RC25777 PROPOSED SERVICE CENTRE, 25 TE ARAHORI STREET, TURANGI REVIEW OF TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT FINAL

19 April 2018 Louise Wood Senior Resource Consents Planner Taupō District Council Private Bag 2005 Taupō 3352 Gray Matter Ltd 2 Alfred Street PO Box 14178 Hamilton, 3252 Tel: 07 853 8997 170_02 Dear Louise RC25777 PROPOSED SERVICE CENTRE, 25 TE ARAHORI STREET, TURANGI REVIEW OF TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT FINAL 1. Introduction and Summary The application by WD Holmes 2000 Trust is to establish and operate a service centre comprising a BP and fast food operation on land zoned for residential purposes at 25 Te Arahori Street, Turangi. The site is currently operating as a motor lodge which is to remain (the Proposal). Taupo District Council (TDC) engaged Gray Matter Ltd to review the Proposal and the supporting Integrated Transportation Assessment (ITA) from a transportation perspective. The Proposal comprises: The existing motor lodge to remain (24 trips) Service station (8 pump islands, Wild Bean shop/café, 290m 2 GFA, 2 lane truck stop, 22 parking spaces, 3 coach/truck parking spaces, 3-5 campervan/trailer spaces, loading space) Fast food restaurant (300m 2 GFA, drive, 41 parking spaces, loading space) All movement access to and from Te Arahori Street and left slip access only from SH1. We consider that the ITA (TDG, 14/12/2017) and Assessment of Environmental Effects (CKL, 24/1/2018) adequately cover the information requirements of the Taupo District Plan (the Plan). The Proposal appears to comply with the relevant Transportation rules and requirements of the Plan other than the proposed left slip lane which, at this time does not have NZ Transport Agency consent, is wider than the District Plan Requirement and does not meet separation standards. The Proposal will result in around 250 vehicle trips to and from the site in the peak hour likely to be around 1,700 vehicle trips daily 1. It includes around 70 parking spaces including accessible spaces and two loading spaces, sufficient to meet Taupo District Plan requirements and likely demand. A key assumption in the ITA is that the Proposal will generate little additional traffic, and rely on attracting new pass-by traffic southbound and some of the existing traffic from SH1 that currently uses the existing service station and fast food outlet in the commercial centre opposite. Trip attraction in the ITA is estimated based on a survey of the service centre opposite which showed a significantly higher proportion of passing traffic attracted than typical service stations. The likely adverse effects of the Proposal relating to traffic include: An increased risk of crashes as a result of increased traffic and potential for conflict at: - the SH1/Te Arahori Street intersection; - the proposed left slip lane from SH1 into the site; and, - the entrance to the site; Increases in travel time resulting from delays at intersections during peak periods; 1 Estimated based on peak period traffic being 15% of daily traffic. Alasdair Gray 027 249 7648 alasdair.gray@graymatter.co.nz Karen Hills 021 923 905 karen.hills@graymatter.co.nz

Increased noise from on site manoeuvring and parking activities (not assessed as part of this review); Changes to on street parking; An unresolved position with the NZ Transport Agency, the road controlling authority for SH1, in relation to: - The need for slip lane; - Performance of the SH1/Te Arahori Street intersection if slip lane is not constructed or preferred by drivers; - Design standards for the proposed alteration to the SH1/Te Arahori Street intersection; - Design standards for slip lane. The ITA concludes that the proposed service station and fast food development, with the site layout and access provisions proposed, can be safely and efficiently accommodated within the local transport environment with no more than minor effects on the adjacent road network. We have reviewed the Proposal and consider the trip generation, traffic assignment and parking assessment for the Proposal to be reasonable. There remains a risk of higher or lower than forecast trip attraction and different turning movements, depending on how attractive the services offered on each site are to drivers. The altered local trip distributions are expected to result in a small increase in movements crossing SH1. We understand that NZTA as road controlling authority do not currently support the Proposal or slip lane. In our opinion, the ITA conclusions understate the potential adverse effects of the proposal on safety but the conclusions relating to the adverse effects of the proposal on traffic efficiency appear reasonable. We conclude that: There will be adverse effects on efficiency but these are unlikely to exceed a few seconds extra delay for turning vehicles except during short periods of peak demand and for traffic following vehicles turning left into Te Arahori Road. There would be adverse construction effects on the state highway from alteration to the intersection and entranceway. The Proposal increases the predicted crash rate to one DSI every 5.6 years compared to a predicted crash rate for the current environment of one DSI every 6.6 years. Current actual performance is 1 every 8.5 years. That increase would compromise NZTA and Government objectives to reduce road deaths and serious injuries, but is unlikely to increase the crash rate at the intersection to a level that would be a funding priority. Subsequent interventions to reduce the crash risk such as a roundabout or reduced speed restrictions would have additional adverse effects on efficiency. The separate adverse traffic effects from the Proposal are not very large, but still result in adverse cumulative effects on the safety and efficiency of the state highway that, while minimal, are assessed as undesirable and unlikely to fully be mitigated by the Proposal. 2. ITA Review 2.1. Adequacy The transportation assessment information requirements in the Taupo District Plan are brief, and include: Relevant aspects of standard Resource Management Act Section 88 and Schedule 4 information requirements; Parking, access, loading and manoeuvring space required for vehicles; Written comments of Transit New Zealand (now NZ Transport Agency) for activities seeking to establish adjacent to the State Highway Network; Performance standard information on vehicle movement; and, PAGE 2

Plans including vehicle parking, access, manoeuvring and loading areas. The ITA had some areas where additional information may have been useful such as: Assessment of intersection performance without slip lane (not part of the Proposal) or with increased use of Te Arahori Street in preference to the slip lane; Consideration of traffic growth (likely to be lower risk than sensitivity to higher trip attraction); and Construction effects (low risk and easily covered by a construction management plan including temporary traffic management). The information in the ITA is consistent with typical industry expectations such as those set out in NZTA Road Research Report 422: Integrated Transport Assessment Guidelines. We generally consider the ITA to be sufficient to inform an assessment of effects. Where additional information may have been useful, the ITA tests sensitivity to assumptions such as percentage of traffic using their own side of the road and additional local traffic. These are sufficient to guide evaluation of the impacts. 2.2. Existing site data The existing site includes 31 motel units and 10 motorhome sites, with an ancillary conference facility that seats 15-20 people and a restaurant that opens for dinner from 6pm to 9pm. The ITA (6.1) suggests that the existing peak traffic would be up to 53 trips per hour during its periods of peak operation and that a typical day s peak hour will generate approximately 24 trips. There is no information on mode share, but the number of pedestrians, cyclists and bus users for the existing site will be very low. 2.3. Existing Transport Data The ITA presents a comprehensive description of the existing traffic environment. There is no specific consideration and modelling taking into account traffic growth but this is covered to some extent in the peak volumes and sensitivity testing. 2.4. Development Details The development is described in sufficient detail with hourly flows. Daily flows are not assessed, but the peak hourly flows are the most relevant basis for capacity assessments, although it meant that our crash prediction based on daily flows has relied on inferred turning flows. The existing motor lodge to remain (31 motel units and 10 motorhome sites, with an ancillary conference facility that seats 15-20 people and a restaurant that opens for dinner from 6pm to 9pm (not clear whether this is restricted or an operational decision). Service station (8 pump islands, Wild Bean shop/café, 290m 2 GFA, 2 lane truck stop, 22 parking spaces, 3 coach/truck parking spaces, 3-5 campervan/trailer spaces, loading space) Fast food restaurant (300m 2 GFA, drive, 41 parking spaces, loading space) All movement access to and from Te Arahori Street and left slip access only from SH1. An intersection upgrade is relied upon in the ITA, as is slip lane. PAGE 3

Figure 1: Proposed Service Centre There is no information on the volumes or nature of construction traffic. This is a low risk and could be dealt with a requirement for a construction traffic management plan and temporary traffic management approvals. 2.5. Trip generation and assignment The assessment includes existing trip generation for the motel at 24vph typically and up to 53vph in peaks. This appears reasonable. ITA Section 6.2 estimates trip generation based on surveys of the site opposite, and assumptions on the proportion of traffic likely to be attracted (e.g. more southbound traffic will use the proposed site to avoid right turns). We would normally use the RR453 rates for comparison but the ITA survey data suggests that the existing service centre opposite already attracts a surprisingly high proportion of traffic, so exceeds typical rates. The supermarket and proximity to other town centre activities may influence this and attract a higher proportion of traffic to the service station on the other side. We agree with the ITA assessment that most trips are likely to be pass-by trips which will not affect the wider network. We agree that there may be additional crossing trips, as has been assessed and provided for in the assessment, with people using this site and then crossing to the supermarket or town centre as a secondary trip, for example. The ITA considers scenarios in the SIDRA modelling including typical peak hour conditions, 70% and 80% proportions turning into the service centre on the same side of the road as they are driving and 30 th design hour with an increase in new local traffic. It does not give specific consideration of entranceway performance, but since the traffic on Te Arahori Street is so low, entranceway traffic is unlikely to have to give way to opposing turns and therefore any delay effects are expected to be negligible. PAGE 4

Figure 2: Peak Hour Trips (Extracts from ITA) The ITA presumes all southbound state highway traffic entering the site will use the slip lane (79vph). This means that the intersection assessment is conservative for all movements except to Te Arahori Street. We consider that there is a risk of traffic turning left onto Te Arahori Street for access instead of using the slip lane since the fast food outlet is at that end of the site and the distance to travel appears less, without having to cross the service station forecourt. Additional left turns into Te Arahori Street would add to the 34vph northbound traffic turning right in to Te Arahori Street, and turn right across Te Arahori Street to access the site. 3. Discussion/Observations In general, the ITA trip generation and assignment appears reasonable. The trip generation may be low, but there would be no significant changes in my conclusions or the management responses if higher rates eventuated. In principle, it is poor practice to have a commercial area straddling an arterial road, because of the increase in conflict from crossing movements and side friction from access manoeuvres. At the site, pedestrian crossing is provided for with an underpass beneath SH1. Cyclists using the road and vehicular traffic would still be affected. There are whole of journey benefits derived from motorist service centres including contributing to safety objectives by providing road users with the opportunity to break their journey, reduce fatigue and service vehicles. The ITA estimates an increase in southbound drivers stopping (30% of SH1 traffic compared to surveyed 21% currently using site on opposite side of road). Since the dominant demand is from passing traffic, with a high proportion of southbound traffic currently turning right to access the existing town centre, we expected an improvement in safety at the intersection because fewer people would need to turn right. However, as discussed below, our assessment of predicted crashes based on conflict suggests a marginally less safe outcome. We consider that the main issues relate to: The extent to which traffic growth on SH1 should be included. We consider that 10 years should be included since there are no significant state highway improvements anticipated within that period. This makes little difference to our review and conclusions. The left slip lane having direct access off SH1, which is contrary to good practice for road hierarchies, access management and road safety principles. However, if the Proposal is consented, PAGE 5

I consider that slip lane would be more appropriate than the single crossing on Te Arahori Street. An unresolved position with the NZ Transport Agency, the road controlling authority for SH1 access and intersection changes. The potential for more traffic to turn left into Te Arahori Street and how to deal with it, noting a corresponding reduction elsewhere. Increased potential for crashes at SH1/Te Arahori Street, including deaths and serious injuries. Whether the intersection modifications proposed satisfactorily mitigate the change in safety for turning traffic. 3.1. Basis for Assessment Our assessment is based on the Proposal in comparison to an environment with the existing motor lodge. We consider that there should be consideration of higher SH1 traffic flows than current typical (e.g. allowing for 10 years growth) but that is covered to some extent by the 30 th peak hour modelling for intersection performance, but does affect aspects such as the thresholds for auxiliary lanes. Growth on SH1 is not an effect of the Proposal, but network changes to mitigate traffic effects should take growth into account. 3.2. Left Slip Lane The design of vehicle accesses should avoid confusion between vehicle manoeuvres at other driveways or intersections 2. The slip lane is a high volume access and would typically be considered as an intersection. Austroads suggests spacing of 5 seconds travel time (125m at 90km/h) is desirable to reduce the potential for confusion and allow drivers to process information relating to traffic, signs and road layouts. The proposal has provided for a 4 second separation of the entry point to the slip lane for the speed environment of 90km/h so there is little practical difference. District Plan Rule 6.5.4: Distance Road Intersection to Vehicle Crossing, states that where access is to be obtained from a State Highway the consent of New Zealand Transport Agency is required and the standards of the District Plan do not apply where they conflict with the standards of the road controlling authority. SH1 carries around 5,060vpd in the vicinity with growth currently at around 3.5% annually. Presuming a 10 year assessment period to allow for growth, SH1 traffic could be 6,830vpd. That does not result in a change in NZTA accessway standards (Figure 3 below). However, NZTA Planning Policy Manual App5B.3 Accessway spacing guidelines states that medium to high volume entranceways should be considered as intersections for the purposes of access safety. NZTA Planning Policy Manual 3.5.5.2 indicates that NZTA determine intersection spacing on state highways on a case-by-case basis following an assessment of criteria including: key transport outcomes from growth strategies and strategic studies we are not aware of growth or integrated land use strategies that would support additional access, although the draft Government Policy Statement on Transport includes provides increased access to economic and social opportunities, enables transport choice and is resilient as a strategic direction. the state highway category national (second highest). Hierarchy and access management principles would more strongly indicate and access preference from the side road. anticipated safety issues on the state highway and connecting local road(s) since it is mainly left turns and equivalent turns are mostly taking place already at the existing site opposite, I do not consider this likely to be a problem. anticipated project costs, available funding options and affordability not applicable. 2 Section 3.1, Guidelines for visibility at driveways, RTS 6 PAGE 6

Figure 3: NZTA Standards (Planning Policy Manual) Depending on interpretation of where the crossing is, the separation between slip lane and the intersection may not meet desirable standards (100m required, proposed = 90m to taper and 160m to crossing at boundary). We consider the start of the diverge taper to be the most relevant point since that is where the manoeuvring commences. There is the potential for slowing beforehand and early indicating for turning left taking place before Te Arahori Street. However, slip lane layout has fewer potential conflicts than a typical crossing and the bases for the separation requirements are not strictly relevant. 90m provides 3.6 seconds travel time at 90km/h so is sufficient for the minimum 3 seconds indicating but less than Austroads desirable spacing of 5 seconds travel time (125m). It appears that the layout could be adjusted to achieve greater separation but that could result in more people using Te Arahori Street. Clear advanced signing would contribute to an enhanced driver appreciation and use of the proposed access arrangements and potentially an overall safer outcome with respect to these movements. The reduced separation could lead to confusion about the intentions of indicating vehicles, increasing the risk to turning and crossing traffic at Te Arahori Street, but we do not consider that the deficiency would be likely to have a noticeable impact on safety. The Proposal is reliant in part on access from SH1 to operate as presented. No new access to SH1 from the site is proposed. It would be desirable for NZ Transport Agency authorisation for this to be confirmed in advance of the hearing. Otherwise, the consent, if approved, could be made subject to a condition precedent or equivalent requiring that slip be subject to engineering design approval, including an independent stage 4 safety audit appropriately responded to in consultation with NZTA, and the final design plans authorised by NZ Transport Agency prior to construction commencing and in place prior to operations commencing. 3.3. Left turns into Te Arahori Street We expect that some southbound traffic will use Te Arahori Street to access the site. Based on Austroads guidance for auxiliary lanes, including an allowance for a nominal 10 years growth for traffic, it would only take an additional 6 vph turning left to warrant a short auxiliary left turn lane, equivalent to less than 10% of the expected southbound site traffic. PAGE 7

The background to the warrants for left turns 3 state that they are set to match driver expectations rather than achieving a benefit cost ratio of one, as is the case for right turn warrants. The warrants are not intended for direct application to accesses and driveways but can be used as a reference for decisions. Future for slip lane demand at 79vph Existing around 300vph southbound 10 years growth around 400vph southbound Te Arahori Street Left Turn Current warrant around 20vph 10 year growth means only 10vph Existing left turn is 4vph not warranted Figure 4: Left turn lane warrants (Austroads) We consider that additional traffic to be likely, and a short auxiliary left turn lane to be desirable to mitigate efficiency effects and the risk of rear end crashes from vehicles slowing to turn. Clear signage promoting use of the slip lane could reduce the number of left turns. However, a left turn lane would probably reduce visibility for Te Arahori Street drivers joining or crossing SH1, and increase the risk of crashes if a following vehicle is concealed by a vehicle slowing in a left turn lane to to Te Arahori Street. That risk can be mitigated by detailed design to protect visibility, but would result in a wider intersection that further reduces space for queuing on Te Arahori Street for right turns into the site. Although there is a low risk of queuing affecting the state highway, the consequences could be severe and it would be desirable for vehicles to be able to pass traffic turning into the site even if the queues are long. On balance, we consider that the risks of high severity crashes from potential shadowing associated with a left turn lane outweigh the adverse safety and efficiency effects of not installing one, as the current form of the proposal intends. 3.4. Te Arahori Street Parking Restrictions The Proposal appears likely to require restricting parking on Te Arahori Street near the entranceway to allow for an island and a median and operate as presented. We suggest that parking restrictions should be dealt with in advance of the hearing or the consent, if approved, be made subject to a condition precedent or equivalent requiring that these are approved prior to construction commencing and in place prior to operations. 3 Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 6, Commentary C5.2 and 5.3 PAGE 8

3.5. Positive Effects from Intersection Changes The ITA indicates that there will be convenience, safety and efficiency benefits to existing users from reducing the need to turn right to the existing service centre and the intersection upgrade. The ITA states that although the proposed development is expected to reduce the demand for the right to Pihanga Street the intersection upgrade will still increase the queue space. This appears to be a reasonable assertion. 3.6. Other Adverse Effects from Intersection and Access Changes The Proposal includes two widened areas for left turns. These result in extended potential conflict zones for cyclists, exposing vulnerable users to potential crashes likely to lead to serious injuries. The increased movements at the Te Arahori Street entrance exposes pedestrians, cyclists and local traffic. There appear to be few pedestrians and cyclists potentially affected, so the likelihood of a crash appears very low. These risks could be mitigated with appropriate design, as noted in the ITA. 3.7. Crash Prediction We predicted the potential for crashes using the NZ Transport Agency s Crash Estimation Compendium general and conflict models (Attachment A). These should be considered comparative, since the current intersection performance is better than predicted (0.117 DSIs compared to predicted 0.15 DSIs). Since one crash in a five year period could add one or more casualties and increase the DSI rate by 0.2 DSIs per year or more, the difference in performance is unlikely to be statistically significant. We considered four scenarios, each with and without the Proposal: 1. Existing traffic flows. Daily flows inferred based on daily to hourly ratios - SH (6.13 4 ) and side road for Te Arahori Street (14.7 5 ). 2. Sensitivity: High SH traffic growth. 3.5% per annum on SH, 1% pa on side roads. Modelled at year 10. 3. Sensitivity: Conservative traffic growth all legs at 1% pa. Modelled at year 10. 4. Sensitivity: High growth. Turangi town centre and SH1. 3.5% pa all legs. Modelled at year 10. The results are presented in Table 2. Scenario Te Arahori Street crashes Pihanga Road crashes Total for scenario (injury crashes/yr) A T Equivalent DSIs DSIs per year Existing without Proposal (Year 0) Existing with Proposal (Year 0) 2 High SH traffic growth without Proposal (Year 10) 2 High SH traffic growth with Proposal (Year 10) 0.175 0.161 0.34 (consistent with ITA which predicts 0.32) 0.15 DSIs per year. One DSI every 6.6 years 0.217 0.176 0.39 injury crashes/yr 0.18 DSIs per year. One DSI every 5.6 years 0.209 0.193 0.40 injury crashes/yr 0.18 DSIs per year. One DSI every 5.5 years 0.258 0.211 0.47 injury crashes/yr 0.21 DSIs per year. One DSI every 4.7 years 4 Ratio based on 5060vpd:826vph on SH1 also applied to Pihanga Rd 5 Ratio based on 956vpd:65vph on Te Arahori Road, PAGE 9

Scenario Te Arahori Street crashes Pihanga Road crashes Total for scenario (injury crashes/yr) A T Equivalent DSIs DSIs per year 3 Conservative traffic growth without Proposal (Year 10) 3 Conservative traffic growth with Proposal (Year 10) 4High SH traffic growth and Turangi growth without Proposal (Year 10) PAGE 10 0.190 0.174 0.36 injury crashes/yr 0.17 DSIs per year. One DSI every 6.1 years 0.235 0.191 0.43 injury crashes/yr 0.19 DSIs per year. One DSI every 5.2 years 0.226 0.205 0.43 injury crashes/yr 0.20 DSIs per year. One DSI every 5.1 years. 4 High SH traffic 0.279 0.226 0.51 injury crashes/yr 0.23 DSIs per year. One growth and DSI every 4.3 years Turangi growth with Proposal (Year 10) Table 2: Predicted Injury Crash Rates (Injury crashes/year) The general crash prediction models do not take account of sight distance. The conflicting flow models in the Crash Estimation Compendium include a model for right turns in high speed areas that takes account of visibility deficiency but we do not consider that to be relevant here because the restriction is only when vehicles obstruct visibility and the Proposal is to reconfigure the intersection to achieve compliant sight distance for traffic turning right into Te Arahori Street, currently often obstructed by turning vehicles in the right turn bay for Pihanga Road. Based on conflict model predictions, the Proposal results in an increase in injury crash rates of around 15-20%. The high speed and conflict angles increase the risk of severe crashes. Since the corridor is already at a medium crash risk rating the potential increase could change the crash performance of the network. If significant, this could mean that NZ Transport Agency may have to consider additional intervention. Intervention by NZ Transport Agency as road controlling authority could be to reduce speeds or introduce an alternative intersection layout to reduce crash severity. Since these are not currently planned, they could reduce the effort or funding available to deal with existing safety priorities. 3.8. Left slip lane Direct access to the site from a national arterial via slip lane proposed would be contrary to the road hierarchy principles and method set out in Taupo District Plan. However, the layouts proposed indicate that a fully Austroads compliant slip lane can be established and I consider that if the Proposal is consented, then slip lane is likely to result in a better traffic outcome than restricting access to and from Te Arahori Road. Objective 3f.2.1 is The safe and efficient operation of the roading network, and movement of traffic, including cyclists and pedestrians within the District. The policies relevant to access are: Ensure activities avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the operation and function of the roading network, including the movement of traffic cyclists and pedestrians, as accordance with the Roading Hierarchy. Encourage activities, including the design and location of new vehicle crossings, to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic, including cyclists and pedestrians. The explanation states: The roading network, including the movement of traffic cyclists and pedestrians, is an essential part of the District s infrastructure. The Roading Hierarchy, included within this Plan, identifies the different functions of

roads. As activities and vehicle access points have the potential to conflict with the existing roading network, the hierarchy will be used to manage the appropriate location of activities, and associated vehicle crossings, within the District. This will result in the efficient and effective operation of the roading network with the adverse effects on other users of the road and other land use activities avoided, remedied or mitigated the appropriate location of activities within the Environments and areas of the District. The design and location of vehicle crossings is also an important consideration as poorly located and designed property access points can inhibit the flow of traffic and increase the likelihood of accidents. Accordingly, activities shall consider access, as well as suitability with the type, formation, topography and design speed of adjoining roads. Pedestrians need to have the ability to utilise safe areas of the roading network. The safety, capacity and roading around a site and the affect an activity may have on these aspects of the existing roading network are a necessary consideration for all development. Not having a left turn slip lane would increase left turn demands at the intersection which might result in a minor increase in delays. We have assessed this above and have concluded that if consent were granted, the layout as proposed, is preferred. It would also increase demand for right turns from the local road into the site which, if they led to queues affecting state highway traffic could be significant adverse safety and efficiency impacts. The assessments in the ITA demonstrate there will be adequate and safe storage capacity within the right turn bays, appropriately mitigating this potential effect. There is little conflicting traffic on Te Arahori Street so I consider problems from Te Arahori Street queues affecting the entranceway highly unlikely. 3.9. Likely Adverse Effects on the Environment Relating to Traffic The likely adverse effects on the environment relating to traffic associated with the proposal include: Safety potential for an increased risk of predicted crashes, mainly at the intersection and entranceways resulting from the Proposal. - The relatively low speed environment on Te Arahori Street means that crashes are more likely to be non-injury or minor injury crashes. An increase in potential conflict on Te Arahori Street is likely to be substantially offset by a reduction in potential conflict for access to the other service centre from Pihanga Road opposite. - The speed environment on SH1 means that crashes have the potential to lead to serious injuries or fatalities. Crash predictions suggest an increase in the potential for deaths or serious injuries of around 20%. The current intersection operates slightly more safely than typical intersections but this may be because the good visibility for right turners into Pihanga Street and very poor visibility for right turns into Te Arahori Street results in safer decisions from drivers. - The crash predictions are reliant on the intersection alteration achieving suitable visibility for right turn movements into Te Arahori Street, which the application indicates it achieves. - Adversely affecting safety would be contrary to the Taupo District Plan Objective 3f.2.1 The safe and efficient operation of the roading network, and movement of traffic, including cyclists and pedestrians within the District. The key safety issue, in my opinion, would be from commercial development straddling the state highway leading to an increase in conflict. This is reduced to some extent by the Proposal since most of the trips are pass by trips, but we expect that there will be an increase in demand that counter-balance this. - There would be an increased risk of crashes if delays for traffic entering from Te Arahori Street lead to queues reaching traffic lanes. The ITA analysis indicates this is not expected to be likely and there will be ample queuing storage, in particular reduced demand for turning right to Pihanga Road. Efficiency delays to traffic - Efficiency impacts should only be delays of a few extra seconds at peak times, with the network still operating at acceptable levels of service, as long as the access arrangements operate effectively. PAGE 11

- In my opinion, a left turn lane is warranted at Te Arahori Street to reduce safety and efficiency effects on southbound traffic. This would result in worse safety effects and should not be installed, meaning that those delays, albeit nominal in in overall effect, from slowing/turning vehicles are not mitigated. Most of the effect expected to arise from vehicles slowing to turn left is currently occurring by way of their slowing to turn right. I do not consider the delays from turning traffic significant. - There is a risk of obstruction associated with peak period queuing for right turns or cross movements at SH1/Te Arahori Street obstructing entering vehicles leading to left turn traffic affecting movements. That could result in a risk of crashes and delays or disruption but should be managed by appropriate design. Parking On-street parking and controls - There is currently no restriction to on-street parking on Te Arahori Street near the site entrance. There is unlikely to be any need for on street parking because there is little development between the state highway and the proposed site access. - Parking regulation would require a Council resolution to change the bylaw and may therefore be uncertain impact enforcement demands on TDC staff. It would be desirable for this to be resolved prior to the hearing or have a condition precedent imposed to cover it. Overall, the change should be achievable and is expected to be self-enforcing given the undeveloped adjacent land use demands and expected street utilisation. Amenity noise, emissions, manoeuvring for car park not assessed as part of this review. Construction effects including dust, noise, vibration, parking, etc. These can generally be managed a construction management plan including appropriate temporary traffic management. For this site it should require permanent entrance formation as part of preliminary/enabling works and parking and loading management plans for construction staff and materials to avoid on-street parking and loading effects. 4. Conclusion 4.1. Conclusion In my opinion, the ITA conclusions understate the potential adverse effects of the proposal on safety. We have used NZ Transport Agency crash prediction methods to estimate the change in the likelihood of crashes (injury crashes and DSIs (deaths and serious injury equivalents). The change in turning movements is likely to lead to an increase in injury crashes of around 15-20% equivalent to an injury crash every 2.6 years instead of every 2.9 years from modelling the existing environment. Although a relatively low probability, the consequence of a potential crash at high speeds and conflict angles is likely to be severe, and result in deaths or serious injuries. Our crash predictions suggest that the Proposal increases the predicted crash rate to one DSI every 5.6 years compared to a predicted crash rate for the current environment of one DSI every 6.6 years. Current actual performance is 1 injury crash every 8.5 years. A serious crash would lead to adverse effects on the local communities and state highway traffic, as well as compromising NZ Transport Agency s objective to reduce deaths and serious injuries, and adverse economic impacts. If traffic growth on SH1 is taken into account or the development results in greater attraction to the Proposal than expected for southbound left turn traffic, or traffic crossing SH1, the potential for conflict would be slightly higher but the relative increase is similar. The likely consequence of the Proposal would either be for the community to accept an increase in crashes potentially including deaths and serious injuries, or intervention by NZ Transport Agency as road controlling authority to reduce speeds or introduce an alternative intersection layout to reduce crash severity. Based on my review and conditions during my site visit, the conclusions relating to the adverse effects of the proposal on traffic efficiency appear reasonable, and although there will be adverse effects, these are likely to be infrequent and unlikely to exceed a few seconds extra delay for turning vehicles except during short periods of peak demand. During those periods there will be an increased likelihood of longer queues and frustrated drivers making poor decisions. This increases the potential for crashes, but as long as queuing does not exceed the capacity of vehicle storage space such as right turn bays that is likely to be at PAGE 12

Attachment A: Crash Predictions To: Alasdair Gray Copy: File From: Naomi McMinn Date: 26 March 2018 updated 18 April 2018 Job Number: 170_02 SUBJECT: Turangi BP -updated 1. Crash History NZTA Crash Analysis System (CAS) reported crashes (2007-2017 inclusive) are shown on the collision diagram below: In the recent five year period, 2012-2016, within 50m of the SH1/Pihanga Road/ Te Arahori Road intersection there were eight reported crashes. We have also included two crashes in 2017 and one in 2018. PAGE 14

Date Movement Description Injury 9/12/12 MC U-turn NI 30/7/17 FB SBD on SH1 hit rear end of vehicle slowing/stopping for cross traffic 9/3/17 HA Crossing (no turns) NI 12/6/15 DA Loss of control NI 30/12/14 HA Crossing (no turns) NI 21/3/14 LB Right turn against (right turn across failed to give way and hit oncoming ) 12/1/14 KB Merging (right ) NI 10/2/14 JA NI 11/8/14 LB NI 17/1/18 FB NI 5/1/12 HA NI NI 2 Minor Based on 5 year history 2 minor injuries, one LB injury crash. 0.2 injury crashes/year equivalent to 0.078 DSIs/year. One DSI every 12.8 years. Based on the 10 year injury crashes: 1 LB crash resulting in 1 serious injury 1 LB crash resulting in 2 minor injuries 1 KB crash resulting in 1 minor injury 0.3 injury crashes/year equivalent to 0.117 DSIs/year, one DSI every 8.5 years. Traffic Volumes Hourly traffic volumes are from figure 7 and figure 13 of the TIA for existing and post development traffic. For Pihanga I have used the SH ratio daily to hourly since using the Te Arahori St ratio means the daily count on Pihanga is significantly exceeded. PAGE 15

Daily traffic volumes are available from mobileroad.org: 1,288 vpd Pihanga Road (estimated 28/12/2016) 956 vpd Te Arahori Street (estimated 28/12/2016) 5,061vpd SH1 (estimated 28/12/2016) PAGE 16

2. Crash Model Table 27 High Speed Priority Crossroads (>80 km/hr) Existing: Based on the SH1 traffic volumes (daily to hourly ratio) (5061 vpd/826 vph). The ratio (6.13) applied to movements q5, q11, q4, Qe maj. The Te Arahori volumes (daily to hourly ratio) (956 vpd/65 vph). The ratio (14.7) applied to movements q2 and Qemin for the Te Arahori side leg model. For Pihanga Road, the SH ratio (6.13) applies. Scenario 1: Base (existing) Hourly volumes Side road Te Arahori St 20 264 260 7 297 29 Pihanga Rd 25 260 264 116 380 286 road out Daily volumes Existing All SH1 from road out Te Arahori St 294 1618 1594 43 1821 426 Pihanga Rd 153 1594 1618 711 2329 1753 Scenarios: Existing with Proposal. SH ratio daily to hourly (6.13) and ratio for Te Arahori Street (14.7) 2. Sensitivity: SH traffic growth, 3.5% per annum on SH, 1% pa on side roads. Modelled at year 10 3. Sensitivity: conservative traffic growth all legs at 1%. Modelled at year 10 4. Sensitivity: What if Turangi town centre grows faster? So 3.5% on all side road legs. Year 10. PAGE 17

Crash Estimations for SH1 Turangi Proposed BP Crash Compendium Actual crash history DSIs DSIS 0.117 1 crash per 8.547008547 yrs Scenario 1 Without Proposal at Year 0 Existing Traffic Flows: Hourly volumes Te Arahori St 20 264 260 7 297 29 Pihanga Rd 25 260 264 116 380 286 Scenario 1 Existing Traffic Volumes Scenario 1 Without Proposal at Year 0 Existing Traffic Flows: Daily volumes Te Arahori St 294 1618 1594 43 1821 426 Pihanga Rd 153 1594 1618 711 2329 1753 Crash Type Scenario 1 Without Proposal at Year 0 Existing Traffic Flows: Crash Model HA HA GC, GD, GE crossing hit Crossing hit minor road Right turning and following vehicles Other major Other minor Total for leg AT AT AT AT AT AT Te Arahori St Pihanga Rd 0.069793569 0.051069743 0.002687553 0.034250721 0.017643372 0.046924004 0.039618898 0.007263829 0.041305734 0.025845896 0.175444 957 0.160958 362 PAGE 18

Total AT for scenario 0.336403319 HA 0.103703107 DSIs Existing GC GD GE 0.002487846 DSIs other 0.046427832 TOTAL 0.152618784 DSIs one DSI per 6.55 yrs Scenario 1 With Proposal at Year 0 Existing Traffic Flows: Hourly volumes Te Arahori St 29 254 290 41 321 151 Pihanga Rd 34 290 254 86 380 241 Scenario 1 With Proposal at Year 0 Existing Traffic Flows: Daily volumes Te Arahori St 426 1557 1778 251 1968 2220 Pihanga Rd 208 1778 1557 527 2329 1477 Scenario 1 With Proposal at Year 0 Existing Traffic Flows: Crash Model HA HA GC, GD, GE Crash Type crossing hit Crossing hit minor road Right turning and following vehicles Other major Other minor Total for leg AT AT AT AT AT AT Te Arahori St Pihanga Rd 0.085887136 0.06216955 0.004870933 0.036334454 0.027545959 0.058950605 0.044049305 0.007338356 0.041305734 0.024678421 0.216808 032 0.176322 422 Total AT for 0.393130454 HA 0.125528298 DSIs PAGE 19

scenario GC GD GE 0.003052322 DSIs other 0.050647182 DSIs TOTAL 0.179227802 Total DSIs one DSI per 5.58 yrs PAGE 20

Sensitivity: SH traffic growth, 3.5% per annum on SH, 1% pa on side roads. Modelled at year 10 Existing without proposal Scenario 2 Without Proposal at Year 10 High SH traffic growth: Hourly volumes (Year 0) Scenario 2 Sensitivity: SH traffic growth, 3.5% per annum on SH, 1% pa on side roads. Modelled at year 10 Te Arahori St 20 264 260 7 297 29 Pihanga Rd 25 260 264 116 380 286 Scenario 2 Without Proposal at Year 10 High SH traffic growth: Hourly volumes (Year 10) Te Arahori St 22 356.4 351 9.45 400.95 31.9 Pihanga Rd 27.5 351 356.4 156.6 513 314.6 Scenario 2 Without Proposal at Year 10 High SH traffic growth: Daily volumes (Year 10) Te Arahori St 323 2185 2152 58 2458 469 Pihanga Rd 169 2152 2185 960 3145 1928 Crash Type Te Arahori St Pihanga Rd Scenario 2 Without Proposal at Year 10 High SH traffic growth: Crash Model HA HA GC, GD, GE crossing hit Crossing hit minor road Right turning and following vehicles Other major Other minor Total for leg AT AT AT AT AT AT 0.083326765 0.060543512 0.004140356 0.043025248 0.018103294 0.056022719 0.04696846 0.011190416 0.051887651 0.02651964 0.209139 175 0.192588 886 PAGE 21

Total AT for scenario 0.401728061 HA 0.123430728 DSIs Existing GC GD GE 0.003832693 DSIs other 0.054418975 TOTAL 0.181682396 DSIs one DSI per 5.50 yrs Scenario 2 With Proposal at Year 10 High SH traffic growth: Hourly volumes (year 0) Te Arahori St 29 254 290 41 321 151 Pihanga Rd 34 290 254 86 380 241 Scenario 2 With Proposal at Year 10 High SH traffic growth: Hourly volumes - (Yr 10) Te Arahori St 31.9 342.9 391.5 55.35 433.35 166.1 Pihanga Rd 37.4 391.5 342.9 116.1 513 265.1 Scenario 2 With Proposal at Year 10 High SH traffic growth: Daily volumes (Yr10) Te Arahori St 469 2102 2400 339 2656 2442 Pihanga Rd 229 2400 2102 712 3145 1625 Scenario 2 With Proposal at Year 10 High SH traffic growth: Crash Model HA HA GC, GD, GE Crash Type crossing hit Crossing hit minor road Right turning and following vehicles Other major Other minor Total for leg AT AT AT AT AT AT PAGE 22

Te Arahori St Pihanga Rd 0.102540927 0.073702404 0.007503999 0.045642802 0.028264019 0.070381317 0.052220737 0.011305231 0.051887651 0.025321731 0.257654 152 0.211116 666 Total AT for scenario 0.468770818 HA 0.149422692 DSIs Existing GC GD GE 0.004702307 DSIs other 0.05893532 TOTAL 0.213060319 DSIs one DSI per 4.69 yrs PAGE 23

Sensitivity: conservative traffic growth all legs at 1%. Modelled at year 10 Scenario 3 Without Proposal at Year 10 conservative traffic growth: hourly volumes (Yr0) Te Arahori St 20 264 260 7 297 29 Scenario 3 Conservative traffic growth all legs 1% pa. Modelled at Year 10 Pihanga Rd 25 260 264 116 380 286 Scenario 3 Without Proposal at Year 10 conservative traffic growth: Hourly volumes (Yr 10) Te Arahori St 22 290.4 286 7.7 326.7 31.9 Pihanga Rd 27.5 286 290.4 127.6 418 314.6 Scenario 3 Without Proposal at Year 10 conservative traffic growth: Daily volumes (Yr10) Te Arahori St 323 1780 1753 47 2003 469 Pihanga Rd 169 1753 1780 782 2562 1928 Scenario 3 Without Proposal at Year 10 conservative traffic growth: Crash Model Crash Type HA HA GC, GD, GE crossing hit Crossing hit minor road Right turning and following vehicles Other major Other minor Total for leg AT AT AT AT AT AT Te Arahori St Pihanga Rd 0.076772925 0.055326542 0.003082922 0.036823762 0.018103294 0.051616405 0.042921239 0.008332419 0.044408774 0.02651964 0.190109 446 0.173798 476 PAGE 24

Total AT for scenario 0.363907922 HA 0.113318556 DSIs Existing GC GD GE 0.002853835 DSIs other 0.049083633 TOTAL 0.165256024 DSIs one DSI per 6.05 yrs Scenario 3 With Proposal at Year 10 conservative traffic growth: Hourly volumes (Year 0) Te Arahori St 29 254 290 41 321 151 Pihanga Rd 34 290 254 86 380 241 Scenario 3 with Proposal at Year 10 conservative traffic growth: Hourly volumes (Year 10) Te Arahori St 31.9 279.4 319 45.1 353.1 166.1 Pihanga Rd 37.4 319 279.4 94.6 418 265.1 Scenario 3 With Proposal at Year 10 conservative traffic growth: Daily volumes (Year 10) Te Arahori St 469 1713 1955 276 2165 2442 Pihanga Rd 229 1955 1713 580 2562 1625 Scenario 3 With Proposal at Year 10 conservative traffic growth: Crash Model HA HA GC, GD, GE Crash Type crossing hit Crossing hit minor road Right turning and following vehicles Other major Other minor Total for leg AT AT AT AT AT AT PAGE 25

Te Arahori St Pihanga Rd 0.09447585 0.067351547 0.005587501 0.039064033 0.028264019 0.064845666 0.047720932 0.00841791 0.044408774 0.025321731 0.234742 95 0.190715 013 Total AT for scenario 0.425457964 HA 0.137196998 DSIs Existing GC GD GE 0.003501353 DSIs other 0.053452838 TOTAL 0.194151188 DSIs one DSI per 5.15 yrs PAGE 26

Sensitivity: What if Turangi town centre grows faster? 3.5% annual traffic growth. Year 10 Scenario 4 Sensitivity: What if Turangi town centre grows faster? 3.5% annual traffic growth. Year 10 Scenario 4 Without Proposal at Year 10 high traffic growth SH and Turangi: Hourly volumes (Yr0) Te Arahori St 20 264 260 7 297 29 Pihanga Rd 25 260 264 116 380 286 Scenario 4 Without Proposal at Year 10 high traffic growth SH and Turangi: Hourly volumes - Yr 10 Te Arahori St 27 356.4 351 9.45 400.95 39.15 Pihanga Rd 33.75 351 356.4 156.6 513 386.1 Scenario 4 Without Proposal at Year 10 high traffic growth SH and Turangi: Daily volumes (Yr10) Te Arahori St 397 2185 2152 58 2458 576 Pihanga Rd 207 2152 2185 960 3145 2367 Scenario 4 Without Proposal at Year 10 high traffic growth SH and Turangi: Crash Model Crash Type HA HA GC, GD, GE crossing hit Crossing hit minor road Right turning and following vehicles Other major Other minor Total for leg AT AT AT AT AT AT Te Arahori St 0.094221318 0.065711902 0.004140356 0.043025248 0.019132499 0.226231 323 PAGE 27

Pihanga Rd 0.063347406 0.050977996 0.011190416 0.051887651 0.028027329 0.205430 798 Total AT for scenario 0.43166212 HA 0.137129311 DSIs Existing GC GD GE 0.003832693 DSIs other 0.055408363 TOTAL 0.196370367 DSIs one DSI per 5.09 yrs Scenario 4 With Proposal at Year 10 high traffic growth SH and Turangi: Hourly volumes (Yr0) Te Arahori St 29 254 290 41 321 151 Pihanga Rd 34 290 254 86 380 241 Scenario 4 With Proposal at Year 10 high traffic growth SH and Turangi: Hourly volumes - Yr 10 Te Arahori St 39.15 342.9 391.5 55.35 433.35 203.85 Pihanga Rd 45.9 391.5 342.9 116.1 513 325.35 Scenario 4 With Proposal at Year 10 high traffic growth SH and Turangi: Daily volumes - Yr 10 Te Arahori St 576 2102 2400 339 2656 2997 Pihanga Rd 281 2400 2102 712 3145 1994 Scenario 4 With Proposal at Year 10 high traffic growth SH and Turangi: Crash Model PAGE 28

HA HA GC, GD, GE Crash Type crossing hit Crossing hit minor road Right turning and following vehicles Other major Other minor Total for leg AT AT AT AT AT AT Te Arahori St Pihanga Rd 0.115947634 0.079994124 0.007503999 0.045642802 0.02987088 0.079583317 0.056678641 0.011305231 0.051887651 0.026761317 0.278959 439 0.226216 157 Total AT for scenario 0.505175596 HA 0.166101858 DSIs Existing GC GD GE 0.004702307 DSIs other 0.060123434 TOTAL 0.230927599 DSIs one DSI per 4.33 yrs Summary Scenario Te Arahori Street crashes Pihanga Road crashes Total for scenario (injury crashes/yr) A T Equivalent DSIs DSIs per year Existing without Proposal (Year 0) Existing with Proposal (Year 0) 2 High SH traffic growth without Proposal (Year 10) 0.175 0.161 0.34 (consistent with ITA which predicts 0.32) 0.15 DSIs per year. One DSI every 6.6 years 0.217 0.176 0.39 injury crashes/yr 0.18 DSIs per year. One DSI every 5.6 years 0.209 0.193 0.40 injury crashes/yr 0.18 DSIs per year. One DSI every 5.5 years PAGE 29

Scenario Te Arahori Street crashes Pihanga Road crashes Total for scenario (injury crashes/yr) A T Equivalent DSIs DSIs per year 2 High SH traffic growth with Proposal (Year 10) 3 Conservative traffic growth without Proposal (Year 10) 3 Conservative traffic growth with Proposal (Year 10) 4High SH traffic growth and Turangi growth without Proposal (Year 10) 4 High SH traffic growth and Turangi growth with Proposal (Year 10) 0.258 0.211 0.47 injury crashes/yr 0.21 DSIs per year. One DSI every 4.7 years 0.190 0.174 0.36 injury crashes/yr 0.17 DSIs per year. One DSI every 6.1 years 0.235 0.191 0.43 injury crashes/yr 0.19 DSIs per year. One DSI every 5.2 years 0.226 0.205 0.43 injury crashes/yr 0.20 DSIs per year. One DSI every 5.1 years. 0.279 0.226 0.51 injury crashes/yr 0.23 DSIs per year. One DSI every 4.3 years Conversion to DSIs is based on the High Risk Intersections Appendix Table A3-8 Rural priority controlled crossroads based on movement specific (0.5 for H movements and 0.25 for G movements and 0.39 for all/other movements). entranceways RT into site, Te Arahori St left turn out Low volume side road, entranceway, low risk. Proposal includes solid median to enforce LT out only. 3. Conclusion Intersection is performing better than the model prediction (0.117 DSIs compared to predicted 0.15 DSIs). Proposal increases likelihood of a crash, to one DSI every 5.6 years. Current modelled crash likelihood is 1 every 6.6 years. Current actual performance is one DSI every 8.5 years. Proposal likely to mean an increase in injury crashes at the intersection If state highway traffic growth is faster, then increase in right turning and following vehicles is much higher and there is potential for an increase in crashes relating to side roads. PAGE 30

Attachment B: Safety Background B1. Crashes (2011 2015) B2. Collective Risk PAGE 31

B3. Corridors with High Risk Curves B4. Safe and Appropriate Speed (TomTom data suggests average of around 70km/h so 85%ile of 80-90km/h is reasonable) PAGE 32