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

Ruakura Variation

Traffic and Transportation Alasdair Gray

3rd and 4th 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. 3. Ruakura Road stopping under way – submissions received, including

• bjections.

4. Greenhill Link Road connected at Wairere Drive roundabout. 5. Wairere Drive traffic flows are consistent (±20%) with modelling. 6. HCC currently collecting data for Waikato Operational Traffic Model.

1 3 4 5 2 2 2 Major Arterial Minor Arterial

Is land urbanised

(is there a CDP/LDP)?

Is application for urbanisation? Traffic over 1500vpd or Drive-through? Is it in accordance with staging rules for relevant area?

Pre-2021 <80ha 2021 - 41 <115ha

• <20 ha
• <40ha signals
• <80ha signals & Ruakura Rd

realignment

• <180 vph total
• <16 ha N of AgResearch
• <30 ha N of AgResearch

signals

• <15 vph/ha
• Inland Port Stage 1
• <115ha Ruakura

Interchange

• ITA showing performance

as expected

• <1200vph Ruakura Road
• 1400vph Wairere Drive
• <5 ha before spine road and signalised connection
• <1200vph one way on Ruakura Road

<1400vph one way on Wairere Drive <16ha spine road in operation and signalised connection

• <150 dwellings in Northern Medium Density
• >150 dwellings in Northern subject to roundabout connection

to Wairere Drive

• No staging for Southern Medium Density

Yes Yes No

Industrial Park Area Logistics Area Knowledge Area General Residential Area Medium Residential Area

• No staging for General Residential

No No

RD

• Info - ITA
• Notification –

TLAs and NZTA

• Matters of

Discretion - ITA

NC D

Matters of Discretion

• RPS Allocation
• Mitigation for safe and efficient transport
• Timing of Hamilton Section
• HCC, NZTA, WDC, WRC

RD

• Info - ITA
• Notification – RCA’s

unless written approval and in LDP

• Matters of Discretion
• Safe and efficient
• Need for mitigation

Yes

Activity Status Tables

3.7.3.2 3.7.3.2.1 3.7.3.2.1(c) 3.7.3.2.1(e) 3.7.3.2.2 1.2.2.25 N1

Appendix 1.2.2.14.

3.7.3.3.7 and activity status in areas

3.7.3.3.7 Written approval for LDP

N1 3.7.3.3.1 3.7.3.3.3 3.7.3.3.2 3.7.3.3.4 3.7.3.3.5 3.7.3.3.6 Spine Road Construction 3.7.3.3(e) Percival and Ryburn Rds 3.7.3.3(f)

• N-S Connectivity
• No industrial or logistics connection

Yes 3.7.3.3.2 No 10.3, 11.3, etc.

• 3. Transport Controls

Legend Variation Rule references - 3.7.3.2, etc.

NC

Non Complying

D

Discretionary

RD

Restricted Discretionary Additions/key points - Highlighted Red

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
• n 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

• pportunities.

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