BEFORE THE HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT PLAN HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of the hearing by Hamilton City Council of submissions

relating to the Proposed Hamilton District Plan in respect of Business Zones

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF ALASDAIR DAVID ANGUS GRAY ON BEHALF OF HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL

November 2013

0

INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS 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.

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

engineer for more than 25 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 15 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 Maunsell in Hamilton.

(c) I am familiar with the transport issues arising in and around

Hamilton, having provided advice to Hamilton City Council and

other local authorities, Environment Waikato, NZ Transport

Agency, and developers on projects in the area over the past 17

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

matters currently in front of the Commissioners:

(i) Consultant civil/ transportation engineer for developers,

landowners and local authorities assisting in preparing and

reviewing consent applications including for commercial

developments and notices of requirement for road projects,

including Environment Court Hearings, Boards of Inquiry,

mediation and expert witness conferencing;

(ii) Project Manager and traffic engineer/transportation planner

for the Hamilton Integrated Transport Strategy (1999), the

Hamilton Alternatives to Roading Study (2004) and the

Access Hamilton 2010 – 2040 integrated transport

strategy;

1

(iii) Project Manager and traffic engineer for the development

of the Road Safety Strategies and Road Safety

Management Systems for Hamilton;

(iv) Assisting Waikato Regional Council in transportation

planning analysis for the Regional Land Transport Strategy

2011 – 2041 relating to strategic transportation corridors;

(v) Assisting NZTA with preparation and review of the Waikato

Expressway Network Plan 2012;

(vi) Assisting Hamilton City Council and Waipa District Council

with the transportation provisions of their Proposed District

Plans;

(vii) Assisting Hamilton City Council, NZTA and Waikato District

Council with funding applications and performance

monitoring methods for road improvement projects

including the Hamilton Ring Road;

(viii) Assisting NZTA and Rotorua District Council with

preparation of their Integrated Network Strategy, 2013 and

corridor implementation plans;

(ix) Assisting Tauranga City Council with resolution of Appeals

to their Proposed District Plan including commercial

developments at Bethlehem and around the Hospital

(x) Assisting Waikato District Council with transportation

aspects of Plan Change 2: District wide Growth and Rural

and Coastal Subdivision;

(xi) Working with NZTA and local authorities regarding

integrated transport planning for local roads and state

highways in Tamahere, Pokeno, Rotorua and Tauranga;

and

(xii) Project Manager for HCC and NZTA for the Southern Links

Investigation relating to a Notice of Requirement for 32km

of proposed arterial road network to the south of Hamilton.

(d) I confirm that I have read and will comply with the Code of

Conduct set out in the Environment Court of New Zealand Practice

Note 2011, Section 5. I state where I have relied on the

2

statements of evidence of others for my assessment1. I have not

omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or

detract from my opinions.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

2. I have been retained by Hamilton City Council to provide traffic

engineering and transportation planning expertise to inform consideration

of submissions relating to the proposed business zone provisions in the

Proposed Hamilton District Plan.

3. The purpose of this statement of evidence is to explain:

(a) The transportation planning context of and response to the

centres-based spatial framework for the Proposed Hamilton

District Plan;

(b) How the transportation network is expected to accommodate the

growth and zoning implications of the plan;

(c) How the expected trip generation from the Business 4 zoning at

the Te Rapa North Sub Regional Centre has been taken into

account.

4. My statement addresses the following matters:

(a) A brief description of the existing strategic road network and its

regional context;

(b) An explanation of the transportation planning processes and key

documents behind the existing and planned transport network and

how it is reflected in the Proposed District Plan;

(c) The forecast performance for the transportation network for the

duration of the District Plan and in the long term;

(d) The implications of changes in activities at Te Rapa for traffic

generation including comments on concerns raised in other

statements2 relating to traffic;

1 Not generally from evidence but I rely on information provided by others such as the Waikato Regional Traffic Model and associated inputs (e.g. Attachments 5 and 7) and PDP activity comparisons (Attachment 3). 2 Philip Brown, Cameron Inder, 4 November 2013

3

(e) My conclusions relating to the plan provisions providing a suitable

framework for ensuring effective performance of the transportation

network.

5. In summary, I consider that:

(a) HCC’s application of integrated transport planning in the Proposed

District Plan is reasonable;

(b) The existing and planned infrastructure is either adequate to deal

with the expected demand or the forecast deficiencies have been

identified for resolution or acceptance;

(c) The changes in traffic generation likely as a result of the Business

4 zoning at the Te Rapa North Sub Regional Centre could

increase traffic in the area by 2000 – 3000 veh/hr. Actual traffic

generation within the 10 year horizon for the Proposed District

Plan is more likely to depend on demand for development;

(d) The potential additional traffic will result in increased delays in the

local network but these are not likely to have a significant impact

on existing or planned infrastructure or in access to the town

centre or other nodes;

(e) Integrated transport planning will continue in a way that is

responsive to changes in development rates and characteristics in

accordance with HCC’s strategic objectives; and

(f) The Transportation objectives, policies, rules and assessment

criteria in the Proposed Hamilton District Plan provide a safeguard

against unexpected transport outcomes; and,

(g) Should unexpected conditions arise, existing methods such as

optimising signal phasing to manage side road access on Te Rapa

Straight can manage them.

EXISTING STRATEGIC ROADING NETWORK AND WIDER CONTEXT;

6. Hamilton’s strategic road network is illustrated in Figures in Attachment 1.

The figures are from the Proposed District Plan, the Waikato Regional

Policy Statement, Waikato Expressway Hamilton Section consultation

information, the Operative District Plan and Access Hamilton. These

show how the strategic road network has changed little from the

4

Operative District Plan and is now reflected consistently in local and

regional documents.

7. The existing and planned strategic roading network in the vicinity of

Hamilton comprises a combination of state highways and local arterials

which form four main elements:

(a) Regional connections – including SH1;

(b) External ring – including Waikato Expressway (or SH1B),

SH39/SH3 and Southern Links;

(c) Internal ring road- including Wairere Drive, existing SH1 Avalon

Drive, Greenwood Street, Kahikatea Drive, Lorne Street, Cobham

Drive;

(d) Internal grid connections;

(i) North-south – Te Rapa Straight, Ulster Street, etc;

(ii) East-west – key river crossings including northern river

crossing (proposed), Cross city connector.

8. The combination of elements is progressively being completed to form a

flexible and robust strategic network that is able to provide for a range of

traffic demands and maintain effective access to and between the key

nodes. The ring roads provide the option to avoid congestion at key

nodes or within the urban area should that become an issue. This allows

congestion (and other) costs and agglomeration (and other) benefits from

intensification in urban areas to reach an appropriate equilibrium3 without

significantly affecting wider traffic movements.

9. The New Zealand Transport Agency (the Agency) and HCC are working

together to develop a Network Operating Framework. This will include a

Network Operating Plan and Network Improvement Plan following an

approach that State Highways and HCC roads operate as one network.

The Network Operating Plan will allow HCC and the Agency to optimise

use of the existing road network on a consistent basis by establishing an

agreed framework for prioritising competing road user demands. NZTA

and HCC already deliver this informally through traffic signal management

using SCATS4. Anglesea Street is an example of where through traffic

phasing is prioritised over side road traffic.

3 Principles discussed in RR513 Impact of urban form on transport and economic outcomes, NZTA 2013. 4 The Sydney coordinated adaptive traffic system (SCATS) is a computer-based area-wide traffic management system designed and developed by the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW.

5

10. Access Hamilton 2010 – 2040 acknowledges that a degree of congestion

is inevitable and that continuing to meet capacity demands is unlikely to

be economically sustainable. Hamilton is already facing congestion on

key corridors and at conflict points. Access Hamilton includes a suite of

action plans supporting an integrated transport plan to deliver a range of

options. The action plans cover public transport, active travel, safety,

asset management, network, travel demand management and parking.

11. Hamilton’s transport system works within a complex framework illustrated

at Attachment 2 including:

(a) The Land Transport Management Act 2003 which sets National

and Regional Land Transport Programme processes;

(b) Land Transport Act 1998 which sets a framework for access to

and use of the road network;

(c) Local Government Acts 1974 and 2002 which set responsibilities

and powers for roads and LTP processes;

(d) National influences such as Government Policy Statements and

investment priorities such as the National Land Transport

Programme and Roads of National Significance leading to the Te

Rapa Section and proposed Hamilton Section of the Waikato

Expressway;

(e) Regional influences such as the Regional Land Transport

Strategy, Regional Land Transport Programme (regional

prioritisation feeding into the national process), Passenger

Transport Plan and operations and Regional Policy Statements;

(f) Sub-regional influences such as Waipa’s District Plan and growth

strategy encouraging growth in Cambridge and at the airport, and

Waikato’s control of rural subdivision;

(g) Local influences such as strategic objectives and HCC policies,

District Plan, and importantly funding priorities and constraints. An

example of this is the Hamilton Ring Road funding arrangement

which will take up a significant proportion of future network

improvement expenditure; and,

(h) Development influences such as The Base and Ruakura, and

central intensification such as redevelopment at Bryce Street,

Centre Place, Wintec and the City Gate offices.

12. Attachment 2 also reproduces the equivalent Figure 1 from the Section

42A Hearing Report for the Introduction and Statutory Framework

6

sections. The main difference lies in the role of the Land Transport

Management Act 2003 and its associated framework.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND THE PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN;

13. The management and development of Hamilton’s road-related transport

systems is guided by the HCC integrated transport strategy Access

Hamilton and delivered through the LTP. The land use patterns upon

which Access Hamilton was based are shown in Figure 1 below. They

were derived from Hamilton’s Urban Growth Strategy (HUGS) and

although they have evolved slightly with less infill, are consistent with the

Proposed District Plan and recognised destination nodes.

14. The objectives and policies in the PDP5 relating to the strategic

framework provide for a clear spatial framework including areas where

intensification is desirable, a hierarchy of business centres and zoning

that sets out where land use activities are expected to locate. Objective

2.2.13 “Land use and development is integrated with the provision of

infrastructure” and its associated policies highlight some transport-

relevant aspects implicit in other objectives and policies such as

sustainability (energy consumption, travel mode, compact form, and the

Central City as a primary centre for business). In a practical sense, a

compact form reduces travel distances and intensification of development

around centres supports accessibility using a range of modes. A hierarchy

of centres provides guidance for the transport network hierarchy and

passenger transport planning and means that strategic transport

infrastructure and services can be managed and delivered more efficiently

than if activities were dispersed.

15. From a transportation planning perspective, the certainty provided by a

clear land use framework6 makes it much easier not only to plan (funding

as well as form and function) infrastructure for the future but to assess the

effects of other proposals. A more permissive framework makes it very

hard to establish a useful expected environment against which to assess

the effects of development proposals and what mitigation may be

appropriate.

5 E.g. Section 2: Figure 2.1a Hamilton’s Plan at a glance, and Section 2.2 Objectives and Policies – Strategic Framework 6 Starting with Future Proof, now reflected in the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement, through Structure Plans, Approved Concept Plans and Comprehensive Development Plans and now in the Proposed District Plan.

7

Figure 1: Generation and Destination Nodes (from Access Hamilton)

16. Access Hamilton states that it will “meet the changing travel demands of

the city by providing an affordable, safe, responsive and sustainable

transport system. The city’s strategic objectives have a long term focus

and are consistent with the objectives of the Land Transport Management

Amendment Act and the NZ Transport Strategy.” The current purpose of

the Land Transport Management Act 20037 is to “to contribute to an

effective, efficient, and safe land transport system in the public interest.”

7 Section 3: replaced, on 13 June 2013, by section 4 of the Land Transport Management Amendment Act 2013 (2013 No 35).

8

There is an implied difference in direction with “responsive” and

“sustainable”

17. Access Hamilton states that “In broad terms, Access Hamilton aims to:

• Support Hamilton’s economic, social, environmental and cultural

well-being.

• Support the land use, sustainability and economic development

objectives for a compact city with consolidation and intensification

around key nodes and a vibrant city centre.

• Manage incremental change in the transport and land use system

necessary to achieve Hamilton’s strategic objectives.

• Position infrastructure and land development to meet the city’s

long term needs.

18. The first bullet point reflects the previous LGA outcome areas, now

superseded8 by the following purpose:

“(1) The purpose of local government is—

(a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on

behalf of, communities; and

(b) to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality

local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory

functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and

businesses.

(2) In this Act, good-quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local public

services, and performance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure,

services, and performance that are—

(a) efficient; and

(b) effective; and

(c) appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances”

19. The second bullet point is consistent with the objectives from Hamilton’s

Urban Growth Strategy (HUGS), the Operative District Plan and the

Proposed District Plan, recognising the city centre as the primary focus

and acknowledging the importance of Te Rapa and Chartwell. Transport

infrastructure planning has been based on centres with a focus on

supporting a compact form and intensification of the city centre since

HITS in 1999. Consolidation of this approach in the District Plan also

8 Section 10(1)(b): replaced, on 5 December 2012, by section 7(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012 (2012 No 93). Section 10(2): inserted, on 5 December 2012, by section 7(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012 (2012 No 93).

9

supports passenger transport, walking and cycling which contributes to

travel demand management.

20. An example of Access Hamilton being delivered through the Proposed

District Plan is through a significant change in the town centre parking

policy. No minimum requirement should result in unbundling of parking

from land use activities and support intensification. In addition, it allows

the true cost of parking to be realised as a separate activity, rather than

being unavoidably sunk in property costs. There are already sites where

this direction is being supported by developers such as apartments with a

very small proportion of the parking that would otherwise have been

expected.

21. Access Hamilton is a 30 year strategy and identified a series of packages

for consideration for funding. These are shown in Figure 2 below and

have progressed as follows:

(a) Northern Corridor- (NZTA/HCC) – includes Te Rapa Section

(complete), Rotokauri Roading (progressing), Northern River

Crossing (preliminary investigation), etc. – under way – various

stages;

(b) Southern Links (NZTA/HCC) – Designation process under way;

(c) Waikato Expressway (NZTA) – Alteration to Designation under

way – completion expected by 2019;

(d) Wairere Drive – Hamilton Ring Road – substantial progress with

further construction under way for 4 laning from River Road to

Resolution Drive and Ruakura Road to Cobham Drive;

(e) Cross City Connector – considered but unfunded;

(f) Hamilton East Precinct – considered but unfunded;

(g) City Centre (includes access, parking strategy – lower priority –

insufficient funding for some activities including dealing with the

main access points. A parking strategy is being implemented and

activities such as the connection of Alexandra Street to Worley

Place and closure of Ward Street support the precinct approach in

the City Centre Local Area Plan;

(h) Avalon Drive Access (HCC/NZTA) – lower priority – insufficient

funding;

(i) Hamilton Transport Centre– lower priority; and

(j) Hospital Precinct– lower priority.

10

Figure 2: Access Hamilton Packages

FORECAST PERFORMANCE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

22. HCC and NZTA use traffic modelling to assist in investigation of options

when planning for transport. It is worth emphasising that:

(a) Traffic models are simply a tool used to compare options and are

based on generalisations and assumptions that become

11

increasingly less certain the further one attempts to forecast into

the future. The scenarios being considered around Te Rapa are

nominally ten years (matches LTP funding plans and District Plan

durations). Access Hamilton and the RLTS work on a 30 year

planning horizon.

(b) Modelling and planning based on concerns about vehicle capacity

is a “predict and provide” approach which may not be the optimum

long term outcome and can be contrary to wider strategic

objectives.

(c) Land use and transport infrastructure interact. The need for

integration arises from the complex inter-relationships between

land use activities and the transport systems that serve them.

Development increases demand for travel and transport. Access

constraints can restrict or adversely influence development.

Choosing the right place for development can avoid conflict and

reduce the need for additional infrastructure.

(d) In some circumstances congestion is a network condition which

can be tolerated and to some extent is self-regulating. For

example in the Te Rapa Road area the Te Rapa Bypass provides

an alternative route for passing traffic. Where impacts on the

wider network are minor, the benefits of addressing localised peak

period congestion are reduced. When peak period delays reach a

level that a driver finds unacceptable, their travel decisions

(whether/where to travel, when to travel, how to travel) are

influenced.

(e) The Waikato Regional Traffic Model (WRTM) is a four step model9

which can take into account mode selection as part of the travel

decision process – e.g. introducing more frequent bus services or

bus priority. Accepting congestion for private vehicles can

promote passenger transport and active modes. Managing parking

by availability, time control or price can influence travel choices

and reduce car use.

(f) Modelling tends to balance intersection delays to optimise the

network as a whole. In practice some movements may be

prioritised. For example, the replacement of the roundabout at

9 The four steps of the transportation planning system model are Trip generation, Trip distribution, Mode choice and Route assignment

12

Eagle Way/Te Rapa Road with traffic signals allows the north

south arterial movement to be allocated additional time through

signal phasing when through movement priority is desirable.

23. Hamilton City generally relies on the WRTM for network planning

supported by local models such as a project model for Southern Links, the

VISSIM model at the Base and Paramics models for some town centre

activities and for south east Hamilton where more detailed analysis is

required. Models such as SIDRA as used by Mr Ryan for his statement

are commonly then used for investigation and design of specific

intersections.

24. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate network levels of service for the Hamilton

network for 2021 and 2041. In transportation planning I use tools such as

these to identify key areas at risk and guide further investigation. Blue

indicates a barely satisfactory condition10 but often accepted for peak

periods and red indicates a poor level of service11. The lines show

performance along the roads (links) and the dots or circles show

performance at intersections (nodes). Recent studies12 suggest that peak

period delays do not significantly influence productivity.

10 Level of Service E: Edge of unstable flow, slow speeds on links, intersection delays >55 seconds 11 Level of Service F: Demand exceeds practical capacity, stop-start flows, intersection delays >80 seconds. 12 Note: US research mainly for freeways and larger cities - results suggest that congestion slows job growth above thresholds of approximately 4.5 minutes of delay per one-way auto commute and 11,000 average daily traffic (ADT) per lane on average across the regional freeway network. While higher ADT per freeway lane appears to slow productivity growth, there is no evidence of congestion-induced travel delay impeding productivity growth.( Sweet M, Traffic Congestion's Economic Impacts: Evidence from US Metropolitan Regions, Urban Stud, October 2013)

13

Figure 3: 2021 Level of Service Diagrams used in Evaluating Ring Road

Morning Peak

Inter-Peak

Evening Peak

Te Rapa

Town Centre

Te Rapa

Town Centre

Kahikatea Drive

Kahikatea Drive

Kahikatea Drive

Town Centre

14

Figure 4: 2041 Level of Service Diagrams used in Evaluating Ring Road

Morning Peak

Inter-Peak

Evening Peak

Te Rapa

Town Centre

Te Rapa

Town Centre

Kahikatea Drive

Kahikatea Drive

Kahikatea Drive

Town Centre

Te Rapa

15

25. The forecast patterns are similar to those found in Access Hamilton and

match the packages already identified as desirable for mitigation. The

main congestion issues are expected to take place around the ring road

and the cross-city connector. The ring road is intended to provide for

efficient movement to traffic generating nodes such as the university, The

Base, Wintec Avalon Campus and Crawford Street inland port. The

congestion patterns are similar between 2021 and 2041. The

consequences of congestion are mainly on journey times becoming

longer and less predictable. In a mainly controlled urban network, serious

safety issues are unlikely because intersections are managed and speeds

are relatively low.

26. In a simplistic sense, acceleration or an increase in traffic generation in a

known growth area where the activity is in the right place13 would simply

bring the 2021 or 2041 scenario forward. The need to deal with the effects

of expected development have been known for some time but projects

such as the Te Rapa Bypass and Wairere Drive have been a higher

priority for funding. As long as traffic can get past the ring road, the worst

level of service problems are restricted to the cross city connector and

town centre fringes. If funding for infrastructure or transport system

improvements is available to match increased demands from growth then

options to avoid or mitigate transport problems are generally available.

For example, the Northern Corridor Package in Access Hamilton includes

a northern river crossing. That would be likely to relieve demand on the

Wairere Drive route and potentially Te Rapa Road. Preliminary

investigations have been completed and although a corridor is not yet

protected the connection is recognised as part of the strategic network.

Funding for further investigation, route protection, design and construction

will be considered for future long term plans. It will form part of HCC’s 30

year infrastructure strategy.

27. In 2010/2011, HCC asked me to look at options to manage adverse

effects on the transport system. Figure 6 below illustrates the concept.

Ideally, there would be no gaps between the existing system (land use,

infrastructure, performance expectations and funding) and the expected

changes managed by the District Plan. The Network Tolerance Plan

13 Access is one consideration in land use planning and in some cases may be outweighed by other factors.

16

identified performance standards for the transport network, sensitive

areas requiring additional attention and options for triggering control or

management. These informed the development of the proposed District

Plan.

Figure 5: Network Tolerance Plan Concept

28. The combination of the LTP and PDP processes provides the community

with opportunities to balance encouraging growth and dealing with its

effects:

(a) LTP investment or lack of investment in infrastructure

improvements either facilitates or constrains growth.

(b) Growth takes up reserve network capacity and will result either in

a need for investment or a reduction in level of service.

This covers existing activities and expected (permitted) development.

29. The planning framework provides some flexibility through the consents

processes for unexpected development. The PDP manages potential

adverse effects on the transport system using methods including:

(a) A clear spatial framework with tighter controls through activity

descriptions and status to reduce the “unexpected” gap between

the existing system and expected growth. This allows that the LTP

infrastructure demands can better be defined for consideration for

inclusion as development contributions;

(b) A road hierarchy with rules and standards for access;

17

(c) Traffic generation triggers for assessment through Integrated

Transport Assessments including:

(i) Particular attention for sensitive areas;

(ii) Less demanding criteria for activities in the right zone;

(iii) More rigorous assessments for large traffic generators and

medium size activities that may be better located

elsewhere.

(d) Assessment criteria including some guidance on desirable network

performance14 and timeframes for traffic forecasts15;

(e) Providing for a level of discretion; and

(f) Linking status and assessment to financial contributions to cover

funding not covered by development contributions.

30. WRTM is currently being reviewed and updated to reflect the 2013 census

information and this should be available in 2014. Access Hamilton is also

being reviewed. The proposed Private Plan Change for Ruakura could

have an impact on take up rates and distribution of development in other

areas of the city. This would change the timing of future traffic demand

increases but is unlikely to significantly alter network conditions since it

should be expected to mitigate its own effects. My understanding of the

draft plan change is that there are infrastructure triggers and network

performance thresholds incorporated.

31. Based on the above, and my understanding of the network and land use

trends, I therefore consider that:

(a) HCC’s application of integrated transport planning in the Proposed

District Plan is reasonable;

(b) The existing and planned infrastructure is either adequate to deal

with the expected demand or the forecast deficiencies have been

identified for resolution or acceptance;

14 E.g. PDP Appendix 1.2 V7: i. An average delay per vehicle during Peak Periods on the approaches to intersections of no greater than: 55 seconds for the Strategic Network, Major and Minor Arterial transport corridors and 80 seconds for all other transport corridors…..” 15 10 years for simple assessments and 20 years for strategic network and major arterials.

18

THE IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGES IN ACTIVITIES AT TE RAPA

32. HCC staff asked me to comment on the potential traffic implications of

zoning changes in the Te Rapa North Suburban Centre. Some of the

changes to zoning (Business 4 in particular, which provides for large

format retail) will result in higher traffic generation than from the existing

zoning and consented activities. The changes are presented in Figures 6

and 7 below.

Figure 6: Comparison between Operative (left) and Proposed (Right) DP Zoning

Figure 7: Comparison between Notified and Recommended PDP Zoning

Industrial

Industrial

Industrial

Industrial Commercial

Service

Commercial Service

Business

Business

Industrial

Industrial

Industrial

Industrial Industrial

Industrial

Industrial Industrial

Industrial

19

33. However, the activities anticipated in the ODP are similar to those in the

PDP so the potential impact of the change in zoning is reduced. In

addition, potential traffic generation is moderated to an extent by greater

discretion for small scale retail, offices, dwellings and apartments.

Attachment 3 includes a comparison of activity status provided by HCC.

34. I have assessed an area as shown in Figure 3 below comprising

approximately 170ha including Rotokauri industrial east of the railway, the

Boulevard, The Base, Kawera Place/Eagle Way, Maui Street and Church

Road. The Base block makes up approximately 33ha. The Business 4

and Business 1 shaded blue to the east of Te Rapa Road is

approximately 25ha. North of Te Kowhai Road, the recommended change

(shaded yellow with dashed red outline) leaves approximately 6ha of 11ha

as notified.

Figure 8: Area Assessed and Main Zoning Differences

Nominal Boundary for my assessment

Recommended change from notified Business 4 to Industrial – was Commercial Service

Additional area sought by Porters

Additional Business 1 and 4 Zoning over Operative Industrial

20

35. There is a significant amount of commercial activity consented in the area

which means that a comparison with existing zones is not particularly

useful. In addition, and as noted in the evidence of Mr Brown, Mr Inder

and Mr Ryan, modelling does not presume 100% take up of all land but

rather a realistic level and type of development for 2021. I have taken

2021 as a representative year approximately equivalent to the ten year life

of the District Plan. The year is not significant. It is rather the level of

development that is assumed to take place for that scenario.

36. From that perspective, if we accept that the assumptions behind the

VISSIM and WRTM modelling that relate to the rate of development are

reasonable, then an additional area of land zoned for a particular activity

will have little impact other than providing a surplus in supply. Unless the

market is significantly constrained, it is unlikely to lead to a change in

demand and there would therefore be no change in traffic for the medium

term focus. The additional area of land zoned would ultimately lead to

higher traffic generation, but outside the period being considered.

37. However, in relation to the Proposed District Plan zoning at the Te Rapa

North Suburban Centre, submissions have:

(a) Supported the objectives and policies16

(b) Supported extensions to the Business 4 zoning17

(c) Expressed concern about the effects of additional traffic18

I have therefore considered the potential increase in traffic compared to

the 2021 forecast traffic generation19 rather than based on zoning.

38. Traffic modelling in the vicinity of Te Rapa has come under much scrutiny

recently for the Te Rapa Bypass investigations and development and

resolution of agreements between NZTA, HCC, Waikato DC and

developers/ landowners in the area.

39. The traffic models relevant to the Te Rapa area include:

(a) The VISSIM software model operated by BBO for Tainui Group

Holdings Ltd focussing on the vicinity of The Base; and,

(b) The Waikato Regional Traffic Model (WRTM) operated by TDG as

part of the Waikato Local Area Shared Services arrangement

covering the region.

16 608 Future Proof Implementation Committee 17 1153 Porter Development Ltd 18 1199 Tainui Group Holdings Ltd 19 2021 Land Use Trip Generation Model Workings, Opus 21/10/13.

21

40. The underlying assumptions used as inputs for the VISSIM model are set

out in Mr Inder’s attachment 1. These include site areas, take up rates,

site coverage and traffic generation. The total traffic for relevant areas

identified in that attachment (dashed blue in Figure 1) is approximately

6,000 veh/hr pm peak.

Figure 9: Areas for comparison between modelled traffic generation

41. By comparison, the WRTM model suggests approximately 5,000 veh/hr

pm peak. This is a difference of approximately 20%. Reasons for this

difference could include:

(a) WRTM reflecting typical weekdays rather than the highest demand

days (Thursday and Saturday).

(b) Different take up rates – e.g. WRTM employment areas are often

moderated to achieve a closer match between jobs and

population;

22

(c) Differences in activity/zone boundaries; and,

(d) Multi-purpose and internal trips (e.g. shopping and eating within

The Base).

42. The differences between the model types make direct comparison

difficult. However, I consider that the VISSIM and WRTM model outputs

are sufficiently close to inform consideration of the potential effects on the

rest of the network.

43. There appears to be little dispute about the potential for higher traffic

generation rates. These are generally based on the difference between

the currently expected environment based on the Operative District Plan

zones and consented activities and the environment that would be

expected with development consistent with the Proposed District Plan

provisions. The PDP allows for large format retail with fewer controls. The

traffic evidence on behalf of submitters20 appears broadly consistent. Both

indicate an increase in rate from “slow commercial” at 2 trips/hr per

100m2 gross floor area (GFA) to around 4.5 trips/hr per 100m2 gross floor

area (GFA) and site coverage around 45% - 50% for commercial and

retail activities.

(a) Mr Inder expresses concern about the potential effects of

additional traffic and suggests additional modelling21.

(b) Mr Ryan considers the impact of a net increase in extent of

Business 4 and concludes that an additional 1,485 veh/hr22 will

have little additional impact on network performance.

44. The differences in opinion relate to the potential effects on the network.

Mr Inder raises concerns but does not quantify the total traffic or potential

impact. Extending the areas, site coverage and traffic generation rates

from the table in Mr Inder’s statement I infer (Attachment 3.1) an

additional 2,330 veh/hr (pm peak) but note that this could require

demolition and replacement of some relatively recent buildings. Based on

a coarse evaluation (Attachment 3.2) by gross land area and site

coverage assumptions I estimate approximately 2,200veh/hr extra

(Expected to PDP).

45. I arranged for intersection modelling using SIDRA based on:

20 1153 Ryan for Porter Development Ltd, 1199 Brown and Inder for Tainui Group Holdings Ltd 21 Inder paragraphs 3.3, 3.4. Note - My coarse check based on gross land areas = 2400 veh/hr 22 75% development of 11ha site by 2021= 135 veh/hr/ha. 100% would be 180 veh/hr/ha.

23

(a) Allocating a nominal 1,000 trips of the additional 2,330 veh/hr (pm

peak) to the vicinity of Eagle Way;

(b) Assigning the trips according to the approximate splits from

analysis of the modelled routes (WRTM) for pm peak traffic to and

from one of the nodes on Maui Street. This suggests that less than

30% of the traffic is to or from north or south using Te Rapa Road

with the rest dispersing via Te Kowhai and Church Road (20%)

and via Wairere Drive (40%). Any potential impact of the

difference in modelled values is therefore reduced. The nominal

1000 vehicles adds around 800 veh/hour to the intersection; and,

(c) Adding those to the WRTM flows for 2021 pm peak. WRTM

forecasts approximately 4,100veh/hr on approaches to the Te

Rapa Road/Eagle Way intersection during the pm peak hour in

2021.

46. The additional traffic results in:

(a) An increase in average pm peak period intersection delay/vehicle

from 48.6 seconds (Level of Service D) to 61.9 seconds (Level of

Service E) – i.e. 13 seconds/vehicle.

(b) The worst pm peak period approach delay changing from Eagle

Way at 55.2 seconds/vehicle (Level of Service E) to Te Rapa

South at 69 seconds/vehicle (Level of Service E).

The impact on level of service is broadly consistent with that presented by

Mr Ryan.

47. As another check I compared the pm peak performance in WRTM of the

Wairere Drive/Te Rapa Intersection in 2021 with the pm peak

performance in 2041. Model output extracts are included in Attachment 4.

There are an additional 205 veh/hr onto 2021’s 3,200 veh/hr which results

in an increase in the average delay of around 4 seconds. This is a

reasonable comparison because the additional traffic reduces as it

disperses through the network.

48. The assessment criteria in the PDP set a minimum desirable level of

service for intersections on major arterials and the strategic network of

less than 55 seconds average approach delay per vehicle, and would be

based on a 20 year traffic forecast. The additional traffic results in an

increase in the average approach delay and is at the fringes of the

minimum desirable level of service based on 140% to 150% of the 10

24

year expected23 development rate24. The change from 55.2 seconds to

69 seconds means that performance is less than desirable but still better

than the desirable minimum for the rest of the network (80 seconds).

49. It should be noted that there will be an increase in travel and transport

costs from the additional delay which should be considered against the

economic and strategic benefits from the additional development in this

location. I estimated the financial implications of the additional delays

(Attachment 5) as approximately $80,000/year. For the area affected this

represents around 2% of the land value and is therefore not significant in

relation to the potential economic benefit from intensification.

50. If there is additional demand for development of the Business 4 type, then

I consider that this area is a more appropriate location for zoning than

many areas. It has convenient access to the arterial road network in an

area where the Te Rapa Bypass provides an efficient alternative route to

protect access to the wider sub-regional network.

51. In summary, additional Business 4 zoning in Te Rapa will lead to

additional traffic and adverse effects on efficiency. However, for the ten

year planning horizon of the PDP realisation of these effects is more likely

to be related to demand and development rates than the additional area

allocated. For the foreseeable future the potential additional traffic is

likely to mean a minor change in network performance and lead to

expected interventions being required a few years earlier. More

significant long term effects are likely to be localised and could be

mitigated through network and travel demand management. In my

opinion the adverse effects on traffic are likely to be outweighed by wider

zoning and strategic land use pattern considerations and the difference is

not significant enough to worry about additional modelling at this stage.

CONCLUSIONS

52. I consider that:

(a) HCC’s application of integrated transport planning in the Proposed

District Plan is reasonable;

23 As referenced in the attachment to Mr Inder’s evidence, agreed between HCC, TGHL and NZTA for The Base modelling. 24 Approx. 2300veh/hr onto 5000 – 6000 veh/hr (Sections 34, 35 above)

25

Attachment 1: Strategic Road Network – Illustration showing local and regional consistency

27

Extract showing Regional Policy Statement - Map 6.1A: Significant transport corridors (Hamilton)

Approximate area covered by PDP Figure 15-5B

28

(Source: HCC: http://www.hamilton.co.nz/our-council/council- publications/operativedistrictplan/Documents/Operative%20District%20Plan%20Maps%20only%20-

%20linked%20-%20REDUCED%20-%20FEB%202013.pd 22/8/13)

Approximate area covered by PDP Figure 15-5B

29

Waikato Expressway Consultation Extracts (Source: ZTA - http://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/hamilton/docs/hamilton-recommended-route-and-connections.pdf)

Approximate area covered by PDP Figure 15-5B

30

Extract from Access Hamilton – Proposed Strategic Network

Approximate area covered by PDP Figure 15-5B

31

32

Waikato Expressway Network Plan - Central Area Issues

32

Attachment 2: Planning and Statutory Framework

(Source – http://www.pikb.co.nz/home/planning-and-statutory-framework/ 4/11/13)

Local Government Act – Strategic Objectives,

Responsibility for Road Transport Infrastructure

Passenger Transport Planning - Services

Road management responsibilities,

authority and funding assistance

Planning Framework, Zoning and Effects-based

Approach

Operative and Proposed Hamilton

District Plan Waikato and Waipa

District Plans

RPS Strategic Infrastructure

protection

10 year plan balancing funding,

costs and outcomes (Delivery for HCC’s Strategic

Framework)

Future Proof – Sub-regional land use now reflected in

Proposed RPS

E.g. Hamilton Ring Road, Te Rapa Section

of Expressway

Waikato Expressway

Network Plan

State Highway Network Operating

Plans, Network Improvement Plans

Hamilton Network Operating

Framework (NZTA and HCC)

Safety Objectives reflected in NZTA Funding Priorities

e.g. Rotokauri Structure

Plan

RPS Land Use Allocations

33

34

Attachment 3: Comparison of provision for retail activity between the ODP Commercial Service Zone, ODP Industrial Zone and the PDP Business 4 Zone as recommended by the s42A report.

Hamilton City Operative District Plan Proposed District Plan s42A Report Recommendations

Activity Commercial Service Zone Floor areas are ‘Gross Leasable Floor Area’ (GLFA)

Industrial Zone Floor areas are ‘Gross Leasable Floor Area ‘(GLFA)

Business 4 Zone Large Format Retail Floor areas are ‘Gross Floor Area’ (GFA)

Retail less than 150m2

Discretionary Permitted Discretionary

Retail 150-399m2 Discretionary Discretionary Discretionary Retail 400-999m2 Permitted Discretionary Restricted Discretionary Retail greater than 1000m2

Permitted Permitted Restricted Discretionary

Offices Permitted Permitted Less than 250m2 D otherwise Non Complying Restaurants Permitted Discretionary Less than 200m2 D

Greater than 200m2 NC Detached Dwellings subject to qualifications

Permitted Discretionary Non Complying

Apartments Controlled Discretionary Non Complying Residential Centres Controlled Discretionary Discretionary Visitor accommodation

Controlled Discretionary Discretionary

Any industrial activity Non-Complying Permitted Discretionary Light Industry Permitted Permitted Discretionary Service industry Permitted Permitted by default Permitted

= Highest level of assessment

Note: The activity standards provided above are subject to general and specific standards which may cause changes to the level of assessment required.

35

Attachment 4: Traffic Generation Comparisons 4.1 (Extension of Table in Statement of Evidence of Cameron Inder)

Modelled Site

Plan Area

# Size Unit GFA

(sqm) Modelled Activity

Peak Hour Trips/100sqm

modelled Modelled

Traffic

Peak Hour Trips/100sqm

PDP PDP

Traffic

Porters Te Rapa 5 6 ha 30000 Slow commercial 2 600 5 1350

AMP Site 11a 22750 sqm 22750 Slow retail 3.8 865 5 1024 Vacant land at Harvey Norman 11b 12250 sqm 12250 Industrial 0.1 12 5 551 Church Road Northern Corner - 4 ha 20000

Existing office/industry 1 200 5 900

Church Road Business 1 Zone 17 1500 sqm 1500 Offices 2 30 8 113 Church Road Business 1 Zone

North side 1500 sqm 1500

Existing Office/Industry 1 15 8 113

Total

Modelled 1722 Total PDP 4050 Additional Traffic = 2328

36

4.2 Coarse Assessment of Potential Traffic Generation Based on Gross Areas Affected

Proposed District Plan Gross

area (ha) Net Area

(70% - ha) Site

coverage GFA (sqm) Trips/100sqm

peak Trips

peak hr

Additional Traffic over

Expected

Additional Traffic over Operative

The Base South 19 13.3 50% 66500 4.5 2993 The Base North 16 11.2 50% 56000 4.5 2520 Harvey Norman vicinity 7 4.9 50% 24500 4.5 1103 East side Business 1 1 0.7 50% 3500 7.5 263 East side Business 4 24 16.8 50% 84000 4.5 3780 Balance Industrial 103 72.1 35% 252350 1 2524

Total 119

13181 2198 3164

Operative District Plan Gross

area (ha) Net Area

(70% - ha) Site

coverage GFA (sqm) Trips/100sqm

peak Trips

peak hr The Base South 19 13.3 50% 66500 4.5 2993 The Base North 16 11.2 50% 56000 4.5 2520 Harvey Norman vicinity 9 6.3 50% 31500 4.5 1418 East side Business 1 0 0 50% 0 7.5 0 East side Business 4 0 0 50% 0 4.5 0 Balance Industrial 126 88.2 35% 308700 1 3087

Total 119

10017 -966 0

Existing and Expected Gross

area (ha) Net Area

(70% - ha) Site

coverage GFA (sqm) Trips/100sqm

peak Trips

peak hr The Base South 19 13.3 50% 66500 4.5 2993 The Base North 16 11.2 50% 56000 4.5 2520 Harvey Norman vicinity 9 6.3 50% 31500 4.5 1418 East side Business 1 1 0.7 50% 3500 7.5 263 East side Business 4 (slower) 16 11.2 50% 56000 2 1120 Balance Industrial 109 76.3 35% 267050 1 2671

Total 119

10983 0 966

37

Attachment 5: Intersection Comparison: WRTM Node 1980 Te Rapa/Wairere Drive

2021 pm peak Te Rapa/Wairere - Approaches 2041 pm peak Te Rapa/Wairere- Approaches

186 veh extra in two hrs = 94 veh extra in one hour

2021 pm peak Te Rapa/Wairere – Intersection 6,529 veh/2 hrs = 3,264 he/hr

2041 pm peak Te Rapa/Wairere – Intersection 6938 veh/2hrs = 3,469 veh/hr = 205 extra vehicles/hr

2021 pm peak Te Rapa/Wairere – Approach Delays Worst approach is Avalon eastbound = 55.3sec (LOS E)

2041 pm peak Te Rapa/Wairere – Approach Delays Worst approach is Avalon eastbound = 59.2sec (LOS E)

2198veh/2 hrs = 1099 veh/hr

1287v= 643 veh southbound 47 seconds average delay/vehicle

1483v= 741 veh southbound 98 extra vehicles Not critical movement so no change = 47 seconds average delay/vehicle

38

Attachment 6: Travel Time Cost Implications of extra 1000 veh/hr (pm peak only)

Without extra traffic

With 1000 extra veh/hr

Average Intersection Delay 48.6 61.9 Sec Additional Travel Time/veh 13.3 Sec Number of vehicles/hr 4142 veh Periods/week 5 hours/week Weeks/year 48 weeks/year Urban arterial

Time/year 3673 veh-h/year afternoon peak update Value/hr $ 20.94 /veh-hr $ 14.96 1.4

Evaluation Period Amount Rounded to $10K

Discount Rate

Uniform Series Present Worth Factor

Travel Time Cost/year $76,918 $80,000

6% Travel Time Cost/year 1 $72,565 $70,000

USPWF1 0.9434

Travel Time Cost/10 years (Life of Plan) $582,941 $580,000

USPWF10 7.5787 Travel Time Cost/40 years (Economic

Evaluation Period) $1,191,719 $1,190,000

USPWF40 15.4933 net land with improved opportunities 17.5 ha

(Te Rapa Road west side - Carters $1.7M/0.906ha, Porters $5.4M/3.9944ha)

Value/ha (2012 rating valuation(ish)) $1,500,000 /ha Land value $26,250,000 Increase in value required to deliver return $580,000 Delay Cost

$26,250,000 Land Value 2.2% Increase required (e.g. From $1.35M/ha to $1.38M/ha) Compared to Loan Cost of Holding Land $80,000 Delay Cost/year Cost of Holding Land over 1 year $1,968,750 Loan Cost/year 7.50% 4.1% Relative cost

39

Attachment 7: Attachment from Statement of Evidence of C Inder (4 November 2013) Addressing Chapter 6 – Business 1 – 7 Zones

40

41