In the Matter of: The Resource Management Act 1991 and In the Matter of: Podium Sports Lodge, 18 20 Peake Road Application By: Brian Perry Charitable Trust Statement of Evidence of Judith Makinson TDG Telephone: +64-7-577 0555 E-Mail: Judith.Makinson@tdg.co.nz PO Box 13-268 TAURANGA 3141 14 November 2016
Page 1 Statement of Evidence of Judith Makinson, BEng(Hons), MSc, CPeng, MIPENZ, CEng (UK) MICE Introduction (Heading 1 Alt1) 1. My full name is Judith Victoria Makinson. I am a Senior Associate Transport Engineer at Traffic Design Group Limited ("TDG"). 2. I hold a Bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of Salford (UK) and a Master's degree in transport engineering and planning also from the University of Salford. I am a Chartered Professional Engineer and am a Member of the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand. I am also a Chartered Engineer in the United Kingdom. I have over 17 years' experience working as a transport engineer in both New Zealand and the United Kingdom with Gifford, WSP Group, Arup and TDG. 3. I confirm that I have read and am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the current (2011) Environment Court Practice Note. I agree to comply with this Code of Conduct in giving evidence to this hearing and have done so in preparing this written brief. The evidence I am giving is within my area of expertise, except where I state I am relying on the opinion or evidence of other witnesses. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed. I understand it is my duty to assist the hearing committee impartially on relevant matters within my area of expertise and that I am not an advocate for the party which has engaged me. 4. In this matter I have been asked by Counsel for the Applicant to examine and describe the transportation effects of a proposal to establish a sport-based visitor accommodation facility at 18 to 20 Peake Road, Cambridge. 5. I am familiar with the site and the surrounding road network, which I have visited to observe current traffic patterns. 6. I have supervised the preparation of the Transportation Assessment report dated June 2016 ( TA ) for the application, which included an assessment of the traffic issues associated with the proposed activity. My evidence summarises the primary traffic matters relating to the proposal with a particular focus on: (i) The ability of the local road environment to accommodate the additional traffic safely and efficiently;
Page 2 (ii) (iii) The ability to accommodate the parking demands on site; and Consideration of matters relating to traffic raised by submitters. Site Location and Adjacent Road Environment 7. Figure 1 shows the site is located on the east side of Peake Road approximately 200m north of its intersection with Cambridge Road. It is currently occupied by the Cambridge Country Lodge and Backpackers. This facility offers self-catering units and backpacker-style accommodation. There is also a single dwelling on the south-east corner of the site. Site vehicle crossings 160m Garden Centre Waipa DC online maps Figure 1: Site Location Plan 8. A full description of the existing road environment is given in Section 3.2 of the TA. In summary, Peake Road is classified in the Waipa Proposed District Plan ( the District Plan )
Page 3 as a Collector Road. The District Plan defines Collector Roads as those which distribute traffic from local and collector roads to arterial roads. In the vicinity of the site Peake Road is straight and level, with a single traffic lane in each direction. This is shown in Photographs 1 and 2 below. Photograph 1: Peake Road Looking North
Page 4 Photograph 2: Peake Road Looking South 9. Cambridge Road is classified as a Major Arterial road and is also identified in the Regional Policy Statement as a Significant Road Corridor. In the vicinity of Peake Road it is a twoway, two-lane highway with a posted speed limit of 80km/h. There is a passing lane for westbound traffic on the straight section of road immediately west of Cambridge, however this merges to a single lane some 500m east of the Peake Road intersection. Existing Traffic Conditions 10. A turning movement survey was undertaken at the Peake Road / Cambridge Road intersection in January 2016 after the opening of the Cambridge section of the Waikato Expressway ( the Expressway ). This covered the evening peak period of 4pm to 6pm, which had been identified in earlier surveys as the busiest part of the day. The recorded peak-hour traffic volumes are summarised in Figure 2.
Page 5 Peake Road Key: 996 Total Vehicles 6 Heavy Vehicles 9 32 990 Light Vehicles 0 2 9 30 10 0 10 45 2 47 998 525 4 521 369 6 375 Cambridge Road (West) Cambridge Road (East) January 2016, post Expressway Figure 2: Post-Expressway PM Peak Hour Turn Counts 11. The survey data indicates very low traffic volumes on Peake Road, with 41 vehicles exiting and 57 vehicles entering during the peak hour. These traffic demands are of a similar order to those observed prior to opening of the Expressway. 12. Through-traffic volumes on Cambridge Road were 535 vehicles eastbound and 422 vehicles westbound during the peak hour. These have reduced from some 957 vehicles eastbound and 729 vehicles westbound following opening of the Expressway. 13. I have also undertaken a search of the recorded crash data in the vicinity of the site. In the five-year period 2011 to 2016 inclusive, six crashes were recorded near the site. 14. Four non-injury crashes and one minor-injury crashes have occurred on Cambridge Road due to driver diversion (e.g. sunstrike, sneezing or phone use). Three of these crashes were as a result of loss of control and one was associated with not giving way at Peake Road when pulling out onto Cambridge Road. The injury crash resulted in a head-on collision due to sunstrike. 15. One non-injury crash occurred when a driver lost control of their vehicle when changing lanes on Cambridge Road 16. No crashes were recorded on the mid-block section of Peake Road. 17. It is my opinion that the main contributing factor in the crashes is driver distraction and that there is no physical factor of the road alignment contributing to these.
Page 6 Proposed Activity 18. The proposal is for the expansion of the existing visitor accommodation activity to accommodate a maximum of 86 guests. The development will have 30 units and two dorm rooms. As the majority of data relating to this activity type is framed in terms of the number of units, I have assessed each of the dorms as being equivalent to two units, and therefore have used a total of 34 units for my assessments. 19. The target market for guests at the development is athletes at all levels, from professional teams to school teams, as well as individuals and small groups. Many of these guests are expected to travel to and from the site in team coaches or mini-buses. 20. By contrast, while a traditional visitor accommodation facility might expect occasional groups, its clientele would largely be individuals and couples, travelling independently. 21. The effects of these differences are explained further in my assessments of parking demand and traffic generation. Traffic Generation and Effects Proposed Sports Lodge 22. I have used trip generation data from the New Zealand Transport Agency s Trips and Parking Related to Land Use (November 2011) ( RR453 ), and specifically the motel activity type, to assess the potential trip generation for the proposal. For motels, RR453 notes an 85 th percentile trip generation rate of 1.4 vehicle movements per hour for each occupied unit. For daily traffic, it advises an 85 th percentile trip rate of 3.0 vehicle movements per hour per occupied unit 23. On the basis of the proposed 34 units, this equates to 48 vehicle movements per hour during peak periods and 102 vehicle movements per day. This is the maximum anticipated effect that would be likely to occur based on a normal motel operational model. 24. Noting the anticipated custom of large groups, and the expected use of coaches instead of independent travel, I have allowed for half of the maximum 86 guests to travel by coach. This means that traffic associated with 17 units will be assessed using the RRR453 trip generation rates, with the effects of the remaining 17 units being assessed based on typical occupancy of minibuses or coaches. Given mini-buses carry around 10 to 16 people and
Page 7 coaches can carry up to around 40, the typical daily and peak hour trip generation when the lodge is full is expected be as set out in Table 1. Time Period Light Vehicle Movements Bus/Coach Movements Daily 51 2-4 coaches or 6-8 mini buses Peak Hour 24 3 Table 1: Expected Peak Hour and Daily Trip Generation 25. I have assessed the effect of the proposed development as being between 51 light vehicle plus 8 mini-bus movements per day and 102 light vehicle movements per day. Permitted Baseline Activities 26. I understand that the site has consent to operate visitor accommodation for up to 25 people housed within 10 units. In traffic generation terms, the difference in effect between the consented and proposed visitor accommodation therefore relates to the increase in accommodation only. I have assessed the traffic generation arising from the consented accommodation activity using the RR453 trip rates referenced in paragraph 22. This would equate to a peak hour demand of 14 vehicle movements and a daily demand of 30 vehicle movements. Comparing this to the proposed use shows an increase of between 29 and 72 vehicle movements per day. 27. As an alternative, I have also considered a non-fanciful permitted farming activity on site. I have recently assessed the traffic effects associated with a honey-processing plant elsewhere in the country. Based on this experience, the traffic generation which would be likely to arise from a honey processing plant would be some 20 to 60 light vehicle movements a day, depending on the time of year. I would also expect a semi-trailer of B- train heavy commercial vehicle to visit site every 15 to 20 days to collect processed honey for sale. 28. Daily traffic generation for the proposed sports lodge would be the same as the peak season operation of the honey plant and around 39 vehicle movements per day greater than the off peak operations of this type of facility. I have also considered the effects of a normal accommodation facility in the context of a honey processing plant and this shows a 42 to 82 vehicle movement per day increase.
Page 8 Intersection Operation 29. On the basis of the surveyed turning movements at the Peake Road / Cambridge Road intersection, and the trip generation described above, I have modelled the performance of the intersection. The current and expected Level of Service and Delay data is set out in Table 2. This analysis assumes that the full effect of the proposed activity is considered based on RR453 trip generation rates. Approach Movement Average Delay (seconds) Level of Service Current Expected Current Expected Peake Road Left 13.3 13.5 B B Right 26.3 29.3 D D Cambridge Road (East) Right 10.1 10.3 B B Through 2.1 2.1 A A Cambridge Road (West) Left 6.9 7.1 A A Through 2.1 2.1 A A Table 2: Intersection Performance 30. My analysis shows that the performance of the intersection is generally not expected to be noticeably affected by the additional traffic from the activity. The only notable change is an increase in delay of approximately three seconds for vehicles turning right out of Peake Road. This is during the busiest hours of the day, and the increase would be smaller at other times. 31. I therefore conclude that the effect of the additional traffic generated by the proposed development is less than minor. Parking Demand and Supply 32. Appendix T1 of the District Plan identifies a number of activity types and sets out the parking and loading requirements for each. I have identified two activity types in the list as being potentially applicable to the proposed development, and I have used these as the basis of my assessment. 33. The first activity group, Motels, lodges, camping grounds and caravan parks, is required to provide one space for each accommodation unit or tent / caravan site, plus one space for every two employees, and one space for a 90 th percentile car for loading purposes. Two
Page 9 permanent staff are expected for the proposed activity. Other services are also expected, such as laundry and grounds maintenance and so I have assessed two additional staff to cover these externally-contracted activities, for the purposes of the parking assessment. 34. On this basis the proposed lodge would require 34 guest spaces, plus two spaces for staff, and one space for loading. This gives a total requirement for 37 spaces, including a loading space. 35. The second activity type, Visitor Accommodation, is required to provide one space per three persons designed to be accommodated, plus one space per two staff members. No loading space is required for this activity. 36. Under an assessment as visitor accommodation, the lodge would therefore require 29 spaces for guests and 2 spaces for staff, a total of 31 spaces. 37. I have therefore assessed that the District Plan requires the proposed activity to provide 31 to 37 spaces, depending on the method of assessment. 38. The proposed layout includes 37 standard parking spaces, including two garage spaces attached to the manager s residence. In addition there will be two coach parking spaces. I note that each coach space could alternatively accommodate two cars, increasing the total capacity to 41 spaces if no coaches are present. 39. I therefore assess that the proposed parking demand complies with the requirements of the District Plan. Submissions 40. I have read the submissions received and consider that the principal traffic-related matters can be grouped as follows: (i) (ii) (iii) Concern regarding potentially high traffic volumes; Provision of adequate parking on-site and the potential for parking to spill onto Peake Road; and The safety of cyclist and pedestrian movements associated with the site Traffic Volume Effects
Page 10 41. The key concern regarding traffic matters involves the proposed target market being sports teams and other groups. As I have indicated in my earlier assessments, this scenario would reduce the amount of light vehicle traffic associated with the activity, and instead include a small number of bus or coach movements. 42. Submitters have noted that there is no guarantee that this will in fact be the case, and that the facility may well operate as a standard accommodation facility, with guests travelling by independent means. 43. To address this I have considered the traffic effects which could be expected for a standard accommodation facility of comparable scale as described in paragraphs 22 to 32 of my evidence. 44. I conclude that if the proposed development does operate as a standard facility, as suggested by submitters, there will be no appreciable adverse network capacity effects. Parking Adequacy 45. I have described my assessment of the expected parking demand for a standard facility of this scale in paragraphs 32 to 39 of my evidence. This concludes that the District Plan requirements have been met. 46. I have also assessed potential demand based on RR453 parking demand rates of 1.4 spaces per unit. This suggests that up to 48 spaces may be required when the accommodation is fully occupied. This assumes that all parties travel by car. This includes staff parking, but would not be expected to include spaces for coaches or buses. 47. In this scenario I would expect the full 48 spaces to be required only at the busiest times of the year, and only when the lodge is full. When the lodge is partially full, and outside of the peak season, the proposed 37 spaces would be more than adequate to accommodate the expected demand. 48. Given the assessed and expected lower parking demand as I have already described, I remain of the opinion that in the first instance, the parking proposed will be adequate to accommodate the expected parking demand. 49. Should any overflow occur, I remain of the opinion that it can be provided on-site.
Page 11 50. Submitters have noted that the ground conditions of the site mean that overflow parking on unsealed areas within the site is impractical, and that this will result in parking off-site. 51. I consider that if deemed necessary, overflow parking could be added through the use of a permeable paved surface, such as grass-crete blocks or other suitable ground reinforcing geotextile. This approach would allow for overflow parking on site without the need for unnecessary increases in impermeable surface area. 52. I recommend that a condition be attached to any consent granted, whereby additional parking must be provided on-site if any off-site parking is observed. This may include periodic monitoring of parking demands. 53. With the inclusion of an appropriate condition regarding parking monitoring, I conclude that the parking demand for the proposed activity can be appropriately managed entirely on-site. Pedestrian and Cycle Traffic 54. I note that one of the submissions raises concerns regarding the potential for large numbers of guests to use the surrounding road network for training purposes, including both runners and cyclists. 55. The main concern appears to be the lack of infrastructure to support these activities. 56. I note that Waipa District Council has recently upgraded Peake Road to include sealed shoulders, and carries relatively low traffic volumes and are generally suitable for on-road cycling or walking using these shoulders. 57. A further element of the submissions notes that guests may opt to walk into Cambridge, and raises concerns about the lack of footpath along Cambridge Road. I note that it is approximately 3.2 km to the edge of the town centre. I consider it likely that people will either use their own car to travel to the town centre, or for those travelling in larger groups, either take a taxi or use the Te Awa pathway which can be accessed from the Avantidrome. 58. It is my assessment that if guests do wish to make use of the local network, for example going on a training ride, they will be capable of making their own judgement of the risks involved, and will act accordingly.
Page 12 Council Planner s Report 59. I have read the Council Planner s Report and agree with the conclusion that the transportation effects of the proposed development are no more than minor. Conclusion 60. Based on my assessments, I have concluded that the traffic generation expected from the proposed activity, whether it operates in the manner intended, or as a more typical facility, can be accommodated safely and efficiently on the surrounding road network with less than minor effects. 61. I have concluded that the proposed on-site parking facilities meet the requirements of the District Plan, and are capable of accommodating the expected parking demand. I note that under Section 128 of the RMA Council would have the power to review consent conditions at a future date. I have recommended that a condition be imposed which would require the Applicant to construct further on-site parking, if Council identifies that any off-site parking associated with the activity is occurring. 62. It is my assessment that the proposed visitor accommodation can be accommodated within the site with a less than minor effect on the safety and efficiency of the adjacent road network. Judith Makinson Traffic Design Group Ltd 14 November 2016