pc67 evidence ian clark 121119 - ccc

IN THE MATTER OF The Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A private plan change request by Highfield Park Ltd to rezone

approximately 260ha of land adjoining Redwood from Rural 3

(Styx-Marchland) to Living G (Highfield)

BETWEEN Highfield Park Ltd (Requestor)

AND Christchurch City Council (Local Authority)

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF IAN DAVID CLARK

19 November 2012

INTRODUCTION

1 My full name is Ian David Clark and I live in Auckland. I am a Director of Flow Transportation

Specialists Limited, which was established in February 2005. Prior to this I was the Manager

of the Transportation Planning Section at the Auckland office of Opus International

Consultants Ltd. I was employed by Opus for eight years.

2 I hold a Bachelor of Arts in Geography from the University of Wales and a Master of Science

in Transportation from the University of London. I am a member of the Chartered Institute

of Logistics and Transport, the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and

the Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management. I am also an affiliate member

of the Institution of Professional Engineers of New Zealand Transportation Group, a board

member of the Trips Database Bureau and chairman of the New Zealand Modelling User

Group.

3 My work experience includes 25 years in transport planning, working in both New Zealand

and the U.K. My experience in New Zealand includes responsibility for the transportation

planning, traffic modelling and economic evaluation of numerous major schemes, including

the Manukau Harbour Crossing, the Eastern Transport Corridor, the Upper Harbour

Motorway, the SH1 Esmonde Interchange, the SH1 to Waiouru Peninsula connection, and

elements of the North Shore Busway, all in Auckland.

4 My local experience of relevance to this case includes the following:

4.1 I was responsible for the transport planning of the Christchurch Southern Motorway

extension at the Scheme Assessment stage;

4.2 I presented evidence for Transit New Zealand, Environment Canterbury and

Christchurch City Council, and subsequently for the New Zealand Transport Agency

(NZTA) at the Environment Court hearings relating to the proposed S293

development at Belfast;

4.3 I presented evidence for the NZTA at the council hearings relating to Plan Change 22,

the proposed Styx Centre, and Plan Change 30, the Prestons Road development;

4.4 I also assisted the NZTA in assessing the effects of other proposed developments

within the Christchurch area and I provided advice to NZTA on the transport

provisions of Plan Change 1;

4.5 I am currently involved in assisting the NZTA with certain elements of the Roads of

National Significance in Christchurch;

4.6 During 2012 I have been responsible for peer reviews of the Christchurch City

Council’s draft Central City Recovery Plan (December 2011) and the Canterbury

Earthquake Recovery Authority’s draft Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, Accessible

City chapter (November 2012).

5 Over the last few years I have undertaken reviews of a wide variety of regional and sub

regional traffic and transport models, including the Waikato Regional Transport Model, the

Western Bay of Plenty (Tauranga) Traffic Model, the Wellington Traffic Model, a traffic

model of South Auckland and other large area models, and also a wide variety of small area

and more detailed traffic models.

6 I have also undertaken many peer reviews and have presented evidence at several council

and Environment Court hearings, either relating to major transportation proposals or

proposed developments.

7 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses and I agree to comply with its

provisions. My qualifications as an expert are set out above. I confirm that the issues

addressed in this statement of evidence are within my area of expertise.

8 I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from

the opinions I have expressed.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

9 My evidence will deal with the following:

9.1 The strategic transport network in the vicinity of the site;

9.2 The role of the strategic network and the state highways;

9.3 The status of the Roads of National Significance;

9.4 The traffic effects of the development.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

10 The NZTA’s main concerns with privately requested Plan Change 67 (PC67) relate to the

effects on the State Highways of Main North Road and Queen Elizabeth II Drive (both State

Highway 74), particularly prior to the completion of the proposed Northern Arterial.

11 I conclude that PC67 should be approved, subject to the level of development prior to the

completion of the Northern Arterial being capped.

OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT POLICIE S

12 An overview of national and regional transport planning policies, as set out in the New

Zealand Transport Strategy (NZTS)1, the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport

Funding (GPS)2, the Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS)

3 and the National

State Highway Strategy, is provided at Appendix A. The key issues of relevance to my

evidence are as follows:

12.1 The government’s emphasis on investment in transport that supports efficient

movement of freight and people, with a focus on the State Highway network;

12.2 The need for greater emphasis on land use and transport integration.

THE CHRISTCHURCH STRATEGIC ROADING NETWORK

The Road Hierarchy

13 The road network around Christchurch is subject to a hierarchical classification system.

Further details on the principles and purpose of road hierarchies, and the definitions in the

Christchurch City Plan and the Regional Land Transport Strategy, are provided at Appendix

B.

The Strategic Road Network

14 The strategic road network for the Christchurch area is shown in Figure 1.

1 New Zealand Government (2008), “New Zealand Transport Strategy 2 New Zealand Government (2011), “Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding 2012/13 – 2021/22” 3 Environment Canterbury (2012), “Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy 2012-2042”

Figure 1: Strategic Transport Network (Source: Canterbury Regional Land Transport

Strategy (RLTS), 2012-2042, page 21).

15 It is noted that Main North Road and Queen Elizabeth II Drive (QEII Drive) are both classified

as forming part of the Strategic Road Network. The functions of these roads are as follows:

15.1 Main North Road (State Highway 74) runs from north to south, from Johns Road

toward the Central Business District. North from Johns Road it is classified as State

Highway 1, serving both north-south traffic and north to west traffic (ie traffic

heading around Christchurch);

15.2 The function of Main North Road for through traffic will diminish following the

completion of the Northern Arterial (see paragraph 23 below);

15.3 QEII Drive (also State Highway 74) runs east to west, between Main North Road and

the eastern suburbs. It is an important route for freight traffic heading to and from

Lyttelton Port;

15.4 Marshland Road and QEII Drive (east of Marshland Road) are identified in the RLTS as

forming part of the Strategic Freight Network. This function of Marshland Road can

be expected to be taken up by the Northern Arterial, although QEII Drive will retain

this function, indeed it will extend west as far as the Northern Arterial.

16 The NZTA has recently upgraded the QEII Drive/Burwood Road and QEII/Marshland Road

intersections, to signalised control. It is important to the NZTA, the Christchurch City

network and indeed to the Port, that the benefit of this investment endures into the future.

The Roads of National Significance

17 The 2009 Government Policy Statement set out the government’s emphasis on the “Roads

of National Significance” (RoNS), including the Christchurch motorway projects. The GPS

states:

“These are seven of New Zealand’s most essential routes that require significant

development to reduce congestion, improve safety and support economic growth”4.

18 The Christchurch Motorway RoNS are grouped into three corridors, comprising eight

projects, as shown in Figure 2. The Christchurch Northern Corridor is one of the three

corridors. This includes the Northern Arterial and QEII Drive four laning (both NZTA

projects), and associated Christchurch City Council (CCC) network upgrades, including the

Northern Arterial Extension. Cumulatively, these projects will improve access to the Port

and the CBD.

19 It is perhaps worth noting that the linking of these projects to the NZTA RoNS indicates that

the projects currently have high priority. However, there is no guaranteed construction

funding at this stage. Further details on the progress of the Northern Arterial are set out in

the evidence of Ms Minogue.

4 Government Policy Statement on Transport (2009), paragraph 22

Figure 2: The Christchurch Motorway RoNS 5

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

20 The predicted traffic effects of the proposed development have been subject to three

assessments:

20.1 The original Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) prepared by Abley Transportation

Consultants (Ableys) on behalf of the Applicant, was undertaken on the basis of the

pre earthquake traffic forecasts;

20.2 The above assessment is now unfortunately out of date, and the work undertaken by

CCC now provides a post earthquake set of traffic demands. Mr Falconer’s evidence

offers a more up to date assessment of the likely effects of the development, using

the Christchurch Transport Model (CTM);

20.3 I understand that Mr Falconer will be submitting supplementary evidence, providing

results from the more detailed Christchurch Assignment and Simulation Traffic (CAST)

model.

21 The main issue for the NZTA relates to the likely effects of the development on the State

Highway network. The development will lead to some internal trips, but the Marshland

area sits in what can be termed an island, in transport terms, and the vast majority of

external trips will need to join, leave or cross the State Highway to reach the rest of

5 NZTA Project Update: Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 2, Issue 1 May 2010

Christchurch. Movements to/from the south will need to join or cross QEII Drive, while

movements to/from the west will need to join or cross Main North Road.

22 Given that this site is anticipated to accommodate around 2,200 households, plus two

supporting Business 1 zones, the proposal could have significant adverse traffic effects on

the existing strategic network if the development is not sustainably managed.

23 The proposed Northern Arterial will provide a new route for strategic north-south through

traffic. As noted above, this will change the function of Main North Road significantly, with

the reduction in strategic traffic. This will allow the route to serve its other functions,

namely to accommodate public transport running north-south, along with local traffic

turning on and off the route. Therefore the NZTA’s main concern is the extent of

development that occurs prior to the completion of the Northern Arterial.

24 The following intersections are of particular interest to the NZTA:

� Main North Road/Prestons Road;

� Main North Road/Northcote Road;

� QEII Drive/Marshland Road;

� QEII Drive/Hills Road;

� Any new connection to QEII Drive.

Main North Road/Prestons Road

25 Both the ITA and the CTM predict that a significant proportion of development trips will use

this intersection to access Main North Road. Some traffic will be heading north, but the

majority will be heading south (or south then west). Traffic turning left from Prestons Road

onto Main North Road may have limited effect on the operation of this intersection, but

traffic turning right into Prestons Road is more likely to adversely affect the operation of the

State Highway, since:

25.1 Traffic turning right into Prestons Road will be in conflict with southbound through

traffic on Main North Road;

25.2 The right turn bay is quite short, at around 40 m, meaning that an increase in right

turning traffic to Prestons Road may affect northbound through traffic.

26 The applicants have identified that there are existing delays at the Main North

Road/Prestons Road intersection and have proposed the removal of the existing on street

parking located on Prestons Road, on the southern side, and an extension to the right turn

bay for northbound traffic turning into Prestons Road.

Main North Road/Northcote Road

27 Any traffic heading to/from the south at the Main North Road/Prestons Road intersection

will pass through the Main North Road/Northcote Road/QE II Drive intersection.

28 I note that the existing operation of this intersection, post earthquake, is summarised in the

evidence of Mr Falconer, as follows:

“During the morning peak, high delays were observed for vehicles travelling along Main

North Road due to bottleneck delay at the Main North/Northcote/QEII intersection. Queues

frequently block back past Prestons Rd (and occasionally over the Styx overbridge, 1.6km

upstream)6.”

29 I accept the above assessment and it matches my own observations. It indicates that this

intersection is already operating at or over capacity and it will be operating over capacity in

the future, without the proposed plan change. The private plan change proposes no

mitigation works at this location, on the basis that the Northern Arterial will resolve this

bottleneck in due course.

30 This operation of the Main North Road/Northcote Road/QEII Drive intersection will

adversely affect the operation of the Main North Road/Prestons Road intersection. While

the latter may generally operate satisfactorily with the mitigation proposed, when viewed in

isolation7, in reality, traffic will struggle to turn in and out from Prestons Road, as a result of

the queues emanating from the south.

6 Evidence of Mr Falconer, paragraph 3.2.4. 7 Although paragraphs 61-62 below refer to the possibility of right turn queues exceeding the length of the right turn

bay

QEII Drive/Marshland Road

31 As noted above (paragraph 16), this intersection has recently been upgraded, from a

roundabout to a fairly substantial signalised intersection. The CTM indicates that this will

operate at level of service F with full development of both the Prestons Road and Highfield

developments, prior to the completion of the Northern Arterial, in both the weekday

morning and evening commuter peak periods. However, this situation is predicted to

improve to level of service D following the completion of the Northern Arterial.

Connections to QEII Drive

32 Paragraph 50 of Mr Durdin’s evidence notes that the concept of a new direct connection

from the Highfield site onto QEII Drive has been consistently opposed by the NZTA. The

Applicant’s current position is that they are prepared to accept a rule linking this connection

to the development of the deferred area, allowing this issue to be considered in detail at a

later date.

33 I return to assess the operation of each of the above intersections, with the new provisions

now proposed by the Applicant, and the staging proposed by the Council, at paragraphs 64-

69 below.

STAGING

34 As a result of the assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development, the

NZTA wishes to see greater staging rules which would link the amount of development

which can occur to the transport improvements required, referring particularly to the

Northern Arterial, the Northern Arterial Extension and the four laning of QEII Drive. This is

consistent with the outcomes approved for PC22 and PC30, as follows:

34.1 With the Prestons Road development (PC30), no more than 1,700 households and

7,200m2 of commercial development are to be provided prior to the completion of

the Northern Arterial. This equates with just over 60% of the full development

permitted under the Operative Plan Change8;

8 Paragraph 42 below refers to the change in ultimate development proposed at this site, and therefore the change in the

percentage permitted prior to the completion of the Northern Arterial

34.2 With the Styx Centre (PC22), caps were identified in terms of the total numbers of

trips exiting the site during critical time periods (the Thursday evening peak and the

Saturday peak hour), until the Northern Arterial is constructed. Clearly this rule does

not relate to a precise quantum of development.

35 The reason for staging of PC30 is expressed in the Operative Plan Change as follows:

“As part of the recovery process from the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake, urban

development is anticipated in the North-eastern portion of the City. Without the

construction of the Northern Arterial, this planned growth may adversely affect the safe,

effective and efficient functioning of road network, with levels of service being eroded and

significant delays experienced. To avoid the potential for such adverse effects and to ensure

such growth occurs at a rate that can be accommodated by the future road network,

development in the Living G (Prestons) zone is to be staged in conjunction with specific

roading upgrades. This enables an appropriate level of urban development to occur, having

acceptable levels of effects on the safe, effective and efficient functioning of the road

network until such time as the Northern Arterial is in the process of being constructed”9.

36 In terms of PC22, the Environment Court decision noted that:

“Both traffic engineers accept that until the Northern Arterial is in place, significant

restrictions on the ability of the site of the proposed plan change to generate traffic are

necessary”10

.

37 I have been involved with several of the plan changes that have come forward in Northern

Christchurch, and can explain to the commissioners in detail, if necessary, why the NZTA has

pursued staging limits more rigorously at some locations than at others. Put simply, the

NZTA has been more concerned over those sites with direct access to the state highways, or

those “island sites” which require the vast majority of trips to join, leave or cross the state

highways, at critical locations (ie where they are operating at capacity)11

.

9 Christchurch City Plan, Operative Plan Change 30, page 4 10 Environment Court Decision 2012 NZEnvC92, paragraph 301 11 For completeness, I note that NZTA also sought staging of the S293 development at Belfast.

EVIDENCE OF MR FALCONER

38 At paragraphs 5.1.9 and 7.1.4 ii, Mr Falconer proposes that the development should be

staged, with limitations to be imposed prior to the completion of the Northern Arterial. He

does not propose a ceiling amount, but he recommends that the rule should be similar to

that adopted for PC30 Living G (Prestons)12

. This recommendation is accepted in the

Officers Report.

39 The NZTA sought staging rules relating to the Northern Arterial, and I support the concept.

However, I note that the justification of the 1,680 residential units13

(approximately 80% of

the ultimate figure) now proposed appears to be based primarily on the question of equity.

I note that Mr Durdin comments on the vague definition of equity14

, but from the evidence

of Mr Falconer it is apparent that it refers to equity relative to Plan Change 3015

.

40 I do not consider that the question of equity should be the over-riding consideration. The

reason for the staging of Plan Change 30 was set out in paragraph 35 above, and it is clear

that it was to avoid the potential for adverse traffic effects, and to ensure that growth

occurs at a rate that can be accommodated by the future road network.

41 In other words, I consider that the question of equity should be secondary to the objective

to avoid or mitigate adverse traffic effects.

42 The matter is complicated, since I understand that the proponents of PC30 have now

indicated that the full development is likely to be around 2,250 households, not 2,700

households. The amount of development tied to the provision of the Northern Arterial has

not changed, at 1,700 households, meaning that the percentage of residential development

permitted is either 63% (of the original figure) or 76% (of the revised figure).

12 Evidence of Mr Falconer, paragraph 7.1.4 ii 13 Proposed rule 12.4.10 c 14 Evidence of Mr Durdin, paragraph 131 15 Evidence of Mr Falconer, paragraph 7.1.4.ii

43 At paragraph 3.3.3, Mr Falconer notes that the CTM tests have assumed a constant total

number of households in Northern Christchurch. That is to say, the extra households at

Highfield have been assumed to be drawn from elsewhere within Northern Christchurch. At

paragraph 3.11.3 he continues, to state that it is this assumption that means that the

inclusion of PC67 does not appear any worse than the base case without the Northern

Arterial.

44 I understand and at a strategic level I accept the logic that the provision of additional

residential capacity in Northern Christchurch does not necessarily mean a significant

increase in population within this sector, for a situation where there appears to be surplus

capacity. However, this does not necessarily mean that there will be no additional adverse

effects, for the following reasons:

44.1 Any significant new development site is likely to create local bottlenecks, with

additional turning traffic at certain intersections. In some locations this may not be

critical, but with PC67 there is concern about the effects of additional turning traffic,

for example at the Main North Road/Prestons Road intersection;

44.2 While any development in Northern Christchurch will lead to some increase in traffic

passing across Main North Road or QEII Drive, a development of 1,680 residential

units further north is likely to have less impact in this location than 1,680 units at

Highfield. For example, while the proportion of commuter traffic heading south of

QEII Drive may be similar for PC67 as for another site in Northern Christchurch, the

same cannot be said for other trip purposes (such as retail, residential, recreational or

“serve passenger16

” trips), as these are likely to include a reasonable percentage of

fairly short or local trips. As noted at paragraph 21 above, the vast majority of trips

associated with PC67 will need to cross the state highways, at sensitive locations,

while this may not necessarily be the case with development of sites elsewhere;

44.3 As such, the effect on the critical intersection of Main North Road/QEII Drive, where

no mitigation is proposed, may not be the same with PC67 as for other developments

of a similar size in Northern Christchurch.

45 As a result, while I support the overall thrust of Mr Falconer’s assessment, I do not agree

with the subsequent interpretation of Mr Durdin (see paragraphs 59-61 below) on the

resulting need for staging.

16 A “serve passenger” trip is where the main purpose of the trip is to drop off or pick up someone

46 I also note that Mr Falconer’s evidence summarises the predicted operation of various

intersections on the basis of levels of service, using the standard definitions of levels A to F,

based on delay. The commissioners need to be aware of two important points regarding

this form of reporting:

46.1 Level of service F for signalised intersections relates to delay of above 80 seconds.

According to the standard definitions, there is no worse level of service. Therefore,

the commissioners will not know whether the predicted delay is, say, 81 seconds, or

801 seconds. As a result, while an intersection such as the QEII Drive/Marshland

Road intersection is predicted as operating at level of service F in the weekday

morning and evening commuter peak periods, without the Northern Arterial, both for

the scenarios without and with PC67, this should not be taken to mean that PC67 has

no impact;

46.2 As the reporting relates only to delay, it is not clear how close an intersection is to

operating at capacity. For example, it is quite possible for an intersection to operate

at, say, level of service E, but it could be at or very close to capacity (ie with a degree

of saturation of greater than 85-90%17

). Indeed the second printout at Appendix C of

my evidence shows one such example. Under these conditions, a slight change in

circumstances (such as a slightly greater level of growth than is currently assumed, or

a slightly different trip distribution for PC67 traffic) may mean that the effects are

greater than are currently anticipated.

47 On a point of detail, Mr Falconer proposes a rule in the plan change which would ensure

that any resource consent assessment makes use of the CAST model18

. While I understand

the desire to ensure that the assessment uses an approved tool, I note that the resource

consent applications for the latter stages of development may not come forward for some

time. As such, I would like to see the following addition to the rule recommended by the

Council:

“That the CAST model (or its successor, or any model accepted in advance as appropriate,

by Christchurch City Council) be applied at resource consent stage as details of the proposed

development become available in order to confirm that the assumptions adopted at the Plan

Change stage still hold” (my suggested additions are in bold).

17 If the demand equals capacity, then the degree of saturation is 100%. This is termed the “theoretical capacity”.

However, it is generally accepted that conditions start to deteriorate at less than 100%, and an intersection operating at

85-90% is generally termed as being at “practical capacity”. 18 Evidence of Mr Falconer, paragraph 7.1.4 v

EVIDENCE OF MR DURDIN

The Integrated Transport Assessment

48 At paragraphs 43-47, Mr Durdin repeats the justification given in the ITA as to why he

prefers the method of manual traffic assignment over the equilibrium assignment assumed

by many strategic models. This is probably not the right venue for me to give too detailed a

response on the matter of equilibrium assignments, but I note Mr Falconer’s comment, that

the ITA was undertaken in late 2011: after the Canterbury earthquakes but before any

adequate planning information was available that considered the changes in land use

resulting from the earthquakes and likely recovery scenarios19

.

49 As such, I fully accept that it was not worthwhile undertaking detailed analysis under those

conditions, so a manual assignment was adequate and appropriate at that time. However,

the evidence (and forthcoming supplementary evidence) of Mr Falconer means that the

manual assessment of the ITA is now superceded by more robust modelling which properly

reflects the dynamic effects of bottlenecks on vehicle routing.

50 I note that Mr Durdin’s evidence refers to an update to his assessment since the ITA20

.

However, the evidence provides no details of the basis of the reassessment, nor any

updated results (for example, revised results regarding the operation of critical intersections

prior to the completion of the Northern Arterial, with the revised mitigation now proposed).

It appears that Mr Durdin is continuing to rely on the manual traffic assignment used for

the ITA, and has not used the CTM runs undertaken by Mr Falconer.

Connections to QEII Drive

51 Mr Durdin states that a key finding of the ITA report was that a connection to QEII Drive

would be required to support full development of the PC67. He states that, given that the

proposed connection would be built to a higher standard than any other intersection

between the Northern Arterial interchange and the Innes Road roundabout, the NZTA’s

non-evidentially based position on this matter is difficult to comprehend21

. He continues,

19 Evidence of Mr Falconer, paragraph 2.1.3 20 Evidence of Mr Durdin, paragraph 23 21 Evidence of Mr Durdin, paragraph 54

to state that the NZTA position fails to acknowledge that trips generated by PC67 will occur

along or across the State Highway network, irrespective of whether access is provided via a

proposed connection or not, and that not providing access simply results in travel distances

increasing for residents of these areas and places unnecessary pressure on other parts of

the transport network (especially Prestons Road) that could be avoided by creating better

connectivity to the strategic transport network22

.

52 The NZTA’s main concerns with the proposed connection relate to the efficiency of the State

Highway and safety, due to vehicles weaving. For example, vehicles turning left onto QEII

Drive from the proposed connection may then turn right at the Innes Road roundabout,

over the same section of road where traffic on QEII Drive (from west of the proposed

connection) may wish to continue east along QEII Drive.

53 Mr Durdin correctly notes that the proposed connection was discussed at a meeting with

the NZTA in July 201223

, and since the advice given at that meeting was that the Applicant

was not pursuing the connection at this point in time, it did not seem worthwhile for the

NZTA to invest much time investigating the proposal.

54 However, at paragraphs 54-57, Mr Durdin repeats the conclusions in the ITA, on the effects

of the proposed connection to QEII Drive. As a result, I consider it necessary to respond, on

two levels:

The capacity and weaving issue:

54.1 QEII Drive currently operates with a single lane in each direction. As such, traffic

joining from the PC67 connection and turning right at the Innes Road roundabout will

not weave, but will join the single lane of eastbound traffic;

54.2 In the short term therefore, the potential left in, left out arrangement would not

cause a weaving issue, but it could cause congestion along QEII Drive, to the capacity

limitation of the single lane;

54.3 The capacity issue will be resolved by the proposed widening of QEII Drive to two

lanes per direction, but it will create the weaving issue of through traffic from west of

the proposed connection needing to get into the kerbside lane to pass straight

through the Innes Road roundabout, in the same area as traffic from PC67 needing to

turn right at the Innes Road roundabout.

22 Evidence of Mr Durdin, paragraph 54 23 Evidence of Mr Durdin, paragraph 51

The modelling of the issue:

54.4 The assessment Mr Durdin refers to was undertaken using a set of flows that is no

longer valid. Indeed, as described at paragraphs 48-49 above, it was really an

“interim” set of flows, pending the development of post earthquake demands;

54.5 The small PARAMICS model developed by Mr Durdin did not include the split of traffic

from the west of the proposed connection, ie from the future interchange of the

Northern Arterial and QEII Drive, which will lead to weaving to the west of the

proposed connection;

54.6 The model did not include the QEII/Innes Road roundabout, to the east of the

proposed connection. Vehicles joining QEII Drive and then turning right into Innes

Road will have priority over westbound traffic on the state highway – but this effect is

not modelled;

54.7 The model did not include the existing Hills Road connection, again reducing the

quantum of weaving in the model, to the east of the proposed connection;

54.8 The model was, to my knowledge, not subject to any validation checks;

54.9 The model, if correctly constructed, would have given an assessment of the likely

change in travel times along QEII Drive. However, it would not have given any

indication of the potential safety effects.

55 As a result, Mr Durdin’s assertion that “not providing access simply results in travel distances

increasing for residents of these areas and places unnecessary pressure on other parts of the

transport network (especially Prestons Road and Hills Road)24

” is a significant

oversimplification. I accept that there could be travel time benefits to the residents, but

there could also be potential safety consequences due to the lane changing required in a

relatively high speed environment.

56 I note that there is currently a left in, left out arrangement at the connection of QEII Drive

with Hills Road. However, this intersection is very close to the Innes Road roundabout, and

my understanding is that the manoeuvre for traffic turning left out from Hills Road then

turning right at the Innes Road roundabout may have to be prohibited, following the four

laning of QEII Drive. In this case, the provision of the left in, left out connection to PC67 will

increase the level of weaving along QEII Drive, ie it will not simply be transferred from

adjacent left in, left out connections to QEII Drive.

24 Evidence of Mr Durdin, paragraph 54

57 In any case, Mr Falconer and Mr Durdin agree that roughly half of the vehicles exiting the

PC67 area in the morning peak will be heading south of QEII Drive25

. Once QEII Drive has

been widened, I expect the left in, left out intersections to be quite attractive – and this is

backed up by the plots appended to the evidence of Mr Falconer26

. If the additional

connection (to PC67) is not provided, then it is unlikely that the same level of traffic will be

able to access QEII Drive from Hills Road. This means that the effects of PC67 on QEII Drive

will not be constant, without and with the additional connection, in that the flows accessing

QEII Drive will differ.

58 The other alternative is that the existing Hills Road connection to QEII Drive could be closed

and replaced with the new connection. Of the two, I accept that the PC67 connection

would offer the better solution, as it is some distance from the intersections to the east and

the west, and it would therefore offer safer weaving conditions, compared with Hills Road.

However, some of the existing users of Hills Road would be adversely affected by the

closure of that connection to QEII Drive, to the extent that it is premature to assume that

closure can be readily achieved. As such, at this stage, there remains a possibility that the

existing and the proposed connections to QEII could both be provided. This is the outcome

that is least acceptable to NZTA, and it would further increase the potential effects of PC67.

Staging

59 Mr Durdin states that no staging is required, relative to the progress on the Northern

Arterial, partly on the basis that it is not necessary and partly since it is inconsistent with the

position of the UDS Partners, in the Submission to the Environment Court dated July 201127

.

I will address both points:

59.1 My understanding is that Mr Durdin’s assertions regarding the July 2011 Submission

are incorrect. While the UDS partners approved the concept of the sites being

sequenced before 2020 in principle, this does not mean that the site need not still be

subject to any assessment regarding traffic effects and staging, in accordance with

the principles of PC1. This matter is addressed further in the evidence of Ms

Minogue;

25 Evidence of Mr Falconer, Table 3.4. This table notes that the range is 46% according to the CTM and 57% according

to the ITA 26 For example, the plots appended to Mr Falconer’s evidence indicate that the proposed connection from PC67 to QEII

Drive may attract 900 vehicles/hour in the morning peak, for the scenario without the Northern Arterial 27 Evidence of Mr Durdin, paragraph 112, response to submission 55, on page 27, and paragraphs 115 to 120

59.2 The second point, that staging rules are unnecessary, appears to stem from the

assertion that if development does not occur by 2021 at Highfield, then it will occur

elsewhere in Northern Christchurch. This is consistent with the work undertaken by

Mr Falconer, referred to at paragraphs 43-45 above.

60 This assertion, that the proposed plan change will not lead to any additional development in

Northern Christchurch leads Mr Durdin to paraphrase Mr Falconer’s assessment as follows:

“PC67 Living G (Highfield) will not generate any additional effects on the operation of Main

North Road or Marshland Road alone, as it is assumed and agreed that it would substitute

for growth in other northern parts of the city. Effectively Mr Falconer is concluding that

PC67 Living G (Highfield) does not generate any cumulative effects on these strategic

corridors”28

.

61 I do not agree with these conclusions. The assumption of no extra growth in Northern

Christchurch is a modelling assumption. It is logical at a strategic level, but at a local level it

does not mean that there will be no adverse effects on the Main North Road corridor. This

is for reasons set out at paragraph 21 above, namely that the vast majority of PC67 related

traffic will need to join, leave or cross SH74. For other sites in Northern Christchurch, the

percentage of traffic affecting these critical sections of the strategic network may be lower,

and I note the following:

61.1 The overall cost (ie time and distance) of commuting from Waimakiriri to Christchurch

without the Northern Arterial is likely to be sufficient to deter some people from

relocating to Waimakiriri, if development is restricted in Northern Christchurch. For

example, some people may choose to live in Southwest Christchurch;

61.2 The vehicle kilometres travelled assumptions in Mr Durdin evidence (paragraphs 120-

123) imply that if people relocate to Waimakiriri, they would maintain the same

travel patterns as if they had lived in Christchurch. This is very unlikely, given that

Waimakiriri offers many of the same opportunities as Christchurch without the need

to increase overall vehicle kilometres. As noted at paragraph 44 above, the possible

exception is commuter trips, however these account for only 15% of daily person

trips (and 30-40% during the peak periods), according to Household Interview Survey

data collected for the development of the CTM.

28 Evidence of Mr Durdin, paragraphs 118-119

EVIDENCE OF MR PUTT

62 At paragraph 30, Mr Putt refers to the proximity of the site to the main trunk railway line,

and the discussion for the redevelopment of the central business district, to use the existing

rail network for “urban rail”29

. It is indeed the case that the Council’s draft CBD Recovery

Plan30

referred to rail, but the more recent draft Christchurch Central Recovery Plan,

Accessible City chapter31

, published for consultation on Friday 15 November 2012 (ie the

day after Mr Putt’s evidence was circulated) does not refer to passenger rail. This does not

mean that passenger rail will not be considered for Christchurch, but I suggest that it means

that less weight should be given to the proximity of PC67 to the rail network than is

intimated by Mr Putt.

63 At paragraph 65, Mr Putt refers to the lack of suitable urban land for the redevelopment of

Christchurch. He states that the risk of not acting and rejecting this plan change places an

additional burden on the city as a whole as it tries to move forward from the housing loss

created by the earthquakes. This position is inconsistent with the evidence of Mr Falconer,

which notes that even under a rapid recovery scenario, there will be excess housing capacity

in Northern Christchurch for the period to 202132

.

REASSESSMENT OF STAGING

64 Having reviewed the evidence of the Council and the Applicant on the staging issue, I have

undertaken some checks on the modelling undertaken by Mr Falconer recently, using the

Christchurch Assignment and Simulation Traffic (CAST) model, using the pre Northern

Arterial scenario in which he has assumed 1,700 households at the PC30 site (ie as per the

staging rule for that development) and 1,700 households at the PC67 site (ie roughly as per

the staging rule sought by Council). I have run the predicted flows through SIDRA33

models.

29 I understand that this is referring to passenger rail 30 Christchurch City Council (2011), “Draft Central City Recovery Plan” 31 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (2012), “Christchurch Central Recovery Plan: Accessible City chapter”,

Draft for consultation 32 Evidence of Mr Falconer, paragraphs 3.3.2 to 3.3.7 33 SIDRA is an “industry standard” modelling tool for assessing isolated intersections

65 The Main North Road/Prestons Road intersection is predicted to be operating at level of

service E in the evening peak, on the worst movement, with a maximum degree of

saturation of up to 92.5% (see Appendix C)34

. However, more critically, the 95% back of

queue for the right turn into Prestons Road is predicted to be up to 180m, although the

mitigation proposed by the Applicant is for a right turn bay of 110m. In other words, in the

evening peak, it is reasonably likely that one of the northbound through lanes on Main

North Road will be impeded by right turning traffic, if 1,680 households are allowed to be

provided prior to the completion of the Northern Arterial. Appendix C also provides results

of a sensitivity test with 10% less right turners.

66 It is reasonable to assume that this situation is a result of PC67. Indeed Mr Durdin states

that the proposed extension of the right turn bay “will help to accommodate some of the

additional right turning demands”35

(my emphasis).

67 The Main North Road/QEII Drive/Northcote Road intersection is already predicted by Mr

Falconer to be at capacity, but no mitigation is proposed at this location, for reasons set out

at paragraph 60 above.

68 The QEII Drive/Marshland Road intersection is predicted by SIDRA to be operating at over

100% with 1,700 households permitted at PC67.

69 I accept that it is difficult to isolate the causes of congestion at many locations, and also that

there are current many uncertainties in forecasting congestion in Christchurch at the

moment. However, I consider that there is sufficient evidence for there to be concern

about the future operation of the intersections identified above, if 1,680 households are

allowed to proceed at PC67 prior to the completion of the Northern Arterial.

34 Appendix C provides two SIDRA printouts. The first assumes the retention of the current signal phasing, with right

turns into Prestons Road allowed to filter across Main North Road. I have concerns around the safety implications of

this situation, particularly as the demand for the right turn increases, and the opposing (southbound) flow increases.

Also, this situation has potential safety consequences for pedestrians crossing Prestons Road. Therefore the second

SIDRA printout removes the right turn filter, with all right turns into Prestons Road only permitted during the dedicated

right turn phase.

It is important to note that the back of the queue for right turning vehicles is predicted to exceed the 110m right turn bay

under both signal phasing scenarios. 35 Evidence of Mr Durdin, paragraph 70

CONCLUSIONS

70 My evidence has assessed the traffic effects of the proposed plan change, in the light of the

evidence of Christchurch City Council and the Applicant. My key conclusions are as follows:

70.1 I consider that there are compelling reasons that dictate that the level of

development should be restricted until the Northern Arterial is complete, primarily to

limit the adverse traffic effects along Main North Road and along QEII Drive;

70.2 The evidence of the City Council, accepted by the Applicant, is that there is excess

residential capacity in Northern Christchurch. As such, rules relating to the staging of

development will not adversely impede the earthquake recovery, indeed such rules

would be consistent with rules approved for other developments within the Northern

Arterial corridor;

70.3 The Applicant is resisting staging rules relating to the provision of the Northern

Arterial. However, staging will in effect be imposed by the rule proposed by the

applicant, with the connection to QEII Drive to be deferred. This connection cannot

be introduced until QEII Drive is upgraded, which is unlikely to occur until the

Northern Arterial is in place.

APPENDIX A: ROAD HIERARCHY

71 Transit New Zealand’s Planning Policy Manual36

states that road hierarchies provide a

classification system that differentiate roads by primary function and assist in the planning

and management of the road network and surrounding land use.

72 A typical hierarchy is as follows:

72.1 State highways (motorways, expressways and primary arterials) sit at the top of the

roading hierarchy. Their principal function is that of a through route that can quickly

and efficiently move people and goods over long distances;

72.2 Secondary or district arterials cater for traffic movement between major areas of

districts or cities. Traffic management of these roads seeks to facilitate traffic

movement;

72.3 Collector roads collect and distribute traffic to and from the arterial road network and

often act as links between two arterials. These roads also act as local main roads

supplementing the district arterials. Through traffic generally makes up a high

proportion of the traffic flow;

72.4 Local roads provide direct access to adjoining properties. Main local roads, except

cul-de-sacs, also collect and distribute traffic to and from local roads within a

district/city.

73 The purpose of a roading hierarchy system has been described as being37

:

73.1 To avoid conflict, by separating roads serving different purposes from each other and

from building and other non road uses;

73.2 To allow consistent decisions to be made about the design and management of a

road;

73.3 To assist with the allocation of responsibilities.

74 Most local authorities now include such a road hierarchy in their district plans, and the

principles are well understood. Put simply, it is recognised that land use adjacent to a high

speed, high volume state highway needs to be managed very differently to land use

adjacent to a residential cul-de-sac.

36 Transit New Zealand (2007), “Planning and Policy Manual”, page 24 37 See “Building on Buchanan: Evolving Road Hierarchy for today’s streets oriented design agenda”, Mr Stephen

Marshall, University College, London (2004)

75 The Christchurch City Plan recognises the role of roading hierarchies and the need to ensure

that roads are consistent with established hierarchies. Specifically, Policy 7.2.1: “Hierarchy

of Roads” states that the policy is:

“To continue to plan, build, maintain and manage the operation of the roads in Christchurch

as a hierarchical network comprised of roads of different classifications, and to recognise the

different functions and roles of roads and their environmental impacts within those

classifications”38

.

76 The explanation for the above Policy reinforces the points noted above, and in particular

that land use adjacent to roads must be managed carefully:

“For over 25 years the City has adopted and continued to develop, a hierarchy of roads.

Each road is generally classified with respect to its planned traffic function and the

surrounding landuses. The highest classified roads (major arterials) provide for the

greatest level of movement with a minimum access function, while local roads provide for

very little through movement, but have a major access function. In this way the

hierarchical network provides for the efficient and safe movement of people and goods,

while reducing the conflicts which arise between traffic requirements and the environment

of surrounding areas…”

77 The subsequent paragraphs in the Plan set out the hierarchy as:

77.1 Major arterial roads;

77.2 Minor arterial roads;

77.3 Collector roads;

77.4 Local roads;

77.5 Service lanes.

38 Christchurch City Council “Christchurch City Plan”, accessed online www.cityplan.ccc.govt.nz on 12 November

2012

78 Major arterial roads are defined as follows:

“Major arterial roads are the dominant elements of the roading network connecting the

major localities of the region, both within and beyond the main urban area, and link to the

most important external localities. Some major arterials, particularly some State

Highways, serve an important by-pass function within the City, directing traffic through

the district to areas beyond. Major arterials cater especially for longer trips and generally

link to other arterial roads and collector roads. They will be constructed and managed to

minimise their local access function”.

79 A number of policies in the Plan are also relevant to this issue. Policies relating to ”planning

the network” include Policy 7.2.2 which is:

“To protect the function of the road network and the environment of adjacent land uses

from the adverse effects of high traffic generators”.

80 The explanation of this policy states that:

“The efficiency and safety of the road network, particularly arterial roads, requires

minimising conflicts between various road users. Important in this respect is protection

from queuing and manoeuvring vehicles through the control of access to and from high

traffic generating activities. These may be in the form of individual land uses, or a

grouping of activities such as a suburban shopping centre.”

“A hierarchical network of roads provides an efficient form of access for all vehicles which

leads to savings of not only energy but also time. Pollution is minimised by decreasing

congestion on the roads and decreasing travel times for each trip”.

81 The Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS) 2012-2042 also contains

statements of relevance to this issue. Page 20, relating to the role of Strategic Transport

Networks states:

“Strategic transport networks provide a high level of mobility for people and freight

transport within the region. The criteria used to identify the strategic transport networks

reflects routes of national significance and recognise the nationally significant role of

Canterbury as the most populous region in the South Island. Canterbury is a major

producer of primary goods and a major distribution centre for the South Island. It is home

to two major ports as well as the South Island’s major international airport. The strategic

networks connect the region to neighbouring regions and provide contingency routes for

inter-regional travel. They also link main population centres, tourist destinations and

freight hubs within the region.”

82 At a higher level, the NZTA National State Highway Strategy includes a classification system

for the state highways, with three categories. State Highway 74 (both referring to Main

North Road and QEII Drive) is classified as the highest category of “National State Highway”.

APPENDIX B: NATIONAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORT POLICIE S

New Zealand Transport Strategy (NZTS)

83 The NZTS, updated in 2008, describes the high level vision for transport to the year 2040,

along with key components and targets. The overarching vision of this non-statutory

document is that “People and freight in New Zealand have access to an affordable,

integrated, safe, responsive and sustainable transport system”.

84 The NZTS includes five objectives and 14 transport targets. The form and nature of land use

activity will have a particular role to play in achieving the following targets:

84.1 halving per capita greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport by 2040;

84.2 reducing the vehicle kilometres travelled by single occupancy vehicles in major urban

areas on weekdays by ten percent per capita by 2015, compared to 2007; and

84.3 increase use of public transport to seven percent of all trips by 2040.

85 The NZTS identifies several key challenges to achieving the transport targets, including land

use development and its impact on transport demand. One of the key components of the

NZTS is the focus on integrated planning. This can be split into achieving integration

between transport and land use through multi-modal transport planning. Another key

component of the NZTS is increasing the availability and use of public transport, cycling,

walking and other shared and active modes, in an effort to reduce congestion, fossil fuel

consumption as well as to improve public health and the vibrancy of local communities.

Government Policy Statement (GPS)

86 The Government Policy Statement (GPS)39

on Land Transport Funding is a statutory

Statement that describes the government’s funding priorities to 2021/22. The most recent

Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding was published in July 2011 and

became operative in July 2012. The government has three focus areas that are priorities for

this GPS, which are to direct land transport investment into activity that:

86.1 Supports economic growth and productivity

39 Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding 2012/13 – 2021/22. July 2011

86.2 Improves road safety

86.3 Achieves strong value-for-money.

87 With regard to supporting economic growth and productivity, the GPS places particular

importance on the following:

87.1 Investing in the State highway network

87.2 Continuing to progress the Roads of National Significance (RoNs)

87.3 Rebuilding the land transport system in Canterbury

87.4 Getting Auckland’s transport working well

87.5 Making quality investments in public transport

87.6 Improving the local road network

87.7 Investing in walking and cycling

87.8 Considering networks from a national perspective

87.9 Integrated planning continues to be important

88 The GPS includes the Christchurch motorway projects as one of the seven current RoNs, and

states the following with regard to the RoNs:

“Continuing to progress the seven RoNs is a critical part of the economic growth and

productivity priority and a significant part of the government’s National Infrastructure Plan.

The RoNs are important to addressing the needs of our key supply chain routes. Investing in

these routes will ease the most significant pressure points in the national network, reduce

congestion in and around our five largest metropolitan areas, improve road safety and link

our major sea and air ports more effectively into the State highway network.”

89 Further details of the projects that are included within the Christchurch RoNS are provided

at paragraphs 18-19.

Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy

90 The vision of the Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy is as follows:40

“Canterbury has an accessible, affordable, integrated, safe, resilient and sustainable

transport system.”

91 The RLTS vision is supported by objectives to41

:

91.1 Ensure a resilient, environmentally sustainable and integrated transport system

91.2 Increase transport safety for all users

91.3 Protect and promote public health

91.4 Assist economic development

91.5 Improve accessibility levels for all.

40 Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy 2012-2042, page 2 41 Ibid, page 2

APPENDIX C: SIDRA PRINTOUTS FOR MAIN NORTH ROAD/PRE STONS ROAD

INTERSECTION, FOR SCENARIO PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF NORTHERN

ARTERIAL, WITH 1,700 HOUSEHOLDS AT BOTH PC30 AND PC 67 SITES:

EVENING PEAK

Main North Road/Prestons Road Intersection (with right turn filter) – 2021 PM Peak Hour

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Main North Prestons 2021 PM_5b HHs - Peds - filter

Signals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 140 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time) Movement Performance – Vehicles Mov ID Turn Demand

Flow HV Deg. Satn Average

Delay Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Average Speed Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Main North Road

2 T 1568 5.0 0.625 6.1 LOS A 14.4 104.9 0.30 0.27 42.8 3 R 346 5.0 0.789 56.8 LOS E 19.8 144.7 0.93 1.09 21.1

Approach 1915 5.0 0.789 15.3 LOS B 19.8 144.7 0.41 0.42 36.1 East: Prestons Rd East

4 L 354 5.0 0.747 32.8 LOS C 15.8 115.6 0.69 0.80 28.0 6 R 262 5.0 0.742 65.1 LOS E 17.4 126.9 1.00 0.87 19.6

Approach 616 5.0 0.747 46.5 LOS D 17.4 126.9 0.82 0.83 23.6 North: Main North Road

7 L 216 5.0 0.759 27.7 LOS C 5.6 40.8 0.74 0.82 30.0 8 T 1140 5.0 0.674 32.9 LOS C 30.5 222.8 0.86 0.77 26.9

Approach 1356 5.0 0.759 32.1 LOS C 30.5 222.8 0.84 0.78 27.4 All Vehicles 3886 5.0 0.789 26.1 LOS C 30.5 222.8 0.63 0.61 30.2 Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements. SIDRA Standard Delay Model used. Movement Performance – Pedestrians

Mov ID

Description Demand

Flow Average


Average Back of Queue Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate Pedestrian Distance

ped/h sec ped m per ped P3 Across E approach 53 25.8 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.61 0.61 P5 Across N approach 53 50.6 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.85 0.85

All Pedestrians 106 38.2 LOS D 0.73 0.73

Main North Road/Prestons Road Intersection (without right turn filter) – 2021 PM Peak Hour

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Main North Prestons 2021 PM_5b HHs - Peds

Signals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 140 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time) Movement Perform ance – Vehicles Mov ID Turn Demand




Effective Stop Rate



2 T 1568 5.0 0.619 5.5 LOS A 13.3 96.8 0.28 0.25 43.3 3 R 346 5.0 0.906 72.1 LOS E 24.6 179.5 0.97 0.95 18.3


4 L 354 5.0 0.685 25.9 LOS C 13.5 98.9 0.62 0.77 30.8 6 R 262 5.0 0.770 67.2 LOS E 17.8 129.8 1.00 0.89 19.2


7 L 216 5.0 0.925 30.3 LOS C 5.6 40.8 0.93 0.83 29.0 8 T 1140 5.0 0.774 40.2 LOS D 33.8 246.6 0.94 0.84 24.5

Approach 1356 5.0 0.925 38.6 LOS D 33.8 246.6 0.94 0.84 25.1 All Vehicles 3886 5.0 0.925 29.0 LOS C 33.8 246.6 0.65 0.61 28.9 Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements. SIDRA Standard Delay Model used. Movement Performance – Pedestrians

Mov ID

Description Demand

Flow Average




ped/h sec ped m per ped P3 Across E approach 53 30.9 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.66 0.66 P5 Across N approach 53 51.4 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.86 0.86

All Pedestrians 106 41.2 LOS E 0.76 0.76

Main North Road/Prestons Road Intersection (with right turn filter and a reduction of 10% for

right turning traffic) – 2021 PM Peak Hour

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Main North Prestons 2021 PM_5b HHs - Peds - filter

- RT reduce 10% Signals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 140 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time) Movement Performance – Vehicles Mov ID Turn Demand




Effective Stop Rate



2 T 1568 5.0 0.639 7.4 LOS A 16.6 121.0 0.34 0.32 41.6 3 R 312 5.0 0.748 56.4 LOS E 17.5 128.0 0.91 1.07 21.2


4 L 354 5.0 0.739 31.6 LOS C 15.4 112.7 0.68 0.79 28.4 6 R 262 5.0 0.693 61.5 LOS E 16.7 122.0 0.98 0.84 20.2


7 L 216 5.0 0.741 26.5 LOS C 5.4 39.7 0.72 0.81 30.6 8 T 1140 5.0 0.686 33.8 LOS C 30.9 225.7 0.87 0.78 26.6

Approach 1356 5.0 0.741 32.6 LOS C 30.9 225.7 0.84 0.78 27.2 All Vehicles 3852 5.0 0.748 26.1 LOS C 30.9 225.7 0.64 0.62 30.1 Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements. SIDRA Standard Delay Model used. Movement Performance - Pedestrians

Mov ID

Description Demand

Flow Average




ped/h sec ped m per ped P3 Across E approach 53 26.4 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.61 0.61 P5 Across N approach 53 48.9 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.84 0.84

All Pedestrians 106 37.7 LOS D 0.73 0.73

pc67 evidence ian clark 121119 - ccc

Documents