report te whau pathway - transport impact assessment · 700m of pathway at rizal/sandy lane is...

Report

Te Whau Pathway - Transport Impact Assessment

Prepared for Auckland Council

Prepared by Beca Limited

21 March 2019


Beca // 21 March 2019 4217284 // NZ1-16115923-1 0.1 // i

Revision History Revision Nº Prepared By Description Date

1 Adam Ebrahim Draft for client review 30/08/18

2 Adam Ebrahim Updated draft for client review 27/11/18

3 Adam Ebrahim Final for lodgement 21/03/19

Document Acceptance Action Name Signed Date

Prepared by Adam Ebrahim

21/03/19

Reviewed by Kara Hartshorne

21/03/19

Approved by Cushla Loomb

21/03/19

on behalf of Beca Limited

© Beca 2018 (unless Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing).

This report has been prepared by Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk.


Beca // 21 March 2019 4217284 // NZ1-16115923-1 0.1 // i

Contents

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Report Context 1 1.2 Project Description 1 1.3 Proposed Pathway and Links to Existing Infrastructure 2 1.4 Report Structure 4

2 Existing Transport Environment 6 2.1 Existing Pedestrian and Cycle Environment 6 2.2 Existing Public Transport Environment 7 2.3 Traffic Volumes 8

2.3.1 Vehicle Traffic 8 2.4 Crash Data 9

3 Walking and Cycling Effects 10 3.1 Introduction 10 3.2 Section 1: Portage Road 10

3.2.1 Proposed Improvements 10 3.2.2 Assessment of Effects 10

3.3 Section 2: Olympic Park to Ken Maunder Park 10 3.3.1 Proposed Improvements 10 3.3.2 Assessment of Effects 11

3.4 Section 3: Ken Maunder Park to Archibald Park 11 3.4.1 Proposed Improvements 11 3.4.2 Assessment of Effects 11

3.5 Section 4: Archibald Park to Laurieston Park 11 3.5.1 Proposed Improvements 11 3.5.2 Assessment of Effects 12

3.6 Section 5: Laurieston Park to the Northwestern Shared Path 12 3.6.1 Proposed Improvements 12 3.6.2 Assessment of Effects 12

3.7 Summary of Effects 12

4 Effects on Parking 14 4.1 Introduction 14 4.2 Cycle and Pedestrian Demand 14 4.3 Potential Parking Effects on Local Streets 17 4.4 Permanent Removal of On-Street Parking 17

5 Effects on Public Transportation 18 5.1 Introduction 18

6 Construction Effects 20


Beca // 21 March 2019 4217284 // NZ1-16115923-1 0.1 // ii

6.1 Introduction 20 6.2 Number of Truck Movements 20 6.3 Construction Traffic Management Plan Framework 21

7 Conclusions 24

Appendices

Appendix A - Te Whau Shared Path Construction Methodology (Beca)

Appendix B - Te Whau Pathway – Estimated Active Mode Demands (Flow)


Beca // 21 March 2019 4217284 // NZ1-16115923-1 0.1 // page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Report Context Beca Ltd (Beca) have been commissioned by Auckland Council (AC) to prepare a Transport Assessment (TA) in support of a resource consent application for the construction and operation of the Te Whau Pathway (the Pathway). The Pathway is a 15km shared path along the western edge of the Whau River between Green Bay and Te Atatu South and a general alignment is shown below in Figure 1-1.

This TA assesses the impact of the Te Whau Pathway on the transport environment including walking and cycling, on-street parking and construction effects.

This report relies on information and refers to the following reports and drawings:

n “Te Whau Pathway Scheme Investigation - Scheme Assessment Report’ (SAR), Stantec, June 2017 n “Te Whau Shared Path Construction Methodology Report” Beca Limited, August 2018. n “Auckland Transport Te Whau Pathway Scheme Design General Layout Plans”, August 2018

1.2 Project Description Te Whau Pathway is a shared path that will link the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours. The principle main alignment is approximately 11.8km with 3.2 km of connecting paths, a total length of 15km. The path will largely follow the western side of the Whau River and will be designed to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.

Te Whau Pathway will provide a high-quality shared path that is safe and almost entirely segregated from vehicular traffic. It will also provide connections to the wider cycle network including the New Lynn/ Avondale rail link and the North Western motorway cycle path.

The project started as the Whau West Greenway in 2011/12 a concept put forward by Whau River Catchment Trust and the Greenways Project Inc. It was presented and approved in principle by the Whau Local Board. A similar concept was promoted in 2013 through a HOOP-LA research project called Muddy Urbanism. The river edge pathway idea started to gain traction and in 2014 the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust was established by a group of locals keen to bring the vision into being.

Te Whau Pathway Project is a collaborative partnership project between the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, the Whau and Henderson-Massey Local Boards, Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatua Orakei.

The Whau catchment is a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial development, historically the Whau river has a long history of human transportation. Maori for centuries used the Whau as an important route for transporting waka between the two coasts of Te Ika a Maui. For Tangata Whenua, the water has significant spiritual values especially revealed in its alternative Maori name Waitahurangi (“Waters of Tahurangi”). Through the TWP Project and subsequent development of the pathway, there will be opportunity to share both the local and cultural stories of the Whau river and surrounding catchment through education and interpretative signage.

The construction of the pathway will deliver 3m wide concrete paths on land and 4m wide boardwalks through the coastal marine area. The overall pathway will connect 33 reserves, esplanade reserves, sports parks and roads. The pathway will also connect the various communities of Green Bay, New Lynn, Avondale, Kelston, Glendene and Te Atatu as well as a number of schools.



At the beginning of 2017, Auckland Transport sought public feedback on the scheme plan and preliminary design for the Te Whau Pathway Route. In June 2017, the scheme plan and preliminary design was completed.

The pathway is being built in stages. Construction for the earlier stages began in 2015. Between 2015 and 2016 pathways were completed at Archibald, Ken Maunder, Olympic Park, McLeod park. Roberts Field and Tiroroa Reserve were completed in 2018. To date, 3.9km of pathway has been constructed. Just under 700m of pathway at Rizal/Sandy Lane is currently in detail design phase to be delivered in FY19/20 and is not included in this resource consent application. This Resource Consent application applies to the remaining approximately 10.4km of path, comprising approximately 7.1km of proposed boardwalk and 3.3km of proposed footpath.

During 2017, a concept design for the remainder of the pathway was undertaken. The dates below outline the series of events:

n March / April 2017 – Public feedback on the scheme plan and preliminary design; n June 2017 – Scheme plan and preliminary design complete; n 2017 / 2018 – Completed construction of paths in Roberts Field, Tiroroa Reserve; n 2017 / 2018 – Planned construction of paths in Queen Mary Reserve (application no. LUC60307203) and

Rizal Reserve (application no. LUC60307205); n 2018 / 2019 – Current resource consent application prepared and applied for the remaining sections for

Te Whau Pathway (including coastal marine area boardwalk).

On completion the pathway will feature strategically placed seating, viewing and rest areas and art work.

Weed control and community plantings of native plant species will also be delivered through the project.

The development of the pathway will be a significant link in Auckland’s network of cycling and walking routes and will aim to improve community connection to and appreciation of the Whau River.

1.3 Proposed Pathway and Links to Existing Infrastructure The proposed pathway links to the Avondale to New Lynn Cycleway, the Northwestern shared path and other existing and proposed walking and cycling infrastructure, providing a key connection for cyclists and pedestrians from Te Atatū South, Glendene, Green Bay, Kelston and New Lynn to the city. The general alignment of the Te Whau Pathway is shown in Figure 1-1.



Figure 1-1- General Alignment of the Te Whau Pathway Pathway Sections

As detailed in the SAR the route was split into five distinct sections based on the environment and surrounding connections. Section 1 will be mostly on-road, with Sections 2-5 being predominantly boardwalk, as well as existing and proposed shared paths. The five sections are show in Figure 1-2 and are described as follows:

n Section 1: Portage Road to Olympic Park n Section 2: Olympic Park to Ken Maunder Park n Section 3: Ken Maunder Park to Archibald Park n Section 4: Archibald Park to Laurieston Park n Section 5: Laurieston Park to the Northwestern Shared Path Connection.



Figure 1-2 - The five sections of the Te Whau Pathway

1.4 Report Structure The report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 provides a description of the existing transport environment

Chapter 3 provides an assessment of the effects of the Pathway on pedestrians and cyclists

Chapter 4 provides an assessment of the effects of the Pathway on on-street parking including an estimation of the likely pedestrian and cycle trips generated per section.



Chapter 5 provides assessment of the effects of the Pathway on public transport

Chapter 6 provides an assessment of the transport impacts arising from the construction of the Te Whau Path.

Chapter 7 provides the conclusions to the report



2 Existing Transport Environment

2.1 Existing Pedestrian and Cycle Environment The existing pedestrian and cycle environment is shown in Figure 2-1 below. The main existing connection is the Northwestern Shared path, with additional southern links into Te Atatu, Henderson, Mt Albert and Avondale.

Figure 2-1 – Existing cycle network map

As can be seen in Figure 2-1 the Whau River creates a severance between the communities and reserves on the western side of the river. There is also no connection between Green Bay and the Northwestern Shared path and existing greenways within the area are currently isolated and do not tie into the main network. Overall, the connectivity for walking and cycling within the community is low.



2.2 Existing Public Transport Environment Figure 2-2 shows ATs existing public transport network for the area. This network was launched in June 2017. The network includes bus and train services on a local and regional level.

Figure 2-2 – Existing public transport map



2.3 Traffic Volumes

2.3.1 Vehicle Traffic

Traffic volumes for the on-road section of the Pathway were obtained from the AT traffic counts database as part of the SAR. Figure 2-3 illustrates the 5-day Average Daily Traffic (AADT), as well as the AADT for the respective AM and PM peak hours. Portage Road experiences volumes of traffic which could deter the ‘Interested but concerned’ user groups. However, it is noted that the Portage Road section is a mixture of existing on-road cycle and new off-road shared path.

Figure 2-3 - Traffic volumes on the on-road sections of the Pathway



2.4 Crash Data The Te Whau Pathway is mostly off-road, with some sections that are on road. Therefore, the NZTA CAS database was used to review pedestrian and two-wheeled vehicle crashes between 2011 and 2015 inclusive. The on-road sections, and thus the sections to be reviewed were:

n Clark Street between Portage Road and Olympic Place n Portage Road between Clark Street and Karaka Park.

As reported in Section 5.2 of the SAR, over the five-year review period, 12 crashes occurred in the study area. These crashes resulted in nine minor and two serious injuries.

n All four crashes involving cyclists resulted in minor injuries and were due to vehicles failing to give way n There were no pedestrian crashes in the study area n Two of the three crashes involving mopeds were due to the vehicle occupant’s failure to observe n Four of the five crashes involving motor cycles were due to the motor cyclist travelling at high speeds.

The data suggests that there is currently a minimal safety issues along this section of the corridor for walking and cycling users. It should also be noted that this is a minor section of the overall path, with the majority being off-road.

A detailed breakdown of the crashes can be found in the SAR.



3 Walking and Cycling Effects

3.1 Introduction This section considers the proposed improvements to each of the five sectors shown previously in Figure 1-2 and a qualitative assessment of the potential effects on pedestrians and cyclists. This is based on the “Auckland Transport Te Whau Pathway Scheme Design General Layout Plans” August 2018. This section will also describe how the Pathway connects with existing and future greenways and shared paths.

Overall the Pathway will have significant positive effects on pedestrians and cyclists providing over 12km of new infrastructure. There will be 22 new connections into the shared path from the surrounding community.

3.2 Section 1: Portage Road

3.2.1 Proposed Improvements

This section sits between Olympic Park and Green Bay Beach. Much of the section between Golf Road and Clark Street intersection has an existing on-road cycle lane which will be retained as part of the project. The proposed improvements include:

n A new 3m wide shared path on Portage Road, which will tie in to the existing shared path. This will include improvements to two informal crossing points by proposed central medians and side islands for pedestrian and cyclist protection. These will be located across Connaught Street and Kinross Street.

n Upgraded shared pedestrian and cycle crossings and advanced cycle boxes at the Portage Road/Wolverton Street Intersection. This includes a new 3m wide shared path which connects into the off-road section of the Pathway, starting at Olympic Park.

3.2.2 Assessment of Effects

The on-road section of the Pathway on Portage Road will utilise on road cycle lanes. It is noted that this may not necessary cater for the target users of the Pathway. However, the improvement of the crossing points and intersection along this stretch will help improve safety along the section and make it more attractive for less confident users. The improved links to Olympic Park and the off-road section will ensure this section of the design is more coherent.

3.3 Section 2: Olympic Park to Ken Maunder Park


This section connects Olympic Park, Rizal Reserve and Ken Maunder Park using boardwalks within an urban intertidal creek, as well as new and existing concrete paths in the reserves. The proposed improvements include:

n Two connections onto the existing Olympic Park shared path. n A new 4m wide boardwalk which will provide a connection to the future Avondale to New Lynn Cycleway.

This includes a connection over the creek. n Potential future access to be provided to St Mary’s School. It should be noted that this is yet to be

confirmed. n Stair and ramp connections to Great North Road.



n New boardwalk and shared path connecting Great North Road and Rizal Reserve/Wingate Street over the creek.

n New boardwalk over the creek providing a direct connection between the western and eastern sides of Rizal Reserve.

n New path connecting to Sandy Lane via new residential development (not part of this consent application)

n New boardwalk over a tributary of the creek connecting Rizal Reserve to Rata Street, via two residential parcels to connect to the existing Rata Street path on the northern side of the Rata Street bridge.

n New connection into Ken Maunder Park from Rata Street n New informal crossing facilities at Rata Street.


The new connections across the river provides linkages between reserves and parks, to schools and between arterial roads. The residential area to the south west of the Avondale racecourse will be connected with Rata Street / Ken Maunder Park. The residential area includes such streets as Wingate Street, Corregidor Place and Michael Foley Place. In combination with links to proposed future cycleways the severance in this area is significantly reduced. Having a more direct route through this area will ensure that walking and cycling become a more attractive transport choice. In addition, this section is mostly separated from vehicular traffic, making it a safe and attractive route for less confident users. Where the path crosses Rata Street, crossing facilities will be implemented to mitigate any safety issues.

3.4 Section 3: Ken Maunder Park to Archibald Park


This section connects Ken Maunder Park to Archibald Park using a board walk, bridge structure, public roads, and existing concrete pathways. The proposed improvements include:

n A 2m wide replica bridge, adjacent to the existing bridge between Ken Maunder Park and Queen Mary Avenue to provide adequate width for cyclists.

n A new concrete speed table on Queen Mary Avenue. Cyclists are expected to cycle on road in this section. Therefore, as well as the speed table, sharrow markings have been provided.

n Two access stairways from Koromiko Street and Lynwood Avenue to the boardwalks. n A new 3m shared path connecting the boardwalk to the existing facilities to Archibald Park.


This section utilises Queen Mary Avenue, an existing residential street, to connect two sections of the Pathway. The inclusion for traffic calming measures such as the speed table and sharrow markings will promote a safer, slower environment for cyclists to use the road confidently.

In addition, the Pathway will provide a more direct connection for Koromiko Street and Lynwood Avenue to surrounding parks and reserves.

3.5 Section 4: Archibald Park to Laurieston Park


This section connects Archibald Park to Laurieston Park using a board walk and existing concrete pathways on land. The proposed improvements include:



n A more direct connection between Archibald Park and Cobham Reserve through the implementation of a new 3m wide shared path. This also includes improvements to the existing connections with Cobham Crescent. This also includes connections to Akatea Park, Hamell Eslanade and Laurieston Park.

n Providing a connection to the Pathway from Akatea Road, Harmell Road, Avenger Place and Glen Marine Parade.

n A 4m wide boardwalk across the Wairau Creek.


This section has significant positive effects for pedestrians and cyclists as it directly connects numerous parks and reserves with the surrounding community and overcoming the severance provided by the Wairau Creek using a boardwalk structure. There are connections to five local streets, making it a very accessible portion of the Pathway. This section also provides a western route, connecting into existing greenways around Glendene and Kelston.

3.6 Section 5: Laurieston Park to the Northwestern Shared Path


This section connects Laurieston Park and the rest of the route with the SH 16 Northwestern Shared Path using a board walk and concrete paths within the land reserve. The proposed improvements include:

n Connections between Hepburn Esplanade Reserve, McLeod Park, Roberts Field, Covil Park and Bridge Avenue Reserve, utilising existing shared paths where possible.

n New connections to Meadow Crescent, Riverglade Parkway, Robert Road, Bridge Avenue, and finally onto the existing Northwestern Shared Path.

n New 4m wide boardwalk structures over the Coastal Marine Area (CMA).


This section provides a key link to the existing Northwestern Shared Path, which connects into the city centre. This is anticipated to be a popular connection for commuters in the area and will have a significant positive effect for commuter cyclists. The proposed boardwalk also mitigates severance in the area by navigating through riparian zones and connecting local communities, parks and reserves.

3.7 Summary of Effects The creeks of the Whau River create a severance between the communities and reserves on the western side of the river. The proposed 12km pathway and associated improvements highlighted above will help to alleviate this by providing a new safe, continuous and direct connection between local areas, existing cycle infrastructure and greenways. This will provide the community with both a commuter and a recreational travel choice and have a significant positive effect for pedestrian and cyclists.

In total, there will be 22 new access connections onto the Pathway’s off-road route providing significantly improved accessibility. The majority of these new connections cater for cyclists and users with impaired mobility. However, due to design constraints and gradients in certain areas, five of the accesses are by stairs only. It is considered that these could be designed as bike stairs which is a stairway which has a channel alongside it to facilitate walking a bike up or down. This will be confirmed at the Detailed Design stage.

Overall, the Pathway promotes a safe travel option for commute and recreational travel along the Whau River and the surrounding areas by reducing severance and providing connections with nearby cycle



infrastructure and greenways. This makes the Pathway a viable and attractive travel choice and will have a significant positive effect on pedestrians and cyclists.



4 Effects on Parking

4.1 Introduction This chapter discusses the potential effects of the Pathway on on-street car parking. The two potential parking effects are the potential parking on local streets by commuter and recreational users and the permanent removal of on-street parking required to enable the safe operation of the Pathway. This chapter also provides a discussion on the high-level cycle and pedestrian demand anticipated to be generated by the Pathway.

4.2 Cycle and Pedestrian Demand A 2026 cycle demand assessment has been undertaken by Flow Transportation Specialists (Flow), using the Auckland Cycle Model to estimate the future cyclist demands and was included in Appendix K of the SAR and include in Appendix B of this report.

It is predicted that the direct usage demand is largely generated by commuting pedestrians and cyclists connecting with the North-western cycleway, the proposed Avondale to New Lynn pathway and nearby metropolitan areas.

The modelling results, as reported on in the SAR, predicted that the northern section of the Pathway had the highest demand, most likely due to the link to the Northwestern Shared Path. In this section, the annual average demand is 310 cyclists and 620 pedestrians per day. As this is an annual average, there may be fluctuations across the calendar year. Annual average cyclist values:

n Are typically lower than the cyclists observed during summer periods n Are typically higher than the cyclists observed during winter periods n May differ from the number of cyclists observed on a weekday or on a weekend.

The adjacent connections to the pathways mean that the expected users are going to be predominately commuters. However, it is very likely that many recreational users will also utilise the path to enjoy the environment along the Whau River.

In addition, the pedestrian demand was estimated by applying a factor based on observed pedestrian and cycle behaviours on similar pieces of infrastructure. The forecasted pedestrian and walking demand is shown in Table 4-1.



Table 4-1 - Forecasted Walking and Cycling Demand, Flow

As outlined in the modelling undertaken by Flow, Section 5 (Laurieston Park to the Northwestern Shared Path) is forecast to be the busiest section, attracting approximately 310 cyclists and 620 pedestrians per day by 2026. These values represent an annual daily average and include all trip types.

An estimation of the parking demand was achieved by using the assessment scenarios discussed in the “SkyPath Walk & Cycleway Project – Transportation Assessment Report”, TDG (2013). This report was undertaken by taking the forecasted peak demand and applying several factors to determine a conservative estimation of the peak number of parking spaces required. These factors were based on recreational, tourist and commuter users.

For the purposes of this assessment, only recreational and commuter values have been considered due to the nature of the project. In addition, the percentage factors have been altered and a proportion factor for walking and cycling usage for each trip type has been estimated and applied to match the characteristics of the route. These are outlined in Table 4-2.



Table 4-2 - Parking Factors to be applied to the Predicted Future Pedestrian and Cyclist Numbers

Factor Description Recreation Commuter Proportion Factor Proportion of users based on

type of trip. 30% 70%

Vehicle Use Factor (low/high)

Proportion of individuals arriving by vehicle.

20% 40% 10% 20%

Non – Overlap Factor Percentage of Cars expected to be parked during the anticipated peak times - weekdays (5pm) and weekends (12pm)

70% (weekday)

40% (weekend)

90% (weekday)

90% (weekend)

Vehicle Occupancy Factor

Average number of users per vehicle.

2.5 1

Seasonal Factor Higher numbers possible in warmer seasons.

2 1.25

Day Factor (weekday/weekend)

Proportion of users on weekdays and weekends. Note: These values add to more than 100% to provide a more conservative estimate of total potential demand

5% oer weekday

40% per weekend

day

20% per weekday

5% per weekend

day

As the movement of pedestrians and cyclists between multiple sections is unknown, the factors outlined in Table 4-2 have been applied independently to the demand of each section and assumes that there is no multi-section travel. In reality, this is unlikely to be the case as pedestrians and cyclists are likely to travel between sections. However, the high-level estimates in Table 4-3 provide a maximum range of parking demand for the local streets within each section.

This table shows that Section 3 (Ken Maunder to Archibald Park) is anticipated to have the highest demand for parking per street at peak times both during the weekday and weekend. There are 4 connections to the Pathway within this section. The anticipated number of vehicles looking for an on-street car park on the local streets is not considered to be significant.

Table 4-3 – High Level Estimate of Parking demand per day per access

Section Local Streets within Section Predicted Future Pedestrians and

Cyclists

Approximate Parking Demand per Street at Peak

Times

Weekday Weekend Section 1: Portage Road to Olympic Park

Portage Road, Connaught Street, Kinross Street and Bolton Street 90 1 1

Section 2: Olympic Park to Ken Maunder Park

Olympic Place, Cunard Street and Corregidor Place 180 2-3 2-4

Section 3: Ken Maunder Park to Archibald Park

Queen Mary Avenue, Koromiko Street, Lynwood Road and Beaubank Road 870 6-12 7-14

Section 4: Archibald Park to Laurieston Park

Cobham Crescent, Akatea Road, Harmell Road, Avenger Place and Glen

Marine Parade 420 2-5 3-5

Section 5: Laurieston Park to the Northwestern Shared Path Connection

Meadow Crescent, River Glade Parkway, McLeod Road, Roberts Road, Covil Avenue and Bridge

Avenue

930 4-9 5-10



4.3 Potential Parking Effects on Local Streets The Pathway is expected to become a destination for recreational users in summer evenings and the weekends. It will also be used by commuters. As such it is anticipated that some users may drive and park on one of the 22 local streets which provide access to the Pathway.

From a high-level desk top assessment of “Auckland Transport Te Whau Pathway Scheme Design General Layout Plans”, it is considered that the residential streets that provide access to the Pathway have little or no parking restrictions with available on-street car parking capacity. Additionally, most of the properties have off-street parking.

There are connections to the Pathway from the heavily trafficked arterial roads of Rata Street and Great North Road in Section 2. However, due to surrounding parking restrictions, these are anticipated to be used strictly as accesses for users traveling by bike or foot and are unlikely to be used for parking by commuter or recreational users. Therefore, these have been excluded from the calculationsOlympic Place, Cunard Street and Corregidor Place provide the direct connections in this section. Wingate Street can be used as an informal access, and has been excluded from the calculations

From the review, it is expected that Section 3 will have the most demand for parking with a peak of 14 vehicles per access in this section between Ken Maunder Park to Archibald Park. However, this assessment provides a conservative overestimation of the potential values. Additionally, this does not consider the parking provided at Archibald Park, which current has capacity for approximately 40 vehicles. It is anticipated that the local streets providing access to the Pathway in this section (Queen Mary Avenue, Koromiko Street, Lynwood Road and Beaubank Road) can accommodate these number of vehicles.

Due to the low number of vehicles identified in Table 4-3 expected to drive and park on local streets and most residential streets having significant available car parking capacity and off-street parking, the operation of the Pathway will have a less than minor effect on on-street parking on those residential streets that provide access to the Pathway. The Pathway also links numerous parks and reserves, with Archibald Park and Covil Park providing car parking facilities. However, these could be used for other activities during the weekend.

It should be noted that the factors provide a maximum range and this is a high level estimation of parking demand. The existing parking demand for on and off-street sites have not been reviewed in detail and no parking surveys have been undertaken.

4.4 Permanent Removal of On-Street Parking As part of the project, No Stopping At Any Time (NSAAT) lines will be implemented for access and safety as well as new kerb build outs. This will result in the removal of some on-street parking provision along the route. The net loss of on-street parking spaces will be approximately:

n 10 spaces on the southern end of Portage Road (14 spaces removed and four spaces re-provided). n 10 spaces on Queen Mary Avenue.

It should be noted that no parking studies have been undertaken as part of this high-level review. However, the lost parking spaces only amount to a small proportion of the overall capacity on each of the streets.



5 Effects on Public Transportation

5.1 Introduction The Te Whau Pathway will result in new accessible links to public transport and the location of bus stops and the New Lynn Train Station are presented in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1 – Public Transport Facilities Close to the Te Whau Pathway

These nearby bus stops are located approximately between 200 and 600 m from the proposed pathway, with the New Lynn Train Station being situated approximately 600m from the Pathway.



The bus stops cover many services which provide local and regional links, making the Pathway accessible for a wide range of users. These bus services close to the Pathway have been summarised in Table 5-1

Table 5-1 - Bus and Train location and Services near Te Whau Pathway

Location (Pathway Access) Bus Stop Number

Bus Service

Near Barrys Road/ Hepburn Road (Laurieston Park)

5519 / 5536 162

Near Bancroft Crescent / Hepburn Road (Avenger Place)

5523 / 5942 013, 022, 162

Near 121 Ash Street (Rata Street)

7007 015, 107

Near Binstead Road / Ash Street (Cunard Street)

1783 / 1652 012, 107

Near Great North Road /Stock Street (Jetts Fitness, GNR, New Lynn)

5779 / 5814 18, 22N, 138, 223X, 670

Near Wolverton Street outside Olympic Park (Olympic Park)

8459 / 8462 24B, 24R, 107, 243X

Portage Road Along length of Portage Road

68

Near Godley Road / Harrybrook Road (Karaka Park)

5524 / 5209 006, 008, 154, 195, 209

New Lynn Train Station (Olympic Park)

5914 / 5906 / 5912 / 5908 / 5910 / Train Lines

18, 68, 107, 138, 152, 154, 161, 162, 170, 171, 172, 186, 195, 670, 151X, 171X, 172X, 223X, 243X, 24B, 22N, 24R, 14T, 14W East and West Train Lines

The Pathway will have a positive effect on public transport users as there are several local and regional public transport links within approximately 600m of the Pathway, including the New Lynn train station.



6 Construction Effects

6.1 Introduction Measures to minimise any potential impacts of construction traffic is typically achieved through the requirement of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to be prepared by the nominated contractor prior to works commencing on the Te Whau Pathway. The CTMP will contain measures such as identifying appropriate routes for heavy vehicles to use and minimising the impact on parks and reserves and existing businesses.

6.2 Number of Truck Movements As part of the Construction Methodology (Appendix A), the number of truck movements have been calculated for each of the proposed staging areas for the Pathway. The total number of trucks for each staging area can be seen in Table 6-1. The frequency of truck movements (e.g. per month/day/hour) and the duration of the construction programme will be confirmed by the contractor.

The busiest staging area is Covill Park for timber deliveries which is anticipated to generate 5-8 truck movements. The remainder of the staging areas will generate 2-5 trucks delivering timber which is not considered to be significant.

The busiest two sites are Craigavon Park and Laurieston Park for concrete pours where 20-25 concrete trucks are anticipated. It is very unlikely that these concrete truck pours would all occur on the same day. However, if the concrete pours where to all occur on the same day at these two sites this would only be two trucks an hour. The two busiest sites for heavy vehicles associated with earthworks are also Craigavon Park and Laurieston Park where 10-15 trucks are anticipated at each of these two staging areas. In the unlikely scenario that these trucks all arrived on the same day this would only be 1-2 truck per hour.

Table 6-1 – Total Number of Trucks by Staging Area

Site Chainage

Staging Area Timber Trucks

Sub-Base Trucks

Concrete Trucks

Earthworks Trucks

Total

420 Craigavon Park 0 20-25 20-25 10-15 50-65 2800 Olympic Park 2-5 10-15 10-15 5-10 27-45 3760 Jetts Fitness 2-5 0 0 0 2-5 3980 Wingate Street. 2-5 5-10 5-10 2-3 14-28 4260 Rizal Reserve 2-5 5-10 5-10 2-5 17- 30 4400 Ken Maunder Park 2-5 1-2 1-2 1-2 5-11 5440 Queen Mary Reserve 2-5 1-2 2-5 1-2 6-14 6220 Archibald Park 2-5 3-6 2-5 2-3 9-19 7120 Cobham Reserve 2-5 10-15 15-20 5-8 32-48 440B Harmell Esplanade 2-5 5-10 5-10 5-8 17-33 8620 Laurieston Park 2-5 20-25 20-25 10-15 52-70 9060 Meadow Crescent 2-5 0 0 0 2-5 9180 Riverglade Esplanade 2-5 0 0 0 2-5 9480 McLeod Park 2-5 1-2 2-5 1-2 6-14

10100 Roberts Field 2-5 5-10 5-10 3-5 15-30 10880 Covil Park 5-8 10-13 10-15 5-8 30-44



It has been noted that much of staging areas are in or adjacent to parks and reserves currently used recreationally by the public. This will be an important matter for the contractor to include in the CTMP to ensure the safety of park users and to time the deliveries to avoid busy times at the park where possible.

To manage the predicted effects of the construction phase in these proposed staging areas, it is recommended that the preparation of a CTMP is a condition of consent.

6.3 Construction Traffic Management Plan Framework The objectives of a framework Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) could include the following:

n Provide for the safety of users at reserves and parks; n Minimise disruption from construction traffic in and around staging areas, including residents and

businesses; n Provide a mechanism for addressing queries and responding to complaints.

The types of measures and information that could be in the Framework CTMP, include (but are not limited to) the following:

n Appropriate ingress and egress routes to/from the staging areas for construction vehicles; n Typical number and size of trucks movements for each staging area per week; n Mechanism and nominated person for receiving, addressing and monitoring queries as well as

responding to complaints in relation to the construction of the Path.

Based on a high-level review of the construction methodology and staging areas further transport considerations for each of the staging area which could be included in a Framework CTMP are listed in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2 - Staging Areas and Further Transport Considerations to be addressed by the Framework CTMP

Staging Area Transport Considerations Craigavon Park n Vehicle access to Craigavon Park is located on an intersection and

this is one of the busiest staging areas. n Safe access of heavy vehicles through the park with special

consideration for playground and park users. n Where possible avoid heavy vehicle movements during busy times for

the Park. Olympic Park n Safe access through Bay Olympic Sports Club carpark.

n Where possible avoid heavy vehicle movements during busy times for the Sports Club and shared path.

n A section of the existing shared path will be used by heavy vehicles to access the staging area. When the shared path is being used by heavy vehicles this will need to be carefully managed to ensure the safety of path users.

Jetts Fitness, New Lynn n Access to the staging area will be via the Jetts Fitness car park and the timing of heavy vehicle movements.

n Where possible avoid heavy vehicle movements during busy times for the gym carpark.

n Some on-site parking spaces may need to be temporarily removed to help with heavy vehicle turning movements.



Staging Area Transport Considerations Rizal Reserve (adjacent to Wingate Street)

n Safe access of heavy vehicles through Rizal Reserve. n Dropped kerb to be implemented for vehicle access from Wingate

Street. Rizal Reserve (via Corregidor Place)

n One way working along Corregidor Place for trucks during the set-up and pack-down phases and deck deliveries.

n Short-term restrictions to property access on Corregidor Place during the set-up and pack-down phases when one-way working of trucks in operation.

n Effective communication and coordination with residents particularly the timing of the set-up and pack-down phases

n Temporary banning of on-street parking along some parts of Corregidor Place during the set-up and pack-down phases to avoid the carrigeway width of the Corregidor Place being reduced further.

n Managing safe access along Corregidor Place to Rizal Reserve for recreational users walking / cycling and the truck movements during the set-up and pack-down phases and deck deliveries.

n Providing an appropriate turning around area on the reserve so trucks leave the site in a forward gear

Ken Maunder Park n Dropped kerb to be implemented for vehicle access from Cunard Street which will likely result in the temporary removal of some on-street parking spaces.

n Safe access of heavy vehicles through Ken Maunder Park n Existing shared paths provide two access to the park. These are

narrow in width due to location of vegetation and fence. Queen Mary Reserve n Bollards will need removing to provide vehicle access. Archibald Park n Access through Archibald Park carpark which may result in a few

public car parking spaces being temporarily removed. Cobham Reserve n Bollards will need removing to provide vehicle access

n A few on-street parking spaces will require temporarily removal to allow for truck access.

Harmell Esplanade n Bollards will need removing to provide vehicle access n Dropped kerb to be implemented for vehicle access from Harmell

Road. Laurieston Park n Access from Glen Marine Parade

n A few on-street parking spaces will need to be temporarily removed n Bollards will need removing for access.

Meadow Crescent n A few on-street parking spaces will be temporarily removed n Bollards will need removing for access n Provision of safe pedestrian access to Meadow Glade Park

Riverglade Esplanade n A few on-street parking spaces will need to be temporarily removed McLeod Park n Access from McLeod Road which will require temporary removal of

angled parking n Where possible avoid heavy vehicle movements during busy times for

the Sports Club. Robert Field n A few on-street parking spaces will need to be temporarily removed

n Bollards will need removing for access. Covil Park n Narrow existing access to the staging area, currently used for the

Bridge Club. The lane will have to be tracked to ensure access is possible.



Staging Area Transport Considerations n Provision of safe pedestrian access.

It is considered that the construction effects can satisfactorily mitigated through the implementation of a CTMP which is recommended as a condition of consent.



7 Conclusions

The Pathway will have a significant positive effect on pedestrian and cyclists in the area by providing 12km of new infrastructure and safety improvements such as new or improved crossing points. The proposed Pathway will deliver new safe, continuous and direct connections between local areas and existing cycle infrastructure.

Overall, the Pathway promotes a safe travel option for commuters and recreational travel along the Whau River and the surrounding areas by overcoming severance and providing connections with nearby cycle infrastructure, existing greenways and proposed cycle infrastructure.

In total, there will be 22 new access connections onto the Pathway’s off-road route providing significantly improved accessibility. The majority of these new connections cater for cyclists and users with impaired mobility.

The Pathway will have a positive effect on public transport users as there are several local and regional public transport links within approximately 600m of the Pathway, including the New Lynn train station.

It is estimated that the on a weekday the Pathway will generate a range of between one and 12 vehicles looking to park on each of the local streets that provide access to the Pathway. During a weekend, it is estimated that the Pathway will generate a range of between one and 14 vehicles looking to park on each of the local streets that provide access to the Pathway. This demand is not considered to be significant and the residential streets have significant available car parking capacity and off-street parking. Therefore, the operation of the Pathway will have a less than minor effect on on-street parking on those residential streets that provide access to the Pathway.

It is not anticipated that the permanent removal of approximately 20 on-street carparking spaces to facilitate the Pathway will have a significant effect on on-street parking. However, it is noted that no detailed parking occupancy surveys have been undertaken.

It is considered that the construction effects can satisfactorily mitigated through the implementation of a CTMP which is recommended as a condition of consent.



Appendix A

Te Whau Shared Path Construction Methodology (Beca)

Proposal

Te Whau Shared Path Construction Methodology

Prepared for Auckland Council

Prepared by Beca Limited

December 2018


Beca // 18 December 2018 4217284 // NZ1-16115595-2 0.2 // i

Revision History Revision Nº Prepared By Description Date

A Evan Walters Draft Report 2/7/18

B Evan Walters Updated with client comments 13/8/18

C John Youdale Appendix C added 17/12/18

Document Acceptance Action Name Signed Date

Prepared by Evan Walters

cc.

18/12/18

Reviewed by John Youdale

18/12/18

Approved by Cushla Loomb

18/12/18

on behalf of Beca Limited

© Beca 2018 (unless Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing).

This report has been prepared by Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk.


Beca // 18 December 2018 4217284 // NZ1-16115595-2 0.2 // i

Contents

1 Purpose and Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Introduction 2

2 Design Details 2 2.1 Major Components 2

3 Anticipated Construction Methodology 6 3.1 Major Components 6 3.2 Access Points, Staging, and Construction Effects 11

Appendices

Appendix A Site Photos

Appendix B Watercare Guidelines

Appendix C Rizal Reserve to Rata Street


Beca // 18 December 2018 4217284 // NZ1-16115595-2 0.2 // page 1

1 Purpose and Introduction

1.1 Purpose This report discusses a possible construction methodology for the Te Whau Shared Path in West Auckland. This report will cover topics such as:

n Pathway component design details and anticipated construction methods; n Construction Access and staging areas; n Service clashes and concerns; n Preliminary earthworks calculations; n Noise and vibration management; n Sedimentation control; n Traffic management.

It is noted that design of the structure has yet to occur. This construction methodology is prepared as part of a resource consent application to allow an assessment of the potential construction effects of the proposed walkway. The consent application adopts an ‘envelope’ approach which is intended to provide some flexibility in the final design of the structure. This means that the actual final alignment may be different to that shown and the materials/actual design of the final structure is yet to be confirmed. As such, the construction methodology discusses at a high level the likely approach to be adopted depending on the final design and considers the worst case scenario for consent assessment purposes.



1.2 Introduction The Te Whau Shared Path in West Auckland will allow both cycle and foot traffic to travel between Karaka Park in Green Bay, to SH16 in Te Atatu South. The pathway has various boardwalk and at-grade path sections, totalling approximately 13kms. The general pathway’s route can be found in Figure 1 below in red and blue. Red indicates sections (including boardwalk sections) along the Whau River, blue indicates at-grade pathway sections across land. Site photos are included in Appendix A.

Figure 1: General Te Whau Shared Pathway Alignment.

2 Design Details

2.1 Major Components This section provides a general description of each major element and where they are proposed to be located. The following section also describes how each element will potentially be designed and constructed. It should be noted that at the time of writing this methodology, detailed design for the boardwalk had not been undertaken. Hence, the methodology does not cover elements such as landscaping, artistic finishes, artwork, signage, seating, etc. which will come later during detailed design.

The Pathway has three major components, each of which have their own independent methods of being constructed. The pathway components are:



n At-grade-paths n Boardwalks n Special stream crossings

2.1.1 At-grade Paths/Footpaths

At-grade paths are footpaths which are wider than usual footpaths and built over land. Typically they are bordered by grass fields, tree lines, retaining walls, buildings, or further concrete such as a roadways. They can have varying slopes from flat to 13%, with an average gradient of 5%. If a gradient of 8% or higher is used for a distance of 9m or more, the at-grade path is not suitable for wheelchair users. The Scheme Assessment Report (SAR) previously done notes the following in regards to slopes:

For the majority of the pathway a gradient of 3% or less is achievable. It is desirable to achieve gradients of 5% or less but due to topographical challenges, particularly in parks and reserve areas, this is not always practically possible. However, it has been possible to achieve gradients less than the maximum disability grade of 8.3% (1:12). Where steep gradients approaching 8.3% occur, flat rest areas of 1.2 m have been provided. This allows disabled people to use the route. These standards have been applied to the main pathway. On some connecting paths where these standards cannot be achieved cycle stair cases have been proposed.

For this project, the at-grade-paths will be 3 wide to allow enough room for cyclists to pass each other. The at-grade path will be constructed of concrete or asphaltic concrete 75 to 100mm thick. The following table shows the chainages (from South to North) that at-grade paths are proposed to be built.

Table 1: At-grade path Chainages

Chainage (m) Length (m) Chainage (m) Length (m)

0-520 520 7170-8310 140

2405-2500 95 8360-8730 370

2560-2725 165 9460-9485 25

3730-3800 70 9640-9485 25

4025-4200 175 9640-9650 10

4235-4300 65 10080-10260 180

4400-4420 20 11070-11200 130

4540-4550 10 11265-11390 125

5140-5175 35 0B-120B 120

6210-6265 55 760B-850B 90

6935-6950 15 360C-460C 100

6990-7190 200 Total: 2,715

2.1.2 Boardwalk

The boardwalk is an open piled structure that extends approximately 6.5km over intertidal mudflats and low lying vegetated margins. The board walk will comprise a deck (approx. 4m wide) supported by beam elements and piles. The proposed deck level is 2.9m AVD. The deck and beam elements will be constructed from treated timber (H6), concrete, steel, and/or fibre reinforced plastic. The piles will be constructed from treated timber (H6) (approx. 250mm dia), reinforced concrete (approx. 200mm dia), or fibre reinforced plastic. The spacing of longitudinal piles is governed primarily by beam capacity and is expected to be 4-6m,



depending on material type and section profile. A sketch showing the indicative structural makeup is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Typical boardwalk cross-section. Source Te Whau Pathway Scheme Investigation Scheme Assessment Report, Stantec, June 2017 Depending on ground conditions/contractor requirements piles will be installed by one of the following methods:

n Driven using a piling rig with pile hammer. n Piles placed in pre-augured sockets and set with concrete. Undertaken using a backhoe. A photo

illustrating this approach is pictured in Figure 3 below.



1.

Figure 3 – Pile installation

Table 2 provides chainage locations for board walk construction.

Table 2: Boardwalk Chainages

Chainage (m) Distance (m) Chainage (m) Distance (m)

2880-4025 1145 9110-9460 350

5570-5590 20 9650-9970 320

5610-6210 600 9990-11080 1090

6950-6990 40 10260-10570 310

7200-7230 30 10590-11070 4880

7370-8170 800 11390-11580 190

8310-8360 50 120B-760B 640

8730-8765 35 0C-360C 360

8795-9090 295 Total 5,985

2.1.3 Special Crossings

There are 10 special crossings included in this project. Two of these crossings are proposed to prevent Watercare assets from being adversely affected, while the remainder allow the cyclists and pedestrians to cross over the Whau River.

Watercare was contacted regarding the crossings involving their assets. They responded by providing guidelines which to follow while doing a construction projects near their assets. These guidelines can be found in Appendix B.



Discussion of the Rizal Reserve to Rata Street boardwalks have been added to this revision of this report as Appendix C following development of a concept design for these crossings.

The remaining special crossings are Te Whau channel crossings. The construction methods for these will largely be the same as the Boardwalk’s construction methods in the previous section. Since these sections require longer pile lengths, the piles may be larger diameter (300-400mm) and may be spliced during installation. Furthermore, cross bracing may have to be installed before the deck is constructed, depending on the material selected and the design details. As detailed design of the structure has not taken place, it unknown whether there will be a requirement to drive piles in the channel. If piles in the channel are required, longer spans and heavier pile loads may be required (depending on the results of geotechnical investigations). This would results in deeper deck sections.

The following table shows the project chainages where special crossings are proposed.

Table 3: Special Crossings Chainages

Chainage (m) Length (m) Special Crossing Type

2950 Watercare Pipe

4200-4240 40 Rizal Reserve Bridge

4300-4400 100 Ken Maunder Park Bridge

5040-5140 100 Ken Maunder to Queen Mary Ave Bridge

7230-7370 140 Channel

8765-8795 30 Channel

9090-9110 20 Channel

9970-9990 20 Channel

10570-10590 20 Channel

560B-640B 80 Channel

410B Watercare Pipe

3 Anticipated Construction Methodology

3.1 Major Components

3.1.1 At-grade-Paths/Footpaths

Although either asphaltic concrete or concrete may be used to construct the at-grade paths, this will later be decided during the detailed design process. To construct the at-grade paths, the contractor will initially carry out minor earthworks to provide an area on top of which GAP40 aggregate may be placed, removing necessary grass, topsoil and vegetation. Next, after levelling and compacting the aggregate, concrete is poured on top. . After the concrete is poured, finished, and cured, markings such as cyclist and pedestrian symbols may be painted onto the concrete where appropriate.



3.1.2 Boardwalk Construction Methodology Options

The construction methodology will vary based on contractor preferences/requirements and future site investigations. Based on the information available to Beca at present a high level construction methodology has been outlined below:

n Site Clearance: Vegetation obstructing construction works will be removed. This may include removal of vegetation in the following locations: – Over access points to allow for access tracks and temporary staging (discussed below); – Along access tracks and platforms along the alignment of the boardwalk (discussed below); – Along the alignment to allow for placement of swamp matts in intertidal areas (discussed below); – At all pile locations ;

n Potential Work Methods: Depending on detailed design and the site conditions it is envisaged that

construction will be carried out employing a combination of the following methods. – Access tracks and platforms adjacent to the boardwalk. For zones out of tidal and river areas,

access tracks and temporary platforms formed from imported gravel maybe utilised. A sketch illustrating this approach is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 - Access track/platform

The access track will be removed after the works are completed.

n Swamp Matts. Where the alignment is intertidal mudflats, swamp matts maybe utilised to allow heavy machinery to access site. We note that work will be restricted to low tide and vegetation will need to be removed along the alignment. A photo illustrating this approach is shown in Figure 5.



Figure 5 – Swamp Matts

n Erection of a standalone temporary staging. For working near steep banks, over water or soft ground temporary staging maybe used. The contractor will need to design the temporary structure to support his equipment and remove after completion of the works. It is noted that access points will need to be identified to allow for material delivery and access to temporary staging. The use of a temporary structure would avoid the need for excessive removal of mangroves (as outlined in the swamp matt option above).

Figure 6– Temporary staging

n Use of the permanent structure as a construction platform. The contractor may elect to use the permanent piles and possibly the deck as a work platform, working “over the top” to progressively build the boardwalk. If a temporary deck is used, the contactor will need to design the temporary work platform and check that the permanent piles have adequate strength to support construction loads. This may result in installation of stronger piles than needed for the permanent works.

n Barge works. Based on the proposed boardwalk alignment, we assess that carrying out construction work from a barge is not a feasible due to the lack of water depth. We note that in some locations a barge could be utilised for the transport and delivery of materials similar to that shown in Figure 7 below.



Figure 7 - Barge being utilised for material transport

3.1.3 Special Crossings

The special crossings will be constructed to different design details to the boardwalk due to the longer spans and height. For all works within the CMA, it is expected that the contractor will adopt a method of working which creates minimum disturbance to the seabed, vegetation, and surrounding land. A possible method to accomplish this is a build as you go method for the boardwalk, where continuing works can be carried out from the newly constructed previous boardwalk segment (see section 3.1.2 above).

Details of the proposed design and methods to construct the Rizal Reserve and Rizal Reserve to Ken Maunder Park crossings are still being determined, and are not discussed in this report.

The existing Ken Maunder to Queen Mary Avenue Bridge is to have an additional 2m wide replica bridge constructed next to it. This bridge will be on independent foundations and adjacent to the existing bridge. Previous investigations were done by Stantec in the Scheme Assessment Report (SAR). As stated in the SAR, the existing bridge would be modified by removing the existing deck and replacing with FRP, additional timber joists, handrail replacement, and stiffening of the existing 530UB mainbeams. Some critical connections, such as those which connect the 530UB to the 310UB cross heads, may need strengthening or additional redundancy. As the existing bridge was already designed for similar live loads as in the design criteria, it is anticipated that the structural modifications, with details to be confirmed at detailed design, to the existing bridge can be utilised for the new proposed loading regime for the new replica bridge. The primary motivation for having a duplicate structure in lieu of widening the existing bridge is that this limits its relative movement since the structures have equivalent stiffness. The behaviour of the two structures under lateral loading will be assessed at detailed design.

Regarding the crossings near Watercare’s pipe crossings, Watercare provided general conditions which shall be followed so that their assets are not interfered with. These conditions can be found in Appendix B. It is proposed that the boardwalk will be raised or lowered as necessary to meet these conditions. Otherwise, the anticipated construction methodology of these crossings is to be similar to the boardwalk’s discussed in the previous section, however the deck level of the boardwalk will be changed. Pile design may be different and larger diameter piles or additional cross bracing may be required as a result of the boardwalk’s new deck height.



Figure 2: Wairau Creek Watercare Pipe Special Crossing Area Chainage 410B

Figure 3: Watercare Pipe Crossing near Ch. 2950. Pathway approximate alignment in thick orange. Pink and green thin lines are Transpower transmission lines.



3.2 Access Points, Staging, and Construction Effects The contractor will need staging, access, and laydown areas in order to carry out the construction. Furthermore, truck movements and the establishment of a construction compound(s) will be necessary. In several places, the contractor will need to be aware of the overhead high voltage lines nearby, although these only present a constraint in some limited locations. The areas where overhead high voltage lines become of concern are listed in the power lines section of this report. Lastly, to construct the pathway earthworks will be required.

3.2.1 Staging and Access Areas

Following a site visit, the following areas have been determined to be of best use for staging and access. Photos from these areas can be found at the end of this report.

Table 4: Site Access and Staging Areas

Chainage Site Name Staging Access Additional Comments

420 Craigavon Park Yes Yes

2800 Olympic Park Yes Yes Large flat area with equipment access via the athletic club.

3760 Jetts Fitness Yes Yes Small area for staging, works likely to impact Jetts Fitness.

3980 Wingate St. Yes Yes Possible use for staging

4260 Rizal Reserve Yes Yes Large area. Overhead powerlines on access way.

4400 Ken Maunder Park Yes Yes Flat medium sized area. Access via industrial area nearby. Overhead powerlines nearby.

5440 Queen Mary Reserve

Yes Yes

6220 Archibald Park Yes Yes Large flat area.

6980 Cobham Cresc. Yes Access Only

7120 Cobham Reserve Yes Yes Shared park patron and contractor access via grassy alleyway.

800B Akatea Park Yes Access only, is located in an industrial area.

440B Harmell Esplanade Yes Yes

8620 Laurieston Park Yes Yes

9060 Meadow Crescent Yes Yes

9180 Riverglade Esplanade

Yes Yes Small area

9480 McCleod Park Yes Yes Large area

10100 Roberts Field Yes Yes Large area.

10880 Covil Park Yes Yes Shared access driveway. Closest recommended site to SH16.



3.2.2 Site Establishment and Construction Compound

Although the contractor may establish their construction compound at any of the proposed staging areas, the locations best suited for this include Olympic Park, the Rizal Reserve, Archibald Park, the Cobham Reserve, and Roberts Field. Aerial photos of each location are found below.

The construction compound/site office will be appropriately fenced for health, safety, and security reasons. Furthermore, some locations may involve shared access with park patrons. Safety of both the construction staff and park patrons is expected to not be jeopardized by construction activities.

As identified in the Arboricultural Report, the laydown(s) will be in an area clear of trees to allow for crane operations. Adjacent trees will be fenced at the drip line as necessary.

Figure 4. Olympic Park Indicative construction compound area and access paths



Figure 5. Rizal Reserve Indicative construction compound area and temporary paths



Figure 6: Archibald Park Indicative construction area



Figure 7: Cobham Reserve Indicative Construction Area

The Cobham Reserve staging area is considered an option for use. Its primary access is a shared access grass alleyway which reserve patrons will also be using. The contractor must be aware of this during operations.



Figure 8: Roberts Field Indicative Construction Compound Area and Temporary Paths

3.2.3 Timber, Concrete, Aggregate, and Earthwork volumes

Preliminary estimations were done to calculate the amount of various materials needed for the pathway. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 5. These calculations are based on various assumptions from previous work experience and projects. These assumptions are as follows:

n Piles are 6m long for the boardwalk, 12m for the special crossings, average n The pile diameter is 200 - 300mm n 5m spacing between pile bents n Boardwalk and special crossing timber decking is 40mm thick n Cross bracing is only necessary under the longer special crossing piles n The concrete is 125mm thick for the at-grade path on average n The sub-base is 125mm thick for the at-grade path n The boardwalk is 4m wide, and the at-grade path is 3m wide n The cross section in Figure 1 is accurate for the remainder of the boardwalk information



From these assumptions, the following approximate quantities for the overall pathway were estimated:

n Total Timber volume: 2,225m3 – Handrail Timber volume: 500m3 – Boardwalk Timber volume (no handrail): 1,500m3 – Boardwalk Timber volume per metre (with handrail): 0.38m3 – Special crossings Timber volume (no handrail): 225m3 – Special Crossings Timber volume per metre (with handrail): 0.60m3

n Earthworks Volume: approximately 1025m3 n Sub base (GAP40) volume: 1,025m3

– Sub base (GAP40) volume per metre of At-Grade Path: 0.375m3 n Concrete volume: 1,025m3

– Concrete Volume per metre of At-Grade Path: 0.375m3

For each staging area, the amount of Boardwalk, At-Grade Path, and Special Crossings closest to that staging area was calculated. These can be found in the table below.

Table 5: Pathway Type Lengths per Staging Area

Site Chainage

Site Name Boardwalk Length (m)

At-Grade Path length (m)

Special Crossings length (m)

Timber Volume (m3)

Sub base volume (m3)

Concrete Volume (m3)

Indicative Earthworks Volume (m3)

420 Craigavon Park

0 520 0 0 200 200 100-110

2800 Olympic Park

400 280 0 150 110 110 50-60

3760 Jetts Fitness

590 0 0 225 0 0 0

3980 Wingate St. 150 100 0 50 40 40 20-25

4260 Rizal Reserve

0 140 70 50 55 55 25-30

4400 Ken Maunder Park

0 25 65 40 10 10 5-10

5440 Queen Mary Reserve

260 40 0 100 15 15 5-10

6220 Archibald Park

460 60 0 175 25 25 10-15

7120 Cobham Reserve

570 335 20 225 125 125 60-70

440B Harmell Esplanade

610 185 0 240 70 70 35-45

8620 Laurieston Park

440 510 20 175 190 190 100-110



Site Chainage

Site Name Boardwalk Length (m)

At-Grade Path length (m)

Special Crossings length (m)

Timber Volume (m3)

Sub base volume (m3)

Concrete Volume (m3)

Indicative Earthworks Volume (m3)

9060 Meadow Crescent

260 0 20 120 0 0 0

9180 Riverglade Esplanade

190 0 20 75 0 0 0

9480 McCleod Park

270 30 0 100 15 15 6

10100 Roberts Field

490 180 30 200 70 70 30-40

10880 Covil Park 710 260 60 300 100 100 50-60

For all earthworks related procedures, standard sediment control procedures will be followed (in accordance with an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the pathway). Furthermore, the noise and vibration standard NZS 6803:1999 is to be upheld throughout all construction works.

3.2.4 Truck Movements

As an extension, the number of truck loads was calculated based from the results of the calculations in the previous section. For the truck load estimations, it was assumed that 8m3 and 10m3 of concrete and aggregate/earthworks could be transported per truck load respectively.

n Mobilisation of plant, site offices, etc: 5-10 n Number of truck loads, Earthworks: 50-60 n Number of truck loads, Sub-Base GAP40 Aggregate: 50-60 n Number of truck loads, Timber: 50-60 n Number of truck loads, Concrete: 100-125

This does not include general mobilisation and staff movements as it is assumed that the construction of this section will be carried out as part of the larger project.

An estimate of total construction time will need to be confirmed by the contractor.

Table 6: Truck Movements by Staging Area

Site Chainage

Site Name Timber Trucks Sub-Base Trucks

Concrete Trucks

Earthworks Trucks

420 Craigavon Park 0 20-25 20-25 10-15

2800 Olympic Park 2-5 10-15 10-15 5-10

3760 Jetts Fitness 2-5 0 0 0

3980 Wingate St. 2-5 5-10 5-10 2-3

4260 Rizal Reserve 2-5 5-10 5-10 2-5

4400 Ken Maunder Park 2-5 1-2 1-2 1-2

5440 Queen Mary Reserve 2-5 1-2 2-5 1-2

6220 Archibald Park 2-5 3-6 2-5 2-3



Site Chainage

Site Name Timber Trucks Sub-Base Trucks

Concrete Trucks

Earthworks Trucks

7120 Cobham Reserve 2-5 10-15 15-20 5-8

440B Harmell Esplanade 2-5 5-10 5-10 5-8

8620 Laurieston Park 2-5 20-25 20-25 10-15

9060 Meadow Crescent 2-5 0 0 0

9180 Riverglade Esplanade 2-5 0 0 0

9480 McCleod Park 2-5 1-2 2-5 1-2

10100 Roberts Field 2-5 5-10 5-10 3-5

10880 Covil Park 5-8 10-13 10-15 5-8

3.2.5 Power lines

There are several points at which the pathway encroaches upon the high tension power lines. Transpower was contacted to help address these areas of concern with their HV transmission lines. The New Zealand electrical code of practice 34 (NZECP 34:2001) must be followed when working near these areas. Furthermore, before construction begins, a report demonstrating the construction method in these areas must be submitted to Transpower for approval.

Table 7: Transpower high voltage lines concern areas

Address/Area Conflict type Chainage

Adjacent east of Olympic Park

Proposed shared path runs parallel to Transmission Lines (existing path crosses under)

2700

Under Railway bridge near Olympic park

Shared path boardwalk crosses under transmission lines 2880-2960

Behind 34B Portage Rd., New Lynn, Auckland

Shared path boardwalk crosses under transmission lines 2980, 3060, 3100

Behind 20 Portage Rd, New Lynn, Auckland

Shared path boardwalk crosses under transmission lines 3180, 3240

Behind 2180 Great North Rd. Avondale, Auckland

Shared path crosses under transmission lines, comes 13m from transmission tower

3620-3660, 3720

Behind 10 Drury St., Avondale, Auckland (98 Wingate St.)


Near 40 Kokomiko St. Koromiko St. Connection steps cross under transmission lines

5800

Behind 17B Kiernan Place, Kelston, Auckland


14 Meadow Crescent Shared path connection to Meadow crescent passes under transmission lines

9110

12 Corregidor Place, Avondale, Auckland

Shared Path crosses under lines, and bridge to be constructed nearby, see alignment (page 14 of 37 on alignment document)

4260


Appendix A

Site Photos


Craigavon Park Photos


Olympic Park Access way


Olympic Park Staging Area


Jetts Fitness


Wingate St. Photos


Rizal Reserve Photos


Ken Maunder Park


Queen Mary Reserve Photos


Akatea Park


Laurieston Park


Meadow Crescent


Riverglade Esplanade Photos


Roberts Field Entrance


Appendix B

Watercare Guidelines


Please note the following general Works Over conditions for works proposed within 10m of Watercare TRANSMISSION assets:

1. Building over chambers, valves, manholes, rising mains and connections is NOT permitted. 2. NOTE: Do NOT CCTV transmission mains. 3. Critical Transmission mains are to be clearly located and marked out on site. You may either spear

and pot-hole or hydro excavate the main. Investigation Consent must be applied for prior to excavation or any other works that involve penetrating the ground.

4. If it is not practical to spear and pot-hole the main, it must be surveyed/marked-out by a Watercare approved registered surveyor at the applicants cost.

5. Please note that for health and safety reasons only approved third parties are allowed access to Watercare networks.

6. Foundations are to be designed to ensure that no additional loading is imposed on the main by the new structure.

7. If piles are proposed, depending on the depth, ground conditions and condition of the main, 1 to 2 metre minimum clearance from face of pile to face of main may be required.

8. Piles within 5 meters of the main are to be drilled and not driven. 9. Depending on proposal, depth and condition of the pipe, engineering report may be required. 10. This applies to any retaining walls too, if proposed. 11. Inspections/stand-over as per consent conditions. 12. IMPORTANT: Final Works Over sign off, if required, is dependent on Inspections/stand-over

feedback and the contractor supply accurate as-built information.

Please note the following general Works Over conditions for works proposed within 10m of Watercare RETAIL assets:

1. Building over chambers, valves, manholes, rising mains and connections is NOT permitted. 2. Pre-construction CCTV inspection is required and is to be carried out by Watercare approved

contractors prior to consent being issued. Please send to 73 Remuera Road, Newmarket. 3. Please note that if the main is damaged or deemed to be in poor condition, it must be repaired at the

applicant’s expense, prior to Build Over Consent being issued. 4. Mains must be clearly marked-out. This can be done by the CCTV contractor during the inspection. 5. Please note that for health and safety reasons only approved third parties are allowed access to

Watercare networks. 6. Foundations are to be designed to ensure that no additional loading is imposed on the main by

the new structure. 7. If piles are proposed, depending on the depth, ground conditions and condition of the main, 1 to 2

metre minimum clearance from face of pile to face of main may be required. 8. Piles within 5 meters of the main are to be drilled and not driven. 9. Post-construction CCTV inspection is required to ensure the main has not been damaged. 10. IMPORTANT: Final Works Over sign off, if required, is dependent on Inspections/stand-over

feedback and the contractor supply accurate as-built information.

MINIMUM COVER required over TRANSMISSION mains is: - 1500mm for new carriageway and existing carriageway reinstatement - 900mm in berms and footpaths; if not achievable, please discuss with Watercare

MINIMUM COVER required over RETAIL mains is:

- 900mm for new carriageway and existing carriageway reinstatement - 600mm in berms and footpaths; if not achievable, please discuss with Watercare

NEW SERVICES proposed in close vicinity of Watercare assets - minimum clearances are: - 1.0 metre horizontal for trenching - Directional drilling, 2.0 metres horizontal - 500mm minimum vertical clearance for services over or under affected mains at the crossing

points


Investigation Consent is required for any test pits, hand augering, bore holes or potholing in close vicinity of Watercare critical assets and if you wish to determine the pipe location or depth for your design. To apply, please send your application to [email protected] Alterations to existing RETAIL assets - Engineering Plan Approval (EPA) is required: If proposed construction works and services clash with Watercare retail assets, it is the applicant’s responsibility to either divert affected mains or to adjust their proposed design. Design drawings for mains diversion shall be submitted to Auckland Council or Watercare’s’ Connections Team [email protected] for Engineering Plan Approval (EPA) process. Any significant changes proposed to existing lid levels or chambers will also require the EPA. Minor alterations may not require the EPA, subject to confirmation. Any alterations to existing TRANSMISSION assets should be individually applied for to Watercare’s’ Works Over Team [email protected] and approved by Works Over and Water/Wastewater Transmission Teams. Works Over Consent is required prior to any construction works start and should be applied for through Works Over Team [email protected] . Due to liability reasons, Watercare prefer issuing works over consents to the principal contractor(s) awarded the work. If a Watercare approval is required for Auckland Council (for Resource or Building Consent), once we review and approve the design drawings and methodology we can issue our pre-approval Consultation Letter to confirm that we have no objections to the proposal. The principal contractor may apply for Works Over Consent once appointed and ready to start construction works. Please make sure that your design complies with our requirements – please ensure that design drawings supplied with your application include our assets, new proposals’ construction details and the required clearances clearly indicated. Standard detail drawings for building close to or over our assets are also attached for your information.

mailto:[email protected]





Roberts Field Entrance


Appendix C

Rizal Reserve to Rata Street


Rizal Reserve to Rata Street The Rizal Reserve to Rata Street section of the proposed pathway presents some special challenges for design and construction due to the depth of the valley and slopes. The concept design in this location includes a bridge ~18m long over the tributary to the Whau River.

Description of the Works Required

There are two options for the alignment in this section, shown on Stellar Drawings 1358-101 Rev0 and 1358-300 Rev 0. The connection to Rizal Reserve will be a concrete pathway along the top edge of the valley. At the north end of the reserve, the boardwalk will commence and descend at a slope of ~1:67 for Option 1 or 1:50 for Option 2 to the valley at the south end of the bridge, along slightly different alignments for the two options. The deck level of the bridge will be ~+4.4m CD.

After crossing the stream Option 1 continues to drop at 1:67 for about 35m and then rises up the slope at a constant slope of 1:20 for 90m. The walkway will generally follow the contours of the valley slope, which will mean that the right (high) side will be close to ground level but the left side will up to 6m above ground level.

Option 2 crosses the stream and continues to drop at 1:50 for about 20m and then rises up the slope at a constant slope of 1:20 for 110m. For approximately 60m, the left side of the walkway will be above the tidal flat while the right side will be close to ground level. The left side will be up to 7m above ground level and at high tide there will be water under part of the walkway.

Both sections will require piles that are significantly longer than those that will typically be used in the flat sections of the boardwalk.

Boardwalk Construction Methodology

The construction methodology will vary based on contractor preferences/requirements and future site investigations. Based on the information available to Beca at the time of report preparation, a high level construction methodology has been outlined below.

Site Clearance

Vegetation obstructing construction works will be removed. This will include removal of vegetation along temporary access tracks and platforms and along the proposed alignment of the boardwalk and at all pile locations.

For both options some pohutukawa and other trees will have to be removed and/or significantly trimmed.

Potential Work Methods

As a result of the steep cross-slopes and the special crossing for the stream, it is envisaged that construction will be carried out employing either one of or a combination of the following methods.

n Erection of a standalone temporary staging. For working on the steep banks and over water, temporary staging maybe used. The contractor will need to design the temporary structure to support the construction equipment and be able to be removed after completion of the works. It is assumed that the access points for delivery of materials and access to temporary staging will be from Rizal Reserve for the southern end. As the stream crossing will require heavier equipment and larger components, it is


anticipated that a temporary staging will be required at this location at least.

n Use of the permanent structure as a construction platform. For the north side of the stream, the contractor may elect to use the permanent piles and deck as a work platform, working “over the top” to progressively build the boardwalk. The contractor will need to design the temporary work platform over the piles and check that the permanent piles have adequate strength to support construction loads. This may result in installation of stronger piles than needed for the permanent works, noting that on the low side of the boardwalk the piles will have a significant unsupported length and may require lateral bracing. Material could be delivered either from the open space area at Rata Street or, once the stream crossing is completed, from Rizal Reserve.

Stream Crossing

The stream crossings will be constructed to different design details to the boardwalk due to the longer spans and height. As the works are within the CMA, it is expected that the contractor will adopt a method of working which creates minimum disturbance to the seabed, vegetation, and surrounding land. It is possible that the contractor will establish a platform at the end of the temporary work platform on which a crane will be established with sufficient reach and capacity to drive the bridge piles and erect the beams and deck components. The size of the crane will dictate the design of the access from Rizal Reserve.

Access Points

It is anticipated that materials for the south end will be delivered from Rizal Reserve. For the north end, material would either be delivered from the open space area on Rata Street, or once the stream crossing is completed, from Rizal Reserve.



Appendix B

Te Whau Pathway – Estimated Active Mode Demands (Flow)

report te whau pathway - transport impact assessment · 700m of pathway at rizal/sandy lane is...

Documents