Ruakura Variation Traffic and Transportation Alasdair Gray 3 rd and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ruakura Variation Traffic and Transportation Alasdair Gray 3 rd and 4 th August 2016

Introduction • Ruakura Variation is consistent with the Ruakura Plan Change. • Network context and modelling assumptions remain valid. • ITAs, Development Agreements and controls will continue to be important to assess and manage traffic effects. • Management of effects relies on coordination of infrastructure funding and construction. • Objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria are sufficient to manage adverse effects from transport.

Transport Context 1. Waikato Expressway funding committed and construction started. 2. Interchange at Ruakura, not east of Fifth Avenue. 2 4 3. Ruakura Road stopping under way – submissions received, including 2 objections. 1 5 4. Greenhill Link Road connected at Wairere Drive roundabout. 2 5. Wairere Drive traffic flows are Minor Arterial 3 consistent (±20%) with modelling. 6. HCC currently collecting data for Major Arterial Waikato Operational Traffic Model.

3. Transport Controls Percival and Ryburn Rds 3.7.3.3(f) Spine Road • N-S Connectivity Construction • No industrial or logistics connection 3.7.3.3(e) Pre-2021 <80ha 3.7.3.3.1 2021 - 41 <115ha 3.7.3.3.2 3.7.3.2 • <20 ha • <115ha Ruakura Is land • <40ha signals 3.7.3.2.1(c) No Interchange NC urbanised Logistics • <80ha signals & Ruakura Rd • ITA showing performance realignment Area (is there a as expected • <180 vph total CDP/LDP)? • <1200vph Ruakura Road 3.7.3.3.2 • 1400vph Wairere Drive 3.7.3.3.7 and activity Yes • <16 ha N of AgResearch Is it in status in areas • <30 ha N of AgResearch Industrial accordance signals Is application Traffic over No No Park Area with staging • <15 vph/ha for 1500vpd or • Inland Port Stage 1 rules for urbanisation? Drive-through? relevant 3.7.3.3.3 area? • <5 ha before spine road and signalised connection 3.7.3.2.1 Yes Knowledge Yes • <1200vph one way on Ruakura Road Area <1400vph one way on Wairere Drive RD <16ha spine road in operation and signalised connection RD 3.7.3.3.4 Info - ITA Info - ITA • • • <150 dwellings in Northern Medium Density Medium 1.2.2.25 Appendix 1.2.2.14. • >150 dwellings in Northern subject to roundabout connection 3.7.3.2.1(e) Residential Notification – RCA’s • to Wairere Drive Notification – Area unless written • • No staging for Southern Medium Density TLAs and NZTA approval and in LDP 3.7.3.3.5 3.7.3.3.7 Written 3.7.3.2.2 General approval for LDP Matters of • Residential • No staging for General Residential Discretion - ITA Matters of Discretion • Area • Safe and efficient N1 • Need for mitigation N1 No Legend Yes 10.3, 11.3, etc. D Variation Rule references - 3.7.3.2, etc. 3.7.3.3.6 NC Non Complying Activity Matters of Discretion D • RPS Allocation Discretionary Status • Mitigation for safe and efficient transport RD Restricted Discretionary Tables • Timing of Hamilton Section Additions/key points - Highlighted Red • HCC, NZTA, WDC, WRC

Key issues for Submitters 1. The role of traffic in generating adverse cumulative effects 2. Request for a full traffic assessment of the structure plan 3. Traffic impact of additional 1600 dwellings within Medium Density 4. Location of Spine Road (realign further from Fairview Downs)

Key issues for Submitters 5. Spine Road hierarchy 6. Spine Road triggers within 3.7.3.3d) – linked to LDPs 7. Ryburn and Percival Road transition arrangements 8. Ruakura Retail Centre – location and access arrangements. 9. Industrial Lot Sizes - Table 23.7.1

Key Issue 1 – The role of traffic in generating adverse cumulative effects • Staging and triggers should mismatch in demand and infrastructure’s ability to accommodate it. Response • Effects managed Recommendation: No change

Key Issue 2 – Request for a full traffic assessment of the structure plan • BOI modelling remains valid. • Significant development will require integrated transport assessments at development time. Response • Not required Recommendation: No change

Key Issue 3 – Traffic impact of additional 1600 dwellings within Medium Density • ITAs for Land Development Plans will assess impacts, level of service and mitigation. Response • Adequate capacity – low risk Recommendation: No change

Key Issue 4 – Location of Spine Road (realign further from Fairview Downs) • No change from the BOI route. • There is little scope for a shift to the west. • Significant shift east would compromise function. Response • No change Recommendation: No change

Key Issue 5 – Spine Road hierarchy • ‘Minor arterial’ appropriate north of Fifth Avenue • ‘Major arterial’ appropriate to link HCC strategic to national. Response • Retain hierarchy Recommendation: No change

Key Issue 6 – Spine Road triggers within 3.7.3.3d) – linked • Spine Road fundamental to mitigation of effects and to allow full development of the area. Response • Support strong controls Recommendation: No change

Key Issue 7 – Ryburn and Percival Road transition arrangements • Ruakura Logistics and Industrial traffic should not be accepted on Ryburn and Percival Roads. • Rural heavy traffic still needs access. Response • Restrict industrial and logistics traffic Recommendation: No change

Key Issue 8 – Ruakura Retail Centre – location and access arrangements • There has not been sufficient consideration of traffic effects from any changes in connectivity to support changes. Response • Reject Recommendation: No change

Technical Evidence Rebuttal suggestions (Apeldoorn) accepted: • Deletion of 3.7.3.3.4.a) - connection to roundabout is in place – redundant • Increase to medium density north east of Spine/Greenhill Link – little traffic effect • Description of Spine Road – delete “form and” and “through intersection access” (agreed in part)

Technical Evidence Rebuttal suggestions (Apeldoorn) opposed: • Spine Road Construction 3.7.3.3.e) Progressive construction of the spine road reduces uncertainty (access, layouts or funding) adversely affecting development opportunities. 1200vpd/1400vpd and 5ha controls (3.7.3.3.2, 3.7.3.3.3) do not trigger Spine Road, they limit development. LDPs can still seek departures from rules.

Technical Evidence Rebuttal suggestions opposed (Apeldoorn and Hall): Indicative Location for Ruakura Retail • Uncertainty makes it more difficult to assess effects. LDP’s can still seek alternative extents and connectivity but at least baseline is a clear starting point. Minimum lot sizes for industrial subdivision (Table 23.7.1) • Support larger lot sizes as consistent with the inland port and logistics activities. Increases likelihood of related activities locating in close proximity reducing travel.

Section 32 Updates • No significant changes from notified position. – The objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria can manage adverse effects from transport. – Management of effects relies on coordination of infrastructure funding and construction.

Conclusions The objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria can manage adverse • effects from transport. Management of effects relies on coordination of infrastructure funding • and construction. – Inland Port is key differentiator – rules should support complementary activities. – Spine Road is important. • Thresholds limit development without Spine Road. • Minimise uncertainty in implementing the Spine Road. • Progressive construction is desirable. • Effective Private Development Agreements are critical.

Conclusion of Presentation