road matches the design of

a collector road upgrade that does not align with the HCC design that informed

the designation. There are lots within the Hamilton Southern Links designation.

Examples highlighting differences are in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Differing road alignments and space allocation (Left – Southern Links, centre - TDG, right – Subdivision plans)

50. I understand that development within the Southern Links designation has been

agreed between HCC and the applicant, relying on the applicant completing

earthworks within their site that match ground levels to proposed road levels

and reduce the need for earthworks cut and fill. It is not clear whether the

alignment of the collector and resulting lot layout has been agreed.

51. During expert caucusing the participants were advised that requiring authority

approval was not required prior to the hearing, so any works within the

Hamilton Southern Links designation are subject to HCC approval as requiring

authority. However, if HCC’s preferred minor arterial alignment differs

significantly from the TDG collector road design there may be:

a. An extremely wide road corridor, resulting in inefficient use of land and

higher maintenance costs;

b. A need to alter the subdivision layout along that frontage to make use of

the space; and,

c. Pressure on HCC to alter their design to match the collector, potentially

compromising HCC’s design options.

Expected to be 9m. Shown as 17.9m

Redundant space

52. It would be desirable to understand whether the different alignments are likely

to be a point of significant disagreement between a future consent holder and

HCC as requiring authority.

7. CURRENT AND EXPECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 53. In general, there is little dispute about traffic conditions other than at the Bader

Street/Normandy Avenue intersection, and the closely related and influential

intersection of Lorne Street and Normandy Avenue. The traffic modelling

presented in the application and the concerns raised in submissions for Bader

Street suggest wide ranging conditions from good level of service to very long

delays. This was discussed and noted in the Joint Witness Statement.

a. Waikato Regional Traffic Model4 (WRTM) modelling suggests few

problems other than Lorne Street, whether WRTM 900 Zone (2006)

(Applicant’s modelling) or WRTM 2500 zone (2013) modelling (my

check).

b. The application suggested acceptable performance up to 80% of a

nominal 1000 lot development (Joint Witness Statement 3.b.)

c. The NZTA modelling using LINSIG and existing SCATS data suggests

that the intersection is operating close to capacity (NZTA Submission

70, paragraph 70, point 1). The Linsig modelling suggested around 40%

of a nominal 1000 dwelling development (Joint Witness Statement 3.d.)

d. As part of my assessment of the applications, I arranged for traffic

observations (including using HCC SCATS traffic signal loop count and

video data) and intersection traffic modelling using SIDRA. The traffic

observations and modelling I arranged included modelling Bader Street

on its own, and in conjunction with Lorne Street. Modelling for Bader

Street alone suggested that there was reserve capacity.

e. When modelled as coordinated with Lorne and Bader combination, the

Gray Matter Ltd SIDRA modelling showed problems for the existing

4 There was an update to the model before the 2013 census that increased the original 900 zones to 2500, which is generally used to describe each model, but some references use the census year (2006 for 900 zone and 2013 for 2500 zone versions),

scenario (nominally 2016) and future scenarios. This is more consistent

with WRTM modelling findings, but WRTM is, in my view, operating as a

strategic model and therefore less reliable for individual intersections.

SIDRA is, in my experience, quite conservative for performance, and

may overstate level of service concerns.

f. Subsequent modelling using Paramics (applicant during caucusing)

suggested 50% would be acceptable (Joint Witness Statement 3.e).

HCC’s Traffic Systems Engineer considered some of the phasing

changes relied upon as optimistic.

54. I therefore took opportunities to observe traffic conditions, including passing

visits, and some observing queues. Attachment C shows my photographs of

queue lengths by time for a typical Wednesday morning. This shows a short

period of long queues. For the vehicles in those queues, the delays would be

likely to exceed two minutes, but all vehicles appeared to clear within two

green lamp traffic signal cycles. Level of service targets are typically over a

peak hour, so the long queues will be averaged out by shorter queues.

55. I discussed the operation with HCC’s Transport Systems Engineer, John

Kinghorn, who manages the city’s traffic signal system. He confirmed my

understanding that the busier Lorne Street intersection should dominate the

intersection pair because it links two major arterials (refer Figure 20) and that

the intersection is being monitored and actively directed by HCC to manage

poor levels of service on Bader Street, which is a collector road.

56. Figure 4 shows Bader Street traffic (2014 comparison) to be well within the

typical range for collector roads, and less than some local roads. Current daily

traffic is around 7500vpd.

57. Hamilton’s District Plan Transport Corridor Hierarchy Plan and Definitions (f)

states for collector roads:

“A ‘collector’ transport corridor performs both a movement and property

access function. These transport corridors often move goods and people

between local destinations or to higher order transport corridors for further

travel. Property access is provided with few restrictions. Depending on the

land use environment heavy freight and through traffic may be limited on

these corridors. Intra-city passenger transport services are likely to use

these routes.” (Figure 5 shows Peacocke hierarchy)

58. NZS 4404:2010 Land development and subdivision infrastructure suggests that

traffic around 8,000 vehicles/day would be expected for a collector.

Figure 4: Average Daily Traffic by road hierarchy

59. An increase in traffic of 3,500 to 5,000 vpd (based on a recommended 500 lot

cap) does not change the function of Bader Street, and remains within the

current range of traffic volumes for collector roads. Pukete Road north of

Wairere Drive carries 10,000vpd and is also a collector road. The busiest

collector in 2014 was Victoria Street at around 16,000vpd. That has two lanes

over much of its length.

60. Since the increase is significantly less than the doubling typically accepted as

resulting in noticeable adverse effects on noise, significant noise effects are

unlikely. I consider that any amenity effects are most likely to relate to

pedestrians and others crossing the Bader Street corridor, and will be relieved

to some extent by planned safety improvements and construction traffic

management.

61. Managing delays at Bader Street requires HCC and NZTA to collaborate on

how best to balance level of service on other approaches such as at Normandy

Avenue and Lorne Street. This may result in some redistribution of traffic.

These issues are coordinated through the HCC/NZTA/Waikato RC One

Network group.

Figure 5: HCC DP 15-4 Transport Corridor Hierarchy Plan (Extract)

62. In my opinion, traffic modelling in a congested urban environment that includes

signals is potentially unreliable. I consider that the models show the range of

potential conditions for example, on Bader Street, from no problems arising at

around 500 lots to very poor level of service at and beyond 500 lots (Aecom

modelling 40% of 1000 lots, TDG modelling around 80% of 1000 lots). Network

Hamilton Southern Links

Bader Street

priorities can be altered by the road controlling authority. For example,

performance at Bader Street can be managed to deliver different outcomes:

a. Bader Street intersection levels of service, considered alone, would be

satisfactory, and could, for example for the morning peak, be made

excellent by maximising green time for Bader Street at a cost to others;

and,

b. Bader Street approach performance, if balanced against the higher

traffic volume competing demands of Lorne Street and Normandy

Avenue, would lead to limited green time and very long queues on

Bader Street.

63. In practice, HCC is actively managing the SCATS (Sydney Coordinated

Adaptive Traffic Signals) protocols at the combined intersection to ensure that

Bader Street is not unduly disadvantaged. This is likely to mean more delays

for Normandy Avenue and Lorne Street traffic, which would lead to

redistribution of trips. HCC having to actively manage the intersection is

consistent with the NZTA LINSIG findings (Submission 70) that the intersection

combination is approaching capacity.

64. To support expert caucusing discussions, I prepared the chart shown in Figure

6 below. This is conceptual only and mainly intended to illustrate how network

changes are likely to affect Bader Street.

Figure 6: Conceptual Illustration of Changes in Demand/Performance – Bader St

65. In my opinion there will be:

a. A slight increase in traffic from growth in the area (dashed line goes up-

throughout);

b. A reduction in in delay from the Waikato Expressway Hamilton Section

becoming operational (black line goes down a bit – 2019/20);

c. An increase in traffic during construction (starts 2020 but will be for

many stages), likely to be in the opposite direction to peak traffic (with

construction staff going the opposite way to commuters), so unlikely to

be of concern;

d. A gradual increase in peak traffic as the dwellings in Weston Lea are

occupied. Taking approximately a year is consistent with HCC data for

time from building consent application to certification;

e. Significant relief when Waikato River bridge is operational (2023/2024);

based on typical traffic distribution in peak direction (say 30% town

centre)) when the bridge is operational. There will be traffic effects from

changes resulting from the bridge in the east to west direction, but

these do not relate to the proposal;

f. Traffic growth continues – next changes will depend on north – south

arterial;

g. If HCC is successful in achieving a reduction in low occupancy vehicles,

the traffic growth and effects would be less.

66. I consider that there is reserve capacity compared to minimum desirable levels

of service. There will be adverse effects on traffic - mainly efficiency on Bader

Street. If these become unexpectedly high, HCC signals management can deal

with them. There are other intervention options such as travel demand

management and increased bus use that should reduce demand.

8. RESPONSES TO SUBMISSIONS RELATED TO TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC 67. I have reviewed the following submissions relevant to traffic and transportation

and present my comments in response in Table 1 below.

No Name Submission topic

Response (and options to address in conditions)

2 Hubbard Delay approval subject to building of bridge

Limit on development without bridge. Monitoring and controls after set level of development.

3 Robinson Reject proposal until adequate infrastructure/ roading/ schooling is in place.

Limit on development without bridge. Minimum infrastructure requirements prior to development (e.g. intersection, pedestrian/cycle connection) and progressive implementation associated with staged construction.

5 Marsden Only pass if correct infrastructure is in place Efficiency of the road network must be addressed.

Limit on development without bridge – as above Efficiency criteria in monitoring. Peacocke programme infrastructure being implemented now and planned Southern Links to support safety and access.

8 Cumpstone Infrastructure, Bridge, truck parking, noise Bader Street not capable of carrying additional traffic. Bridge needs to be built before Amberfield goes ahead. (Specific comments on AEE)

Limits on development without bridge – as above Detailed design of road layouts subject to HCC (and NZTA where relevant) authorisation. Suggestion for Applicant to address further at hearing.

9 Letford (Infrastructure paraphrased) Widen road at the edge of the river for cars and buses and parking. Segregate cycleways

Detailed design approvals – segregation for cycleways on arterials being considered. Limited access to river from edge. Esplanade required and proposed.

10 Phillips (paraphrased) Before development starts, roading needs to be improved (Waterford/Peacocke intersection and surrounding areas)

Limit on development without bridge – as above. Detailed design of Bader Street safety improvements under way. Construction planned in 2019. Peacocke/Waterford intersection improvements being considered. Concept prepared. Works planned for 2019/20.

12 Bos (Paraphrased) 8-80yr principles cycle connection. Lower speed limits. Detailed comments on proposal.

Detailed design approvals (Comments passed on to designer of traffic management)

14 White Subdivision to go ahead once the appropriate infrastructure is in place to handle extra traffic.

Limit on development without bridge



26 Edwards (paraphrased extracts) Development needs to be coordinated, staged appropriately, and properly managed. Concerns include road safety on Peacocke. Impose conditions or defer until bridge etc. is complete.

Limit on development without bridge Construction traffic management

35 Keehan (paraphrased) Upgrade Normandy Lorne (three lanes eastbound plus LT lane) – then 150 lots Further development subject to river bridge and Bader Street traffic calming being in place. Peacocke Road urban upgrade design approach.

Limit on development without bridge Construction traffic management Detailed design approvals I do not consider increase in Lorne St capacity appropriate at this stage. Detailed design of safety improvements under way. Construction planned later in 2019.

39 June Construction traffic routes Raynes Road improvement Further mitigation for road safety

Require construction traffic management plan, including consideration and management of heavy traffic routes. Temporary traffic management, speed reduction at SH3 Raynes Limit on development without bridge Safety improvements on Bader corridor planned

44 Maxwell (paraphrased) Manage dust No development before bridge

Require construction management plan Limit on development without bridge

46 McConnell (paraphrased) Lower density (>1 acre)

Conflicts with transport principles and compact form. Applicant should respond.

51 Westbrook (paraphrased) Delay start until new river bridge and arterials are constructed.

Limit on development without bridge Construction traffic management plan

55 June (Same address as 39) Paraphrased Inadequate access before bridge is operational Insufficient consideration of construction traffic Mitigation proposed by HCC inadequate

Limit on development without bridge Construction traffic management plan Mitigation proposed by HCC is for Peacocke Stage 1A to assist pedestrians and safety, not parking or efficiency. Also assists for Amberfield higher flows. Main mitigation is bridge. Speed management will also be considered by HCC.

58 CAW Support separate paths Oppose roundabout design Modify local road cross sections with cycle lanes to be separate shared paths

Comments passed to Peacocke 1A mitigation designer. Detailed design framework to be resolved. 30km/h or 40km/h speeds on local roads should reduce risk of crashes.

63 WDC Monitor Dixon and Raynes and be ready with mitigation Construction traffic management plan to avoid Raynes.

Raynes mitigation. Less need for Dixon. Construction traffic management plan following consultation with Waipa DC



65 HCC (Participated in conferencing). Some aspects resolved.

Limit on development without bridge. Construction traffic management plan. Detailed design framework to be resolved.

69 WEL Space for above ground infrastructure Minimum berm width 1.5m Early engagement

Detailed design framework to be resolved. Design in /following consultation with strategic utilities.

70 NZTA ((Participated in conferencing). Supports in principle but staged. Modelling uncertain, poor LOS likely. Limit at 80 second average delay, commencing monitoring at 100th dwelling (and at 100 code of compliance intervals)

Limit on development without bridge Support monitoring framework. Expert conferencing resolved most issues.

Table 1 – Submission topics and comments

9. DISCUSSION 68. From a transport planning perspective, development in the Peacocke area is

consistent with HCC’s objectives for a compact form, supporting a strong town

centre and alternative modes because of shorter trip lengths, compared to

development elsewhere, especially north.

69. This locational advantage should lead to positive effects from greater potential

for walking and cycling, reduced traffic growth on existing corridors with no

relief planned, and consequential safety and amenity benefits for the wider

community.

70. My comments in relation to the traffic assessment are:

a. I do not consider the dated nature of WRTM 900 zone modelling to be a

significant deficiency. I have completed the coarse check with WRTM

2500 zone modelling and have not relied on either for intersection

performance. The likely range of potential demand has been resolved

through traffic modelling discussions in conferencing;

b. I do not agree that all of the subdivision traffic can be accommodated

without significant infrastructure additions (for example, the Southern

Links arterial link to the bridge over the Waikato River);

c. I am concerned about the proposed road corridors being sufficient to

meet operational requirements. Even if the roads comply with district

plan minimum requirements, they can present operational difficulties.

For example:

i. Some stormwater treatment devices are wider than standard

parking bays and intrude into carriageway clearances;

ii. Previous concepts showed rain gardens wider than typical

parking bays with consequences for manoeuvring, bay length,

etc. but these have been redesigned.+

d. Fixing the extent of sequencing is an advantage, sequencing presents

risks for connectivity and makes forecasting and managing the effects

of development more difficult;

e. I do not consider that the Lorne Street left turn lane mitigation

suggested will be effective enough to make a significant difference;

f. The assessment does not consider safety at Raynes Road in much

Detail. I consider this to need a combination of network management

(e.g. acceptance of speed controls);

g. NZTA may not authorise the Lorne Street mitigation, resulting in

adverse effects that are not addressed; and

h. More attention is necessary for construction traffic management.

71. I had concerns, and raised these in discussions with the applicant’s traffic

engineer, about:

i. The basis for staging – partially resolved by fixing extents;

ii. Options for passenger transport – no useful response;

iii. Cumulative impact of minimum standards on operation and

servicing; and,

iv. Detailed design, including:

v. The location of the proposed Peacocke Road upgrade within the

designation – leading to increased maintenance costs;

vi. The potential for conflicting dependencies and competition for

space in narrow corridors (e.g. vehicle crossings, landscaping,

parking, stormwater management and services).

72. My concerns about the basis for staging were partly addressed during the

expert caucusing with presentation of the revised staging plan. It does not fix

the extent or timing of stages but makes linking infrastructure improvements to

stages more straightforward.

73. Where there is potential for a dispute on standards (e.g. road cross sections

and detailing that do not meet HCC Regional Infrastructure Technical

Specification standards), these should be explicitly listed in conditions,

including on street parking requirements;

74. HCC were initially concerned about the development not including a collector

road approximately parallel to Peacocke Road. I consider the likely traffic

volumes and proximity to Peacocke Road mean that it is reasonable not to

have two parallel “movement” routes, but issues such as passenger transport

remain uncertain.

10. EXPERT CAUCUSING 75. I participated in expert caucusing on three days (20 December 2018, 29

January 2019, and 28 February 2019) with informal exchanges of information

and views in between.

76. The final session substantially resolved many differences and provides a

common basis for assessment, and a framework for conditions to deal with the

most significant issues, including construction traffic management,

infrastructure and staging, and monitoring and controls to manage traffic before

it becomes unacceptable. Key considerations that lead to my conclusions are:

a. Acceptance that, subject to appropriate temporary traffic management,

traffic conditions on the routes affected (with a focus on Bader Street)

will remain acceptable. These works are designed and should be

complete this year. Other works such as at the Peacocke/Waterford

intersection are likely to be next year.

b. Construction traffic is most likely to be in the opposite direction to peak

demand.

c. The Waikato Expressway will provide some improvement in conditions

when it is operational (late 2020/early 2021).

d. The proposed Waikato River Bridge should be operational in 2023.

e. Based on the Weston Lea programme (refer attachment A Gantt chart),

and a likely 100-125 dwellings/year, traffic effects from dwellings would

commence around mid-2021, so would be around 225 dwellings

occupied by 2023 and 350 dwellings by 2024.

f. As Figure 4 shows, the traffic generation will increase cumulatively as

houses are occupied. That provides time for monitoring and

intervention, should unexpected effects occur.

77. I therefore consider it likely that development will remain below the 350

dwellings threshold for monitoring and control before the bridge is operational.

The “hard cap” of no more than 500 lots before the bridge is operational

provides protection against unexpected conditions or a delay in the bridge

resulting in unacceptable effects.

11. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 78. The expert caucusing resulted in draft conditions for the planners to

incorporate. I have discussed these with Ms Cockerell and she refined and

incorporated them in the draft conditions presented in the S42A report.

79. The S42A draft conditions related to traffic, in my view, reflect my expectations

from the caucusing conditions, refined to be more effective in terms of

sequence and triggering action/controls.

Attachment A: Expert Conferencing Agreed Statement.

BEFORE INDEPENDENT HEARING COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY THE HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act)

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application for subdivision and land use consent for the

Amberfield development pursuant to the Act

APPLICANT Weston Lea Limited

CONSENT AUTHORITY Hamilton City Council

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION WITNESSES

FEBRUARY 28, 2019

JWS 28 Feb 2019 Transportation

1

INTRODUCTION

This report presents a record of the outcomes from the expert caucusing on the topic of transportation.

The caucusing was undertaken on Thursday 28 February 2019 commencing at 9am and concluding after 6pm. This session followed from two informal sessions held by the parties on 20 December 2018 and 29 January 2019.

The attendance of the experts was confirmed prior to commencing the formal caucus. Given the complex and inter‐related nature of the issues under consideration relating to modelling, construction timing, phasing, budgeting and possible take‐up for development of Amberfield, it was agreed by the parties that several experts in these related fields should also attend and record their expert technical opinions where this was appropriate.

These positions are made clear in the JWS below.

PURPOSE

This Statement is written in response to the Hearing Panel Chair’s Direction that the experts should conference and document areas/topics of agreement and areas/topics of disagreement prior to the section 42A report being circulated so any matters can also be addressed in that report.

The parties were assisted with the drafting of this Statement by Murray Kivell, Hearings Commissioner and member of the Council’s Hearing Commissioner Panel.

CODE OF CONDUCT

The witnesses confirm that in producing this Joint Statement they have read and complied with the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2014 –

Expert Witness Code of Conduct.


2

ATTENDEES ‐ TRANSPORTATION

Alasdair Gray (AG) Hamilton City Council ‐ Consent Authority Civil/Transportation Engineer, Gray Matter Ltd

Tony Penny (TP) Weston Lea Ltd ‐ Applicant Transportation Engineer, TP Consulting Ltd

Shaun Lion‐Cachet (SL‐C) Hamilton City Council and NZTA ‐ Submitter Transportation Engineer, Aecom

ATTENDEES – STRATEGIC DELIVERY ISSUES

Ray O’Callaghan (ROC) Weston Lea Ltd ‐ Applicant (civil engineering) O’Callaghan Design Ltd

Andrew Parsons (AP) Hamilton City Council – Submitter (network infrastructure delivery, requiring authority representative) (Left the session 11.25am)

Barry Dowsett (BD) NZTA – Submitter (One network partner)

(Intermittent attendance)

Note:

Participants discussed Requiring Authority approval and agreed it was not a matter that needed to be resolved as part of this caucus.

Gillian Cockerell, section 42A reporting planner provided the without predjudice draft conditions.

Participants discussed the relationship between the Private Developer Agreement (PDA) and the application and agreed that the infrastructure necessary for mitigation should be reflected in conditions whether or not a PDA is in place. The participants agreed that a PDA is not a matter that is critical for traffic caucusing.


3

Topics a. Discussion Outcome/Expert position (subject to SLC input) 1. Transportation ‐ underlying assumptions –

Surrounding network, land use and proposal.

a. Nature and timing of network changes (Waikato Expressway, Peacocke Waikato River Bridge and extension to Wairere Drive, SH3 E‐W Arterial roundabout, Bader corridor traffic management/ safety improvements.

b. Anticipated strategic network infrastructure construction traffic (routes/types/volumes).

c. Strategic network growth trends/changes.

General agreement unlikely to be significant differences. No need to review at formal caucusing.

1.1. Context and significance 1.2. Points discussed a. The following changes are expected:

Waikato Expressway Hamilton Section – 2020 completion

Wairere Cobham overbridge under way – completion 2020.

Bader Street corridor safety improvements – 2019 start ‐ 2020 completion

Peacocke Waikato River Bridge 2020 start‐2023 completion

Peacockes Road urban upgrade (at Adare section) 2023 – 2025 completion.

1.3. Points of agreement a. WRTM 2021 network matches closely enough. b. WEx unlikely to have a transformational impact

but will benefit. c. Peacocke Waikato River bridge will provide relief.

Participants (AG, TP, ROC, AP) agreed to use the infrastructure timing at Attachment A as the basis for the assessment.

1.4. Points of disagreement a. None 1.5. Consequences/Actions a. None


4

2. Transportation underlying assumptions – Proposal

a. Timing of development (consent/development programme, infrastructure/subdivision construction, dwellings.

b. Anticipated construction traffic (routes/ types/ volumes).

c. Projected demand (e.g. 100‐150 households/year). d. Application of demand to staging (if stage sequence

committed in application (not currently fixed)).

2.1. Context and significance a. ROC explained development programme was optimistic and was therefore conservatively high in relation to traffic generation.

b. The revised staging plan submitted by the applicant in February can be read as sub‐stages to make up the total of the stages below.

c. The numbers and timings are approximate.

Refer Attachment A for a Gantt chart and development timing. AG prefers to retain chart with y axis numbers shown. TP contends numbers have no basis. AG, BD, SL‐C and TP agree that chart is a notional basis to assist with explanation.

2.2. Points discussed a. Assumed construction start date 2019 b. 100 – 125 households per year c. 100 houses August 2022 d. 475 houses total July 2025 e. Construction traffic, imported materials and

builders only. Amberfield are seeking cut to fill balance and may need to dispose of topsoil late in project.

f. The first 100 lots will be accessed from a single intersection. The upgrade of Peacocke Rd and formation of the final intersection should be taken into account when planning construction and the interim access intersection.

g. The next 125 lots are likely to require two intersections with Peacocke Rd.


5

h. Earthworks are likely to be formed for different stages as combined construction activity to achieve better cut fill balance.

2.3. Points of agreement a. A construction management plan will be required.b. It will be complicated and needs to be flexible and

updated as the area changes. c. Where on the Slinks network it must satisfy the

designation conditions of Southern Links. d. TTM for works not within the designation should

complement the Southern Links conditions. e. The NZTA COPPTM standards and principles will

apply. f. It needs to take into account other construction

and development in the Peacocke area. g. The principles for traffic management should

apply equally to all works and development in Peacocke.

h. Desirable to have a single point of review and audit for all Peacocke traffic management plans.

i. It would be desirable for communication to the public of Amberfield traffic management and other works to be coordinated. Frequency to be confirmed.

j. It would be desirable for timing of the Peacockes Rd construction to be coordinated with the formation of Amberfield intersections with Peacockes Rd.

k. It would be desirable to have emergency/alternative access as part of Amberfield construction staging.

The participants (AG, TP, ROC, AP, BD, SL‐C) agreed that the points were a reasonable basis for dealing with matters as consent conditions and manage effects of construction traffic. AP agreed that a single point of contact (h) for review and audit was equivalent to named Council staff as per the submission. AP agreed that an overall construction traffic management plan (a, b) would be satisfactory as long as it was updated for progressive stages. AP agreed that the requirement for review was likely to be covered by the above but the suitability of the construction traffic management plan should be checked at least at six monthly intervals. AP agreed that subject to the above HCC submission point 46 would be addressed.

2.4. Points of disagreement a. None 2.5. Consequences/Actions a. Reflected in conditions


6

3. Traffic modelling analysis a. Summary of work to date (Stantec, NZTA and HCC modelling – all based on nominal 1000 lots total), WRTM, SIDRA, LINSIG, Microsimulation.

b. The application ITA suggested acceptable performance for 80% of development modelled using WRTM 900 zone and SIDRA.

c. Gray Matter SIDRA review showed no problems when Bader St modelled as single intersection until 50% development but problems for existing traffic when modelled as joint Bader/Lorne intersection.

d. Aecom LINSIG modelling showed poor performance starting around 40% of development.

e. Stantec Paramics modelling showed acceptable performance up to 50% of subdivision development with optimised traffic signal phasing and cycle times for Normandy Avenue intersections at Bader St and Lorne St.

f. HCC’s Transport Systems Engineer considered existing phasing close to optimum for existing traffic and changes in delays on Bader St and Normandy Ave were dominated by Lorne St performance and allocation of priority between approaches.

g. Mooven monitoring data (2018) showed queue lengths and travel times on the Bader St approach to Normandy Avenue consistent with delays that approximate LOS C/D.

h. The modelling shows that the traffic volumes and likely effects of Amberfield subdivision on efficiency at Raynes Rd and Dixon Rd are likely to be insignificant.

The traffic experts (AG, SL‐C, TP) agree that effects on efficiency are likely to be insignificant at intersections other than at the Bader St/Normandy Ave/Lorne St intersections. The participants (AG, SL‐C, TP, BD) agreed so as to provide a common base for assessment that the existing performance was around level of service C/D at Bader St and that at approximately 40% of development performance was likely to remain acceptable and less than LOS E/F. Participants (AG, SL‐C, TP, BD) agree that not‐with‐standing the uncertainties from the various modelling the effects from the traffic can be managed by the way of conditions including monitoring and appropriate mitigation in a timely manner. These modelling outputs have informed the three traffic experts opinions on what level of development should be permitted before monitoring or other interventions are required. The experts agree that monitoring should commence at 350 lots and mitigation be required if monitoring shows performance worse than appropriate thresholds (see draft conditions at Attachment B).


7

3.1. Context and significance a. 3.2. Points discussed a. 3.3. Points of agreement a. Conditions should be constructed around a set of

trigger thresholds and a requirement for mitigation.

3.4. Points of disagreement a. None 3.5. Consequences/Actions a. Reflected in conditions.

4. Performance expectations .1. The expected traffic volumes lie within the range of volumes that would be anticipated for the affected roads and their position in the road hierarchy (arterial, collector, local). Therefore, significant impacts on general amenity are unlikely.

.2. Specific amenity (noise, vibration, dust etc) and most safety and access effects can be managed by appropriate conditions for road upgrades and construction traffic management.

.3. The efficiency (refer 3 above) and safety performance at key intersections and along Bader St should be monitored to ensure that effects remain consistent with the expected levels.

.4. Monitoring is not expected to be useful once the bridge over the Waikato river to the Hamilton Ring Road and Cobham Dr is operational.

The traffic experts (AG, SL‐C, TP) agreed that the performance framework set out in Attachment C is an appropriate structure for inclusion in conditions.

4.1. Context and significance a. 4.2. Points discussed a. 4.3. Points of agreement a. 4.4. Points of disagreement a. None 4.5. Consequences/Actions a. Reflected in conditions.


8

5. Draft conditions .1. The key traffic conditions comprise three topics: a) Residential development thresholds

(e.g. 350 lots), traffic monitoring and mitigation

b) Construction traffic management planning

c) Infrastructure requirements associated with development staging

.2. These topics are addressed in draft conditions attached at Attachment B.

5.1. Context and significance a. 5.2. Points discussed a. TP confirmed road designs met minimum

standards and RITS for local roads. All roads within Amberfield are being applied for as local. Refer section 2 of civil report.

The experts (SL‐C, TP, AG) agree the internal road network traffic engineering matters can therefore be addressed through detailed design approval processes included in standard conditions.

5.3. Points of agreement a. General acceptance of the structure and intent of the draft conditions.

b. It would be desirable for the conditions to be consistent with the relevant conditions of the Hamilton Southern Links designation.

Participants (AG, TP, SL‐C, ROC) agreed.

5.4. Points of disagreement a. TP disagreed with the efficiency thresholds of 55 seconds per vehicle for state highway approaches to the intersections at Lorne St and Bader St. TP suggested that the threshold should be 80 seconds as specified in the NZTA submission.

TP’s reason for disagreement was that there should be a greater tolerance for inconvenience and delays during the interim stages of development of a new area. SL‐C considered that 80 seconds would be likely to be acceptable given the existing congested environment. AG preferred the district plan standards of 55 seconds for arterials but noted that there was the option for higher thresholds where existing


9

congestion might mean that 55 seconds was already exceeded.

5.5. Consequences/Actions a. Differences of opinion to be dealt with in evidenceb. Relevant criteria where its being discussed needs

to be highlighted in the draft conditions. c. Southern Links conditions used as base for draft

conditions for Construction Traffic Management Plan, Network Traffic Management Plan and Construction Traffic – General.

6. Mitigation options and effectiveness Works .1. Bader corridor

a. Minor safety works including pedestrian refuge and shared cycled path currently being designed and proposed for construction commencing 2019 (refer Attachment D)

.2. Norrie/Peacockes corridor a. Timing and improvements to be finalised but

intended for construction in 2020 b. Timing and improvements associated with

expansion of stage 1a Peacocke’s structure plan .3. Peacockes Rd to Amberfield northern intersection

a. Speed management b. Improvements to rural standard c. Interim walkway/cycleway d. Temporary traffic management e. Construction formation to urban minor arterial

.4. Peacockes Rd north of East‐West arterial a. Speed management b. Improvements to rural standard c. Temporary traffic management d. Construction formation to urban minor arterial

The experts (AG, TP, SL‐C, ROC) agreed that the mitigation options whether individually or in combination should be able to manage effects of additional development (up to 350 lots and beyond with a bridge) to remain within the thresholds. The experts agreed therefore there was little merit to get into detailed evaluation of the mitigation options. 6.3.c. The need for the interim shared path (walkway/cycleway) should be reviewed in light of proposed construction programme for the minor urban arterial along Peacockes Rd (refer to condition relating to transport network management plan).


10

e. Interim construction to urban collector standard .5. Peacockes Rd south of East‐West arterial

a. Speed management b. Improvements to rural standard c. Temporary traffic management d. Construction to urban minor arterial e. Interim construction to urban collector standard

.6. Peacockes Road elsewhere (rural) a. Minor safety improvements b. Temporary traffic management

.7. Peacockes/Raynes Road/SH3 Ohaupo Road a. Safety improvements b. Temporary traffic management

.8. Normandy/Bader/Lorne traffic signal optimisation

.9. Lorne/Normandy intersection modification

.10. PT and active modes

.11. Bridge

6.5.a. AP explained that in relation to HCC submission point 50, HCC’s requirement for a minor arterial standard for Peacocke Rd south of East‐West arterial was a requirement for the long‐term form of the corridor and an appropriate interim standard (urban collector) would be acceptable to HCC. Participants agreed that this could be achieved through appropriate conditions relating to the upgrade of Peacockes Rd south of the East‐West arterial.

6.1. Context and significance a. 6.2. Points discussed a. 6.3. Points of agreement a. 6.4. Points of disagreement a. None 6.5. Consequences/Actions a.


11


12

Peacocke Network Infrastructure Programme and Relationship with Amberfield Development

Peacocke Network Infrastructure Programme (From HIF DBC with AG detail and comments)

WBS

codeWork package

Initiation/

Background

Completion

I&R

completion

D&PD

Completion

Construction

Start DateCompletion Comment

- Bader Street Safety works - Bader Street Complete Complete Under Way Apr-19 Dec-20 Platforms, Refuges, etc.

- Bader Street Safety works - Norrie, Waterford, Peacocke Complete Jun-20 Dec-20 Jun-21

A A. Wairere/Cobham Overbridge (Funding contribution only) ($3M) Complete Complete Complete Under way Jun-20 Potential delay to completion

B B. SH3/Dixon Road Intersection and East-West Arterial Stage 1 ($12.6M) Complete Complete Under Way Dec-19 Jun-21 Enabling out to tender, main works late 19/20 start.

CC. Extension of Wairere Drive and Bridge over Waikato River to Peacocke North-

South Arterial ($177M)Mar-19 Jul-19 Jun-20 Dec-21 Jun-24

BBO under way

C1C1. Wastewater strategic storage and pressure main back to the existing Far

Eastern Interceptor ($8.6M)Mar-19 Sep-19 Jun-20 Jun-19 Jun-23

WSP-Opus under way

DD. Peacocke Rd Urban Upgrade from Wairere Extension to East-West Arterial

($12.6M)TBC 2019 Sep-19 Jun-20 Dec-20 Jun-22

Likely to have to wait for Adare earthworks

E E. East-West Arterial Stage 2 ($34M) Aug-19 Jun-20 Jan-21 Dec-23 Jun-24 Award of PS soon

F F. North-South Arterial Road Land ($36.4M) Mar-19 Sep-19 Jun-20 Dec-25 Jun-28 Notices soon

- Waikato Expressway - Hamilton Section Under Way Under Way Under Way Under Way Jun-20 Month not certain

Amberfield Indicative programme for house completion stages 1 to 4 (From Ray's Gantt Chart from January Caucus 2)

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish3 Hearing decision 1 day 28/06/2019 28/06/20194 Design and construction of Stage 1 (incl.release of titles) 20 mons 26/08/2019 5/03/20215 Start of house occupation in Stage 1 1 day 5/07/2021 5/07/20216 Complete 100 house builds in Stage 1 52 weeks 5/07/2021 1/07/20227 Stage 2 earthworks, roading, services and titles (125 lots) 17 mons 2/11/2020 18/02/20228 Start of house occupation in Stage 2 1 day 20/06/2022 20/06/20229 Complete 125 house builds in Stage 2 52 weeks 20/06/2022 16/06/2023

10 Stage 3 earthworks, roading, services and titles (125 lots) 17 mons 1/11/2021 17/02/202311 Start of house occupation in Stage 3 1 day 19/06/2023 19/06/202312 Complete 125 house builds in Stage 3 52 weeks 19/06/2023 14/06/202413 Stage 4 earthworks, roading, services and titles (125 lots) 17 mons 1/11/2022 19/02/202414 Start of house occupation in Stage 4 1 day 18/06/2024 18/06/202415 Complete 125 house builds in Stage 4 52 weeks 18/06/2024 16/06/202516 Total Completed Houses17 100 houses 1 day 15/08/2022 15/08/202218 225 houses 1 day 10/07/2023 10/07/202319 350 houses 1 day 8/07/2024 8/07/202420 475 houses 1 day 8/07/2025 8/07/2025

Attachment A


13

Say background growth is 2%/year for both SH and Bader.

Presume graph is based on peak period.

Region SH RS RP Site Ref Description

NZMG

East

NZMG

North Lane Type

Equipment

(Current)

AADT

(2013)

AADT

(2014)

AADT

(2015)

AADT

(2016)

AADT

(2017) % Heavy

Accepted

Days

Growth

(%/pa) AG

calc

03 - Waikato 1N 553 0.218 ID:01N00553 200m east of Lorne Ohaupo intersection (SH1\3 Int) 2711190 6374704 Both Non-Continuous Single Loop 13258 12965 13505 14418 16525 10.1 28 4.9%

03 - Waikato 3 0 0.1 ID:00300000 Start of SH3 - Virtual 2711004 6374553 Both Virtual Virtual 25304 25406 24618 - 27738 8.9 - 1.9%

03 - Waikato 3 0 3.02 ID:00300003 285m Sth of Dixons Rd 2712396 6372366 Both Non-Continuous Single Loop 12853 13286 14135 14535 15255 5.7 28 3.7%


14

It should be consider conceptual only.

Chart Inputs

Network Traffic Bader Street focus - say 10% of 6,800 vpd = 680vph, 70:30 split

Nominal starting traffic approaching Normandy Ave is 480vph.

Background growth = 2%

Development 100hh 0.9peak trips/hh 70:30 directional 63 vph

125hh 0.9peak trips/hh 70:30 directional 79 vph

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Original traffic 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480

Linear 2% Growth 0 10 19 29 38 48 58 67 77 86 96 106

Expected traffic (2% background growth) 480 490 499 509 518 528 538 547 557 566 576 586

Step -5% Expressway (5% reduction at intersection in 2020) 480 490 499 483 492 502 511 520 529 538 547 556

New Dwellings 0 100 225 350 475 600 725 850

Development 0 63 142 221 300 379 458 537

Traffic with development (100 - 125 dwellings year starting 2021)480 490 499 483 492 565 653 741 829 917 1005 1093

Assumption -30% Waikato River Bridge -222 -249 -275 -302 -328

Traffic with development and Waikato River Bridge (30% reduction in 2024)480 490 499 483 492 565 653 519 580 642 704 765

The purpose of this chart is to provide a basis for discussion of:

- relative timing of traffic impacts from growth (background, development), and

- traffic changes from road network infrastructure (expressway, bridge)

- the duration of adverse effects

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Expected traffic (2% background growth) 480 490 499 509 518 528 538 547 557

Expressway (5% reduction at intersection in 2020) 480 490 499 483 492 502 511 520 529

Traffic with development (100 - 125 dwellings year starting 2021) 480 490 499 483 492 565 653 741 829

Traffic with development and Waikato River Bridge (30% reduction in 2024) 480 490 499 483 492 565 653 519 580

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Notional illustration of traffic effects based on am peak hourly traffic, linear growth and all effects

being directly related to Bader Street peak period approach volume

Year

Bader Street Traffic Conditions - Illustration of infrastructure and growth impacts

Expressway attracts 5% off network, improving

Amberfield house occupation starts

Waikato River Bridge attracts traffic going east

If bridge doesn't happen

Shaded areas show nett impact of development recognising effect of


15

WESTON LEA RECOMMENDED SUBDIVISION CONSENT CONDITIONS – TRANSPORT CAUCUS – SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

STAGING OF DEVELOPMENT AND TRAFFIC MONITORING

(3a) Prior to commencement of works, the consent holder shall establish, in consultation with HCC, NZTA and Waipa District Council, a monitoring framework for traffic effects. The framework shall include and not be limited to:

a) Baseline conditions for traffic flows and turning movements, safety and accessibility for:

i) SH3 Normandy Avenue/Bader Street/Lorne Street intersections (NZTA and HCC as road controlling authorities);

ii) Bader Street corridor, comprising Bader Street, Norrie Street and Peacockes Road (HCC as road controlling authority);

iii) SH3 Ohaupo Road/Raynes Road/Peacockes Road intersection combination (NZTA, HCC and Waipa DC as road controlling authorities).

iv) Normandy / Odette Intersection.

b) Baseline conditions for efficiency for SH3 Normandy Avenue/Bader Street/Lorne Street intersections (NZTA and HCC as road controlling authorities);

c) For each year, land development and infrastructure progress and timing for the Amberfield Development, including number of lots serviced.

d) For each year, the number of 224c certificates issued, building consents issued, building code of compliance certificates (information to be made available by HCC for Amberfield and for Peacocke Structure Plan Area).

e) Methodologies for traffic monitoring and reporting.

i) The efficiency monitoring shall measure the average delay per vehicle during the worst 30 minute period on the:

(1) Normandy Ave northern approach to the Lorne Street intersection

(2) Normandy Ave southern approach to the Bader Street intersection

(3) Lorne Street approach to the Normandy Avenue intersection

(4) Bader Street approach to the Normandy Avenue intersection

ii) The days and periods for monitoring efficiency shall include:

(1) The period from 7am ‐ 9am

(2) At least two mid‐week days excluding holidays and school holiday periods.

iii) The safety monitoring shall cover all of the intersections tabulated in (3a.f below) for all day.

f) Safety criteria and efficiency criteria and level of service (for Bader/Normandy/ Lorne intersections) thresholds shall apply to the intersections below and be no worse than tabulated below unless otherwise agreed in writing between the consent‐holder and the relevant road controlling authorities.

Attachment B


16

Criterion and measure

Bader/ Normandy/

Lorne

Bader Street Corridor

SH3/ Dixon Road

Peacockes/ Raynes

Intersection

SH3/ Raynes

Intersection

Normandy / Odette

Intersection

Safety Collective risk (High‐risk intersection and high‐risk road manual)

Low N / A Low (currently N/A due to low

DSI)

Low (currently N/A due to low

DSI)

High (currently 4 serious

crashes in the last 5 years, no

fatal)

Low

Intersection injury crash rate (NZTA EEM Crash Prediction)

No increase from baseline, specific crash rate 0.36, expected

crash rate 3.22

No increase from baseline, specific crash rate 0.93, expected crash rate

3.61

No increase from baseline, specific crash

rate 0


rate 0


crash rate 1.80

No increase from baseline, specific crash rate 0.18,

expected crash rate 0.83

Pedestrian and/or cyclist crashes

Zero DSI Zero DSI Zero DSI Zero DSI Zero DSI Zero DSI

Accessibility Pedestrian crossing (Ave delay per pedestrian)

One traffic signal cycle

30sec N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pedestrian crossing facilities Pedestrian phase

400m intervals

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Efficiency Average delay/vehicle State highway 55 seconds n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Local roads 80 seconds n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a


17

(31c) Within three months of 224c certificates being issued for 350 lots, the consent‐holder shall implement and report to HCC the results of the monitoring on an annual basis

(31d) Should monitoring by the consent holder or relevant road controlling authority in accordance with Conditions 31a and 31b show that acceptable level of service criteria was exceeded, no more than 350 lots shall be developed (s224c certificate) unless:

a) A solution has been implemented to mitigate the adverse effects of development to the satisfaction of the relevant road controlling authorities on the intersection or corridor where the acceptable level of service criteria has been exceeded; or,

b) Approved in writing by the relevant road controlling authorities where mitigation is committed (design commenced and implementation funding certain) for completion within 12 months of issue of s223c certificates (nominal period for subdivision to be occupied and generate traffic).

(31e) No more than 500 lots will be available for residential development (application for s224c certificates) prior to a solution being implemented and operational to mitigate the adverse effects of development to the satisfaction of the relevant road controlling authorities on the SH3 Normandy Avenue/Bader Street/Lorne Street intersections (NZTA and HCC as road controlling authorities).

(31f) Condition 31e will no longer apply once the Hamilton Ring Road extension and bridge across the Waikato river are open to traffic.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN

(4) Prior to the commencement of any earthworks or construction activities for any stage of works onsite (excluding site investigations and enabling works) the Consent Holder shall submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for approval in a technical certification capacity to Hamilton Strategic Development Unit Manager or nominee. CMPs may be submitted for individual stages of works. The objective of the CMP is to establish procedures to manage and control any potential off‐site nuisance or adverse effects.

(5) The Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall include but not limited to: (a) Details of the works, intended construction timetable (including staging) and hours of operation (b) Contact details of the person in charge of construction works or another person responsible for

implementing this Plan. (c) Methods to control dust, debris on roads and silt laden runoff during construction (d) Existing network utilities (e) Construction Traffic Management Plan, (refer condition (XX (12) (f) Quality assurance/quality control (g) General methods to mitigate and manage construction noise and vibration in order to comply with

the applicable noise limits (h) Identification of any special construction activities (including any pile driving and concrete pours)

that may require specific mitigation measures in order to comply with the applicable noise limits. (i) Communication details for adjacent land owner liaison during the construction stage (j) A complaints handling procedure.


18

12.0 Construction Traffic Management Plan 12.1 A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and

experienced person in accordance with the NZTA Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management and after consultation with the Territorial Authority Chief Executive or nominee. The CTMP shall be submitted to the Territorial Authority Chief Executive or nominee, for certification that the plan satisfies this condition no later than forty (40) working days prior to the commencement of any stage during Construction Works. Construction of any relevant stage of the Project shall not commence until the Requiring Authority Consent Holder has received the Chief Executive’s or nominee’s written certification of the CTMP for that stage of works.

12.2 The objective of the CTMP is to provide a framework to be adopted by the Requiring Authority Consent Holder to ensure that the adverse traffic and access related effects of the construction of the Project will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

12.3 When requesting certification of a CTMP, the Requiring Authority Consent Holder shall provide the certifying Territorial Authority with a letter from the New Zealand Transport Agency and each other Territorial Authority whose roads are affected by the Project’s construction traffic confirming that the Requiring Authority Consent Holder has adequately consulted with that Territorial Authority in relation to Condition 12.5(i) and any effects on that Territorial Authority’s road network and included adequate measures to manage such effects.

12.3A Where the certifying Territorial Authority affected has implemented processes and/or convened a group to coordinate construction traffic management planning, monitoring of road conditions and implementation of mitigation works, the Consent Holder shall: a) Participate in the construction traffic management planning coordination processes. b) Arrange for suitably qualified and experienced person to attend meetings when

convened. c) Take all reasonable measures in response to the consultation outcomes with the

relevant road controlling authority. 12.4 The CTMP shall have regard to and where appropriate implement any relevant actions

identified in the minutes arising from Community Liaison Group meetings (Refer Hamilton Southern Links Designation Conditions 3.3 and 3.14).

12.5 The CTMP shall describe the measures that will be undertaken to avoid, remedy or mitigate the local and network wide construction traffic effects of construction of the Project. In particular (but not limited to), the CTMP shall describe: a) Measures to maintain pedestrian, cycling and vehicle access to roads and property to

defined and approved levels of service. The CTMP shall identify notification thresholds and processes for communicating with affected parties and shall consider whether there are specific user needs that require specific responses.

b) Measures to maintain access for emergency vehicles, and methods to ensure that emergency service providers are regularly informed of the timing and sequencing of works, road closures and alternative routes.

c) The manner in which service providers are regularly informed of the timing and sequencing of works, road closures and alternative routes.

d) The timing and sequencing of any road closures that will be required and the nature and duration of any traffic management measures that will result, including any temporary restrictions, detours or diversions;


19

e) Measures to ensure safe interaction between Project‐related construction traffic and local road traffic where any temporary or existing local roads cross the Southern Links corridor.

f) Measures to ensure safe access to the Project site. g) Measures to monitor the performance against agreed levels of service of all access

points to the Project site, and all key state highway and arterial local road intersections used by Project‐related construction traffic, and the procedures to be followed where intervention is deemed necessary in order to maintain acceptable and reasonable operating conditions on local roads and on the State Highway network.

h) Measures to ensure that any staging of Construction Works will adequately avoid, remedy or mitigate traffic‐related adverse effects.

i) Measures to be adopted to identify routes to be used (and roads to be specifically avoided) for Project‐related Heavy Commercial Vehicles (HCVs) for shifting bulk materials (such as earth fill or pavement materials or water) (Bulk HCVs) and implement temporary traffic management controls in accordance with the Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (COPTTM).

j) Measures to ensure the use and reinstatement (to a mutually agreed standard) of local roads to be used as haul roads. The CTMP shall also describe the assessment and monitoring of road conditions and implementation of mitigation works.

13.0 General Construction Traffic 13.1 The Requiring Authority Consent Holder shall ensure there is no off‐site Project‐related Bulk

HCV traffic entering or leaving the site: a) on Sundays; or b) on public holidays or after 4.00 pm on working days prior to long weekends.

13.2 The maximum hours of work for off‐site Project‐related Bulk HCVs to enter or leave the site shall be 7.00am – 7.00pm.

24.0 Transport Network Management Plan 24.1 As part of the outline plan detailed design, the Requiring Authority Consent Holder shall

submit a Transport Network Management Plan (TNMP), to be certified by the Territorial Authority Chief Executive or nominee. The objective of the TNMP is to provide a framework to ensure that any adverse effects associated with the operation of the Project can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The TNMP shall describe proposed procedures, requirements and standards necessary for achieving the objective of the TNMP as it relates to the effects of and opportunities for connectivity related to the Amberfield development and shall include (but not be limited to): d) An updated Design Philosophy Statement that establishes the standards,

philosophies and references for construction final design outcomes required to achieve the objective of the TNMP. This shall include the intersection design philosophy as a part of a whole‐route approach to road and intersection management and operation.

e) The localised traffic impacts together with accompanying mitigation measures required as a direct or indirect result of road closures, diversions, new intersection arrangements and other measures needed to accommodate the Project, including options for an emergency/alternative access;

f) The provision of cycle infrastructure and the design of cycle features and whether they are consistent with current best practice guidelines;

g) The provision of pedestrian infrastructure and whether the design of pedestrian infrastructure is consistent with current best practice guidelines;


20

h) Consideration of staged bus service infrastructure features such as, but not limited to: i) Bus priority detection equipment at all signalised intersections along the

route; ii) Bus stopping lay‐bys at appropriate locations along the route; iii) Passenger waiting facilities and shelters with bus information as part of

the final road design; and iv) Bus priority measures at all non‐signalised, controlled intersections;

i) The provision of pedestrian and cyclist connectivity to and from Hamilton Gardens and along the Waikato River and Peacocke gully system; and

j) The provision of pedestrian and cyclist connectivity from areas west of the Peacocke North‐South Major Arterial to areas east of the arterial in the vicinity of the Glenview Club.

24.2 In managing traffic safety effects across the whole of the Project (or staged Project) at the detailed design stage, the Requiring Authority Consent Holder shall undertake a Road Safety Audit for the relevant stage of the Project in accordance with NZ Transport Agency’s Road Safety Audit (RSA) for Projects. The Consent Holder shall distinguish between the client role of the Consent Holder and the final decision‐making client role of the road controlling authority. A copy of the RSA shall be provided to the Territorial Authority Chief Executive or nominee.

24.3 In managing traffic effects of the completed Works (or staged completed Works) at their implementation as operational measures, the Requiring Authority Consent Holder shall undertake a Post Implementation Review (PIR) in accordance with NZ Transport Agency’s PIR policy, having regard to the Project objectives and the objectives of the TNMP. A copy of the PIR shall be provided to the Territorial Authority Chief Executive or nominee.

.


21

Criteria, acceptable level of service thresholds and the level of service thresholds criteria shall apply to the peak hour from traffic counts and be no worse than tabulated below unless otherwise agreed in writing between the consent‐holder and the relevant road controlling authorities.

Criterion and measure Bader/ Normandy/

Lorne

Bader Street Corridor

SH3/ Dixon Road

Peacockes/ Raynes

Intersection

SH3/ Raynes

Intersection

Normandy / Odette

Intersection

Safety Collective risk (High‐risk intersection and high‐risk road manual)

Low N / A Low (currently N/A due to low

DSI)

Low (currently N/A due to low

DSI)

High (currently 4 serious

crashes in the last 5 years, no

fatal)

Low

Intersection injury crash rate (NZTA EEM Crash Prediction)


crash rate 3.22

No increase from baseline, specific crash rate 0.93, expected crash rate

3.61


rate 0


rate 0


crash rate 1.80

No increase from baseline, specific crash rate 0.18,

expected crash rate 0.83

Pedestrian and/or cyclist crashes

Zero DSI Zero DSI Zero DSI Zero DSI Zero DSI Zero DSI

Accessibility Pedestrian crossing (Ave delay per pedestrian)

One traffic signal cycle

30sec N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pedestrian crossing facilities Pedestrian phase

400m intervals

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Efficiency Average delay/vehicleState highway 55 seconds n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Local roads 80 seconds n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Attachment CJWS 28 Feb 2019 Transportation

22

Attachment D


23

Attachment E


24

Attachment B: A Gray Observations related to SCATS traffic volumes approaching Bader Street signals.

The 10 minute increase in queuing (8:05am – 8:15am) appears more likely to be a result of SH3 traffic than Bader Street. Proposed increase of around 600 veh/hr approaching would mean a doubling of approach traffic. Allowing up to stage 3 would be less than 300 lots, or around 16 approach veh/5 minute increment.

Illustration of Traffic to show Bader Street Traffic in context of road hierarchy collector status.

IN THE MATTER of applications pursuant to the ... - hamilton.govt.nz · level in the investigation...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE MATTER of applications pursuant to the ... - hamilton.govt.nz · level in the investigation...