pukekohe rail station bus interchange and park & ride · a pukekohe rail station bus...
TRANSCRIPT
a
Pukekohe Rail Station
Bus Interchange and Park & Ride
Scheme Assessment Report
August 2015
Prepared for:
Auckland Transport
Prepared by AECOM Consulting Services (NZ) Limited
a
42127173/01/A S:\AKL\JOBS\42127173\5 Works\6. Reports\5. Pukekohe SAR - July 2015\Pukekohe SAR Final Report Aug 2015 REV C.docx
DOCUMENT PRODUCTION / APPROVAL RECORD
Issue No. Name Signature Date Position Title
Prepared by
Simeon De’ath
31/8/15 Associate Director
Checked by
Blair Rogers
31/8/15 Associate Director
Approved by
Blair Rogers
31/8/15 Associate Director
Report Name:
Pukekohe Rail Station
Bus Interchange and Park & Ride
Sub Title:
Scheme Assessment Report
Report No.
Status:
Final
Client Contact Details:
Stewart Thomson | Project Manager
PT Capital Improvements
Level 10 - HSBC House, 1 Queen
Street, Auckland 1010
Private Bag 92250, Auckland 1142
P 09 447 5063 XT 48 5063
M 021 458 396
DOCUMENT REVISION RECORD
Issue No. Date Details of Revisions
A 16/7/15 Draft for Client review
B 23/7/15 Updated draft including new data provided
C 31/8/15 Final - client comments and other AT consultants inputs included
Issued by: AECOM Consulting Services (NZ) Ltd 8 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland 1010, PO Box 4241 Shortland St, Auckland 1140, New Zealand T +64 9 967 9200 F +64 9 967 9201 www.aecom.com AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to the latest version of ISO9001 and ISO14001.
© Legal Name (AECOM). All rights reserved.
AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other party
should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party
who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements and AECOM’s
experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional principles. AECOM
may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of which may not have been verified.
Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.
42127173/01/A i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... V
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
Scope .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1
Exclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2
Assumptions and Reference Date ............................................................................................... 2 1.3
1.3.1 Assumptions .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3.2 Reference Date .............................................................................................................................. 3
2 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 4
Purpose of Scheme Assessment Report .................................................................................... 4 2.1
Previous Studies ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.2
Policy, Strategies and Implementation Plans ............................................................................ 5 2.3
2.3.1 Auckland Plan ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.3.2 Pukekohe Area Plan ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.3 Integrated Transport Programme ................................................................................................ 6
2.3.4 The Regional Public Transport Plan ........................................................................................... 7
2.3.5 Parking Strategy ............................................................................................................................ 7
Strategic Need ............................................................................................................................... 8 2.4
Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.5
Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.6
3 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 10
Site Location ................................................................................................................................ 10 3.1
Topography .................................................................................................................................. 12 3.2
Surrounding Road Network ....................................................................................................... 12 3.3
3.3.1 Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................... 12
3.3.2 Over Dimension (OD) Route ....................................................................................................... 12
3.3.3 Existing Bus Routes ................................................................................................................... 12
3.3.4 Existing pedestrian and cycling facilities ................................................................................. 13
3.3.5 Future Transport Upgrades and Other Projects ...................................................................... 13
Land Ownership .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.4
4 COLLECTED DATA ..................................................................................................................... 16
Information Supplied By AT ....................................................................................................... 16 4.1
Proposed Bus Routes ................................................................................................................. 16 4.2
Crash Data ................................................................................................................................... 16 4.3
Traffic Data ................................................................................................................................... 17 4.4
Station Road Pedestrian Improvements ................................................................................... 18 4.5
Cycling ......................................................................................................................................... 18 4.6
Geotechnical and Pavement ...................................................................................................... 19 4.7
Contamination Investigation ...................................................................................................... 20 4.8
42127173/01/A
Utilities ......................................................................................................................................... 20 4.9
4.9.1 Electricity ..................................................................................................................................... 21
4.9.2 Street Lighting ............................................................................................................................. 22
4.9.3 Communications ......................................................................................................................... 22
4.9.4 Gas ................................................................................................................................................ 22
4.9.5 Water supply ................................................................................................................................ 22
4.9.6 Waste water ................................................................................................................................. 22
4.9.7 Stormwater ................................................................................................................................... 22
4.9.8 Private .......................................................................................................................................... 22
5 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 23
6 OPTION DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 25
Bus interchange and park & ride car park ................................................................................ 25 6.1
6.1.1 Alternatives considered ............................................................................................................. 25
6.1.2 Bus Interchange Options ........................................................................................................... 26
Manukau Road / Custom Street Intersection ........................................................................... 31 6.2
Footbridge .................................................................................................................................... 31 6.3
7 ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE AGREED CRITERIA ................................................................. 32
Assessment Criteria ................................................................................................................... 32 7.1
Option Differentiators ................................................................................................................. 32 7.2
Assessment Outcomes .............................................................................................................. 33 7.3
8 RECOMMENDED OPTION .......................................................................................................... 35
9 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT (DPS) .................................................... 36
Design Standards ........................................................................................................................ 36 9.1
9.1.1 Auckland Transport .................................................................................................................... 36
9.1.2 Austroads ..................................................................................................................................... 36
9.1.3 The Transport Agency ................................................................................................................ 36
Bus Interchange and Park & Ride ............................................................................................. 37 9.2
9.2.1 Geometric Design........................................................................................................................ 37
9.2.2 Bus Interchange Design ............................................................................................................. 38
Pedestrian and Cycling Infrastructure ...................................................................................... 38 9.3
9.3.1 Cycling ......................................................................................................................................... 38
9.3.2 Pedestrian .................................................................................................................................... 39
Drop Off, Taxi and Park and Ride Parking ................................................................................ 39 9.4
9.4.1 Drop Offs ...................................................................................................................................... 39
9.4.2 Taxi ............................................................................................................................................... 39
9.4.3 Park and Ride Parking ................................................................................................................ 39
9.4.4 Parking on Custom Street .......................................................................................................... 40
Custom Street Accesses ............................................................................................................ 40 9.5
Manukau Road / Custom Street Intersection Design .............................................................. 40 9.6
Transdev Compound Relocation ............................................................................................... 41 9.7
42127173/01/A
Stormwater ................................................................................................................................... 42 9.8
Lighting ........................................................................................................................................ 42 9.9
Pavement Design ........................................................................................................................ 42 9.10
Utilities ......................................................................................................................................... 43 9.11
Signs and Markings .................................................................................................................... 43 9.12
Landscape .................................................................................................................................... 43 9.13
Structures .................................................................................................................................... 44 9.14
9.14.1 Footbridge .................................................................................................................................... 44
9.14.2 Retaining walls ............................................................................................................................ 44
9.14.3 Canopies ...................................................................................................................................... 44
Departures from Standard .......................................................................................................... 44 9.15
Maintenance and Safety in Design ............................................................................................ 44 9.16
Constructability ........................................................................................................................... 44 9.17
9.17.1 Project Staging ............................................................................................................................ 44
10 LAND REQUIREMENTS / CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................. 46
11 COST ESTIMATES AND PROJECT RISKS ................................................................................ 48
Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................ 48 11.1
11.1.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................ 48
11.1.2 Capital and Upgrading Cost ....................................................................................................... 49
11.1.3 Operation and Maintenance Cost .............................................................................................. 49
Risks and Opportunities ............................................................................................................. 50 11.2
11.2.1 Risks ............................................................................................................................................. 50
11.2.2 Opportunities ............................................................................................................................... 51
12 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 52
Economic Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 52 12.1
12.1.1 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Analysis ............................................................................................ 52
12.1.2 Incremental .................................................................................................................................. 53
12.1.3 Sensitivity .................................................................................................................................... 53
12.1.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 53
Independent Peer Review ........................................................................................................... 54 12.2
13 SAFETY AUDIT ............................................................................................................................ 55
14 ROADING NETWORK IMPACT REPORT ................................................................................... 56
15 STATUTORY PLANNING ............................................................................................................ 57
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan .............................................................................................. 57 15.1
Works on Designated Land ........................................................................................................ 57 15.2
15.2.1 Auckland Transport Auckland-Wide Designation ................................................................... 57
15.2.2 New Zealand Railways Corporation (KiwiRail) Designations ................................................. 58
Site Specific Considerations ...................................................................................................... 58 15.3
Resource Consents .................................................................................................................... 59 15.4
Other Authorisations .................................................................................................................. 60 15.5
42127173/01/A
APPENDICES
Appendix A Site photographs
Appendix B Collected data
Appendix C Consultation
Appendix D Recommended Option drawing
Appendix E Land
Appendix F Recommended Option Cost estimate
Appendix G Risk
Appendix H Economic Analysis
Appendix I Safety Audit
Specialist Reports ....................................................................................................................... 60 15.6
Consultation ................................................................................................................................ 60 15.7
16 FUNDING PROFILE ..................................................................................................................... 62
Strategic Fit .................................................................................................................................. 62 16.1
16.1.1 Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 62
Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................... 64 16.2
16.2.1 Effectiveness criteria .................................................................................................................. 64
16.2.2 Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 65
Benefit and Cost Appraisal ........................................................................................................ 67 16.3
Funding Profile ............................................................................................................................ 67 16.4
17 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 68
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 68 17.1
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 68 17.2
18 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 69
42127173/01/A v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
AECOM Consulting Services (NZ) Limited (AECOM) has been commissioned by Auckland
Transport (AT) PT Capital Improvements Team to prepare a Scheme Assessment Report
(SAR) for a proposed Bus Interchange and Park and Ride Facility at Pukekohe Rail Station.
The SAR considers the following Auckland Transport requirements:
• A bus interchange with six bus stops and associated facilities;
• Provision of a park and ride car park with a desirable 80 car park spaces;
• An overbridge to the rail station and connection to Station Road. No stair and lift
connection to any western platform proposed as part of the station upgrade. A canopy
is to be installed on the overbridge;
• Full length passenger shelter along bus stops with passenger information displays for
buses and trains;
• A limited high level assessment of the improvements required to the Custom Street /
Manukau Road intersection;
• Relocation of the Transdev offices on a ‘like for like’ basis; and
• Dismantling of the ‘temporary’ V8 bridge and removal to store.
Location
Pukekohe Rail Station is located just south of the Pukekohe Town Centre. The proposed site
for the interchange is situated on land west of the station and rail tracks, on land owned by
KiwiRail and now leased by AT for the provision of a bus interchange and park and ride.
It is proposed buses will enter via a northern entrance off Manukau Road and exit via a new
intersection to be formed between Custom Street and Manukau Road. All other vehicles will
access and egress via the Custom Street / Manukau Road intersection.
Strategic Need
The Auckland Plan and Pukekohe Area Plan have predicted that the population of Pukekohe
will significantly increase from 21,000 to over 50,000 in the next 30 years with intensified
development is proposed adjacent to the rail station. It is proposed to accommodate the
additional movements utilising a one system approach and doubling of the public transport
trips. The Integrated Transport Programme proposes to achieve this by utilising Frequent
Transport Networks with connecting ‘feeder’ bus services, along with good pedestrian and
cycling connections.
As part of implementing the Integrated Transport Programme, consultation has been carried
out with regard to the provision of public transport in Pukekohe and a new network has been
developed with an integrated approach being adopted for PT provision. Currently bus
provision is a mixture of local services and longer distance services to Auckland and its
suburbs. With implementation of the one system approach new public transport timetables are
being implemented in mid-2016. Pukekohe PT customers will be transferred by bus to the
42127173/01/A
Pukekohe rail station. The rail service will then form part of the Frequent Transport Network
(FTN) from Pukekohe to Auckland. Rail and bus timetables will be co-ordinated to provide a
seamless service for customers minimising delays waiting for connecting services.
At the moment there is limited connectivity between bus and rail. With the change in PT
arrangements and increased land development in the area the number and frequency of bus
services will increase the demand for travel on rail and consequently the need for bus access
and commuter car parking. Construction of the bus interchange and park and ride car park
adjacent to the rail station will encourage greater take up of PT and improve the PT network’s
efficiency and functionality.
The Problem
The problems identified with the current situation are:
• The existing bus terminus in the Pukekohe Town Centre is sub-standard with regard to its
facilities e.g. number of stops. This discourages use of the existing bus services;
• The existing bus station is some distance from the rail station. This discourages
integrated journeys (i.e. a door to door bus-train journey);
• Existing pedestrian or cycling links from the rail station to Pukekohe Town Centre do not
follow the shortest routes and the linkages to the surrounding networks are poor
discouraging the adoption of active modes;
• The pickup / drop off facilities for passengers are limited at both the existing bus terminus
and rail station discouraging use of these PT facilities; and
• There is limited parking for commuters using the train. Increasing patronage will
exacerbate this situation causing increased inconvenience to local resident and
businesses.
Project Objectives
It is proposed that Pukekohe Rail Station will become an integrated public transport
interchange. The project objectives for the Pukekohe Rail Station site are therefore to:
• Provide stops / layover parking for 6 buses;
• Design the bus stops to be as close as possible to the station, to deliver the most
seamless bus-train connection that is possible;
• Make the movement of buses in and out of the interchange area as efficient as possible;
• Minimise conflicting movements between pedestrians, cyclists, buses and other users for
safe operation within the interchange;
• Design for a 13.5m bus to use the interchange;
• Substantially improve connectivity and integration of the rail / bus interchange into the
locality and with Pukekohe Town Centre. In particular, integrate the interchange with
existing and proposed walking and cycling infrastructure. The proposed upgrade should
address the needs of the mobility impaired: and
• Provide a desirable 80 No. car parking spaces for park and ride users.
42127173/01/A
Previous Studies
The upgrade of the Pukekohe Rail Station, principally works within the rail corridor, was
considered in the AECOM (URS) Pukekohe Station Scheme Assessment Report dated July
2014.
The proposed bus interchange, including a park and ride car park, was considered as part of a
separate report also prepared by AECOM (URS). This report was entitled Pukekohe Station
Bus Interchange and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility Study and was dated June 2014.
Neither of these reports considered the form of the Manukau Road / Custom Street
intersection. At the time this was being considered as part of a separate project by AT. The
intersection is now to be part of the proposed Bus Interchange and Park and Ride Facility and
an investigation is being commissioned by AT.
Stakeholder Engagement
No public consultation has been undertaken on this project.
Consultation was undertaken with AT and Auckland Council internal stakeholders for the bus
interchange as part of the investigation for the Pukekohe Station Bus Interchange and Park &
Ride Pre-feasibility Study dated June 2014. Feedback from those consulted at the ‘Long List’
and ‘Short list’ meetings was incorporated into the design. There has also been significant
stakeholder engagement carried out as part of the Pukekohe rail station upgrade investigation
work since 2010.
AT have consulted with the Franklin Local Board, Iwi, KiwiRail and Transdev regarding the
proposed bus interchange. It is understood this may have included limited consultation
regarding the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection.
Options Developed
A bus interchange on Station Road was investigated as part of the Pukekohe Station Bus
Interchange and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility Study and was dated June 2014. This was not
considered practical or meet the project objectives.
Four concept options were then developed for the bus interchange and park and ride utilising
the KiwiRail owned land on the west side of the rail tracks. These were presented at the ‘Long
List’ and ‘Short List’ meetings. These were:
• One way bus entrance off Manukau Rd and bus egress via Customs Street, Transdev
Compound retained;
• One way bus entrance off Manukau Rd and bus egress via Customs Street , Transdev
Compound relocated;
• Access / egress through Custom St for all vehicle users, Transdev Compound retained;
and
• Access / egress through Custom St for all vehicle users, Transdev Compound relocated.
No investigation into the alternatives or options for the Manukau Road / Custom Street
intersection has been carried out. The Preliminary Design Philosophy Statement lists the
issues to be considered and a high level comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of
a roundabout and traffic signal option.
42127173/01/A
The proposed footbridge location and form has been considered in the URS report entitled
Pukekohe Station Footbridge Concept dated 2012.
Recommended Option
The Pukekohe Station Bus Interchange and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility Study dated June 2014
recommended the Bus only access and bus egress via Customs Street (Transdev compound
relocated) as the recommended option as:
• It provides a bus interchange with the best bus stop arrangement;
• It is the best operational layout for bus tracking;
• It separates the buses from all other conflicting vehicle movements making this option the
safest;
• It integrates well into its surroundings; and
• It provides the largest number of park and ride spaces in a logical manner.
Land
The KiwiRail land has been leased by AT, for a period of 35 years from May 2015 for use as a
bus interchange and park and ride, rather than purchased.
The recommended option requires some minor land acquisition from at least 1 and maybe 2
(to avoid impacting on a car park) private properties.
The land requirements for the proposed Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection are
unknown and are dependent on an investigation being commissioned by AT. For the
purposes of this report they have been to be zero.
Costs
A cost estimate has been prepared for the recommended option as follows:
Option Base Estimate
($) Expected
Estimate ($) Funding
Estimate ($)
Bus interchange
and park and ride
with footbridge and
intersection works
$12,022,226 $14,417,651
(inc. 20%
contingencies)
$16,662,611
(inc. 36%
contingencies)
Risks
The following are considered to be the ‘top 5’ principal project risks:
• Uncertainty regarding the investigation and design of the Manukau Road / Custom Street
intersection delays implementation of the bus interchange and revised bus timetables;
• The lack of investigation, preliminary design and robust consideration of constructability
issues, particularly of the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection, causes a cost
‘blow out’;
• Uncertainty regarding the rail station upgrade option to be implemented delays the project
and potentially adds additional cost;
42127173/01/A
• Limited stakeholder engagement causes a project delay and some additional cost (e.g.
Iwi expectations regarding stormwater quality or utility relocation costs). Objections during
the statutory approval process (e.g. to the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection
and other access arrangements or loss of parking) cause a project delay and some
additional cost; and
• Agreement of the private landowners (No. 4 and 50 Manukau Road) to purchase land or
amend lease agreements (KiwiRail) causes a project delay.
These risks have been managed by inclusion of robust contingencies in the project estimate.
Opportunities
The following three key opportunities have been identified during development of the project:
• The City Transformation streetscape upgrade project be co-ordinated with the proposals
for the Manukau Road / Custom Street interchange once these are confirmed. Consider
integrating this into the greater project to minimise disruption and as part of a coordinated
initiative;
• Future proofing for a park and ride extension on other KiwiRail adjacent to the proposed
interchange and park and ride by carrying out feasibility design, future proofing the
current proposals accordingly and commencing negotiations with KiwiRail now; and
• To improve community integration further, consider investigation of additional paths to the
Mall and Town Centre from Station Road. These are desirable but not essential to
successfully achieving the project goals.
Economic Analysis
Benefit Cost Ratio
The BCR of the recommended option is (depending on whether the revenue from new
passengers is deducted from the costs) BCR (National – no account of additional revenue) -
1.25; or BCR (Government – additional revenue deducted from costs) - 1.30.
Incremental
An incremental analysis of the recommended option was undertaken against:
• A base or interim interchange that would only provide the minimum facilities for the bus
services to operate as proposed in the New Network; and
• The recommended option plus the full rail station upgrade including the addition of a third
rail line through the station.
The results of the incremental analysis were:
• Base upgrade BCR (National) - 1.82; or BCR (Government) - 1.94
• Full station upgrade BCR (National) - 1.06; or BCR (Government) - 1.09
The incremental analysis confirmed that the recommended option is the economically
preferred option.
42127173/01/A
Sensitivity
Sensitivity testing confirmed the economic viability of the recommended option:
• An increase in patronage growth by 1% resulted in BCRs of 1.5 (National) and 1.6
(Government);
• A decrease in patronage growth by 1% and electrification in 2030 resulted in BCRs
(National and Government) of 0.9;
• Using the 95 %ile capital cost estimate gives BCRs of 1.1 (National) and 1.2
(Government); and
• A 35-year evaluation (rather than the EEM 40 year period) period was tested as the lease
is for only 35 years. This resulted in both BCRs being 1.2.
Peer review
All issues relating to the economic analysis have been reconciled to the satisfaction of
Auckland Transport who acted as independent peer reviewer.
Funding Profile
In accordance with the 2015-18 NLTP Investment Assessment Framework the funding profile
has been assessed as High: Medium: 1 to 3.
Strategic Fit
The Strategic Fit is assessed as meeting the requirements for High as the recommended
option is clearly aligned with the Pukekohe Area Plan, Regional Public Transport Plan and
other strategy documents.
Effectiveness
The ‘Overall’ effectiveness assessment is Medium. The recommended option scores the
highest rating with regard to outcome focus and integration as it is considered to implementing
the strategic fit goals in the right way. With additional investigation it is considered that the
project will achieve a High effectiveness rating.
Benefit and cost appraisal
The benefit and cost appraisal for the recommended option, as evaluated by John Bolland
Consulting, is a quantitative assessment of 1 to 3.
Conclusion
The recommended option is considered to be an effective and optimal layout in terms of bus
operations, safety, integration into its surroundings and provision of park and ride parking.
There is also strong alignment with strategic plans, particularly Auckland Council’s Pukekohe
Area Plan and Auckland Transport’s Regional Public Transport Plan. This is confirmed by the
economic analysis which confirms that the recommended option is the economically preferred
option.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the recommended option is progressed to detailed design.
42127173/01/A
The following recommendations are made:
• Consult with KiwiRail / Transdev regarding relocation of the compound, obtaining
agreement in principle before detailed design commences;
• Consult the owners of 4 and 50 Manukau Road regarding the possibility of land purchase;
• It is strongly recommended investigation into the proposed Manukau Road / Custom
Street intersection (probably combined with Harris Street) is commenced immediately.
This is integral to the efficient operation of the Bus Interchange. Delay in implementing
the intersection improvement has the potential to delay implementation of the greater
project. This will mitigate the identified risks to both programme delay and cost
escalation, as well as allowing early engagement with key stakeholders;
• Commence site investigations and surveys as early as possible to achieve delivery to
programme;
• That Auckland Transport does not allow any proposed development of the Council Office
site to have access onto Custom Street;
• Improve community integration further by consider investigation of additional paths to the
Mall and Town Centre from Station Road. These are desirable but not essential to
successfully achieving the project goals;
• The City Transformation streetscape upgrade project be co-ordinated with the proposals
for the Manukau Road / Custom Street interchange once these are confirmed. Consider
integrating this into the greater project to minimise disruption and as part of a coordinated
initiative; and
• Consider future proofing for a park and ride extension on other KiwiRail adjacent to the
proposed interchange and park and ride by carrying out feasibility design, future proofing
the current proposals accordingly and commencing negotiations with KiwiRail now.
42127173/01/A 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Scope 1.1
AECOM has been commissioned by Auckland Transport (AT) PT Capital Improvements Team
to prepare a Scheme Assessment Report (SAR) for a proposed Bus Interchange and Park
and Ride Facility at Pukekohe Rail Station. This follows on from a significant amount of
investigation work carried out by AECOM (formerly URS New Zealand Limited) into both the
upgrade of the rail station and provision of bus interchange and park and ride facilities
adjacent to the rail station.
This SAR considers the following Auckland Transport requirements:
• A bus interchange with six bus stops and associated facilities;
• Provision of a park and ride car park with a desirable 80 car park spaces;
• An overbridge to the rail station and connection to Station Road. No stair and lift
connection to any western platform proposed as part of the station upgrade. A canopy
is to be installed on the overbridge;
• Full length passenger shelter along bus stops with passenger information displays for
buses and trains;
• A limited high level assessment of the improvements required to the Custom Street /
Manukau Road intersection;
• Relocation of the Transdev offices on a ‘like for like’ basis; and
• Dismantling of the ‘temporary’ V8 bridge and removal to store.
The following elements previously investigated have not been included as part of the scope
and are not considered in this SAR:
• Any rail track re-alignments;
• Relocation of overweight spur;
• Any rail signal re-positioning or upgrade;
• Adding new rail station platforms;
• Amendment to any existing rail station platforms including raising / lowering or
alteration to the widths; and
• Any new or upgrading station buildings.
Note: Although changes to the rail platform arrangements or buildings are not proposed, the
location of the bridge is to be future proofed for the proposed future upgrade based on the
information known by AECOM during preparation of this report.
42127173/01/A 2
Exclusions 1.2
Auckland Transport’s scope of works excluded the following from the investigation and SAR:
• Any investigation, design , traffic modelling or consultation work associated with the
proposed Custom Street / Manukau Road intersection;
• Topographical survey;
Note: Although a topographical survey was not included in this scope of works, some
topographical survey within the area of the proposed park and ride was conducted as part
of an earlier contract.
• Collection of onsite traffic data (i.e. traffic turning counts);
• Any traffic modelling;
• Preliminary bus interchange stormwater treatment design;
• Preliminary structural design associated with the rail overbridge;
• More than one cost estimate (the recommended option only has being costed);
• Economic analysis (e.g. Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) calculation);
Note: This report includes details of an economic analysis carried out by John Bolland Ltd
– a sub-consultant employed directly by Auckland Transport. AECOM has not reviewed
this work and accepts no responsibility for the outputs or any conclusions or decisions
made by Auckland Transport etc. based on this information. It is assumed that AT have
organised an external peer review of this work.
• Reponses to external safety audit or economic analysis peer reviews;
• Responses to any Auckland Transport design reviews;
• Consideration of social, cultural and environmental aspects;
• Geotechnical and pavement investigations and testing;
• Utility trench location;
• Public consultation (e.g. Open Days);
• Stakeholder (including land owners) consultation other than that carried out as part of
preparing previous reports;
• Liaison with utility providers regarding relocations or planned upgrades;
• Any structural or heritage surveys; and
• Monte-Carlo Risk analysis.
Assumptions and Reference Date 1.3
1.3.1 Assumptions
Design assumptions etc. are stated throughout the report. The following are some of the key
assumptions:
• Rail upgrade Option 3 from the AECOM (URS) Pukekohe Station Scheme Assessment
Report dated July 2014 is the preferred option for the Pukekohe Rail Station upgrade;
42127173/01/A 3
• The existing fence boundaries are the site limits (i.e. the proposed station upgrade or
other rail improvement works proposed by Kiwi Rail will not require existing boundaries to
be amended);
• The footbridge will include stairs and lift as proposed as part of the station upgrade and
as designed by AECOM (URS) (see Section 2.2) i.e. ramps are not to be used as at other
similar stations in Auckland. A landing for gates has not been included in the footbridge
design as agreed with AT.
• Only Buses will be allowed access the site at its northern end using a left turn in
manoeuvre; and
• All other access / egress to the site will be via Custom Street.
1.3.2 Reference Date
This report was prepared in July 2015 based on the previous work (See Section 2.2) carried
out and the design standards and information applicable during preparation of that work. No
new investigation or design work has been undertaken since these were prepared.
For the bus interchange and park and ride car park this is March /April 2014. For the station
upgrade this is July 2014.
42127173/01/A 4
2 BACKGROUND
Purpose of Scheme Assessment Report 2.1
The purpose of this SAR is to present the options developed to provide a bus interchange /
park and ride facility for Pukekohe Rail Station and recommend a preferred option for
development during detailed design, based on the previous investigation work carried out.
Information contained in this report is being used to support an NZ Transport Agency (NZTA)
design funding application.
Previous Studies 2.2
Design work by AECOM (formerly URS) for Pukekohe Rail Station including consideration of a
park and ride facility was completed under AT Professional Services Contract PS0801 which
was awarded in 2010. The following lists recent reports etc. carried out as part of this
contract:
• ARTA Master Plan review for the Pukekohe Station, URS, 2009;
• ARTA Pukekohe Railway Station - Heritage Assessment, Burgess and Treep, April 2010;
• ARTA/FDC Preliminary Park and Ride layout, URS, 2009-2010; and
• AT Pukekohe Station Footbridge Concept, URS, 2012.
This information was used as a basis for preparation of the AECOM (URS) Pukekohe Station
Scheme Assessment Report dated July 2014. This report presented design options for
upgrading and reconstruction of the existing Pukekohe Rail Station and was prepared in
consultation with Auckland Transport (AT), KiwiRail, Transdev and Auckland Council - City
Transformation. The proposals considered in that SAR all assumed that there would be the
same bus / rail interchange located at the end of Custom Street adjoining the rail station,
acting as a hub for Pukekohe’s Public Transport network and providing a direct connection for
AT’s customers to rail services. A bus interchange with park and ride would be established,
along with a new pedestrian bridge linking Station Road and Manukau Road.
The proposed bus interchange, including a park and ride car park, was considered as part of a
separate report also prepared by AECOM (URS). This report was entitled Pukekohe Station -
Bus Interchange and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility Study and was dated June 2014. The
recommended Option 2 from this report was incorporated into the proposals included in the
AECOM (URS) Pukekohe Station Scheme Assessment Report dated July 2014.
Note: The Pukekohe Station Bus Interchange and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility Study only
include concept 2D designs and the report was not developed to a SAR standard.
Copies of all these reports are held by AT and have therefore not been issued with this report.
Note: AECOM (URS) have also previously prepared contract documentation and obtained
Consents for an Interim Bus Interchange. Copies of all documents and consent approvals
have been provided to AT.
42127173/01/A 5
Policy, Strategies and Implementation Plans 2.3
The following Policies, Strategies and Implementation Plans support the project.
2.3.1 Auckland Plan
The Auckland Plan is a long term 30-year plan for the region of Auckland and was published in
2012.
Auckland has a population of 1.5 million people, with 1.4 million living in urban areas. Over the
next 30 years this is expected to grow by 700,000 to one million people.
Pukekohe is identified as a satellite town where development is proposed.
Auckland’s roads and motorways are recognised as being heavily congested partially as a
result of under-investment in public transport. The Auckland Plan aims to improve the
integration of the transport network using a single-system approach, encompassing public
transport, roads, footpaths and cycleways. It also targets a model shift to double the number of
public transport trips from 70 million per year in 2012 to 140 million in 2022.
Public transport infrastructure and service improvements was identified as a priority
2.3.2 Pukekohe Area Plan
The Pukekohe Area Plan, published in Oct 2014, outlines how Pukekohe is envisaged to grow
and change over the next 30 years. It sets out desired outcomes and the actions that will help
to achieve them. The Area Plan seeks to deliver the Auckland Plan at a local level.
Pukekohe has 7600 jobs, with retail, education, health care, professional services and
wholesale trade being the largest employment sectors in Pukekohe.
Pukekohe is identified in the Auckland Plan Development Strategy as a priority satellite town,
anticipated to grow to a population of 50,000 people by 2040. This will more than double
Pukekohe’s current population of 21,000 people.
The Pukekohe Area Plan identified 9 key changes or ‘moves’ for Pukekohe. The following
three are pertinent to this SAR:
• Electrification of the rail line from Papakura to Pukekohe (with potential station at
Paerata)
Faster and more frequent services and a future station at Paerata will encourage greater
use of the railway, provide transport choices for people to travel to Papakura and further
north, and encourage people to visit Pukekohe.
• Improve accessibility and connectivity throughout Pukekohe and Paerata
Growth provides an opportunity to create connections, such as an east–west connection
from Manukau Road to Pukekohe East Road. Walking and cycle routes connecting the
town centre, train station and Manukau Road will increase the walkability of Pukekohe
and access to public transport.
• Support land development around Pukekohe Train Station
42127173/01/A 6
Development of the area surrounding the Pukekohe Train Station provides an opportunity
to maximise the site’s location and promote transport choices – through more intensive
uses such as tertiary education or a mix of commercial and residential.
The following transport and network infrastructure outcomes, applicable to this SAR, are
identified in the Pukekohe Area Plan (Section 2):
• Electrification of the rail line from Papakura to Pukekohe (with potential station at
Paerata)
o Progress investigation towards the electrification of the railway between
Papakura and Pukekohe.
o Advocate to Auckland Transport for the provision of a more frequent train service,
including weekend services.
• Support land development around Pukekohe Train Station
o Upgrade Pukekohe Train Station to include a permanent pedestrian over bridge,
bus interchange, park and ride and passenger facilities.
• Improved transport connections to Pukekohe
o Assess demand for bus services from the adjacent settlements of Waiuku,
Tuakau and Patumahoe to Pukekohe Train Station, before and after
electrification of the railway, in conjunction with the Waikato Regional Council
where relevant
• Improved local transport and access to the town centre
o Investigate potential local traffic improvements at Manukau Road, Custom Street
and Harris Street, to reduce congestion.
o Identification of and improvements to walking and cycling routes connecting the
town centre, train station and Manukau Road shopping area, such as through the
provision of street trees, furniture, paving and cycle facilities.
The upgrade of Pukekohe Train Station – Stage 1 (park and ride, bus interchange and
pedestrian overbridge) is identified as quick win actions (1–3 years).
Improvements to walking and cycling routes connecting the town centre, train station and
Manukau Road shopping area are identified as short term actions (3–6 years).
Investigate potential local traffic improvements at Manukau Road, Custom Street and Harris
Street is not prioritised pending a funding application.
The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), which states what can be built and where, was
developed in accordance with the growth strategy outlined in the Pukekohe Area Plan.
2.3.3 Integrated Transport Programme
Auckland’s Integrated Transport Programme (ITP), published in 2013, sets out the 30-year
investment programme to meet the transport priorities outlined in the Auckland Plan.
42127173/01/A 7
The ITP proposed rapid and frequent bus and ferry service network that will deliver at least a
15-minute service operating all day (initially from 7am-7pm), seven days a week. The
Frequent Transport Networks are designed to achieve the transformational shift in public
transport as required by the Auckland Plan. The ITP identified the routes with greatest
passenger demand. The transport corridor to Pukekohe was identified as one. The report also
identified that Auckland has a low number of park and ride car park spaces compared to
comparable cities in New Zealand and Australia.
A one system approach was proposed for travel across all transport networks from point to
point which should be as seamless as possible, e.g. by providing good-quality public transport
interchanges and safe pedestrian and cyclist facilities. The single system transport network
approach is intended to manage current congestion problems and accommodate future
business and population growth.
2.3.4 The Regional Public Transport Plan
The Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) was formally adopted by Auckland Transport on
23 September 2013. The RPTP is a statutory document that describes the public transport
services and initiatives that Auckland Transport proposes for the region over the next 10 years
and how these will be delivered. A high standard of public transport infrastructure is proposed
that supports service provision and enhances customer experience.
Table 8-2: Proposed infrastructure programme for new network (prioritised) identifies that the
improvements at Pukekohe Station are ‘Essential’.
‘Essential’ is defined as being required in advance in order to run the proposed services
or the project significantly enhances patronage growth.
The works are identified as an Essential element to allow full implementation of Southern
Network. Pedestrian overbridge and bus interchange required on western side of
Pukekohe rail station.
2.3.5 Parking Strategy
The AT parking strategy dated 2015 has been developed to provide the strategic direction for
the management and supply of parking in Auckland.
For Pukekohe, AT surveys indicate people travel in excess of 30km to access Park and Ride
facilities. It is also noted that currently, Auckland has around 5,500 existing Park and Ride
bays of which 80 percent are at capacity by 8am.
Park and Ride facilities contribute to decongestion on Auckland’s road networks by
intercepting commuter trips that would otherwise have been made by car.
Over the next 30 years it is estimated 300-500 park and ride car parking spaces are required
at Pukekohe.
The AT Parking Strategy states that the following principles will be applied to prioritise sites for
Park and Ride provision in Auckland:
• Integrate with public transport – Park and Ride is planned as an integral part of the public
transport network, extends the customer base and encourages public transport
patronage;
42127173/01/A 8
• Maximise benefits of Park and Ride for public transport – site in locations that have
frequent and rapid services available and less effective feeder services and walking and
cycling opportunities;
• Locate facilities to intercept commuter trips by being ‘on the way’ from high potential
catchment areas based on assessed demand;
• Relieve congestion – locate to relieve congestion by intercepting commuter traffic and
ensure vehicles accessing the facilities would not worsen local traffic congestion; and
• Provide in line with corresponding improvements to the public transport network such as
station/ferry terminal upgrades to maximise investment.
Strategic Need 2.4
As part of implementing the Integrated Transport Programme, consultation has been carried
out with regard to the provision of public transport in Pukekohe and a new network has been
developed with an integrated approach being adopted for PT provision. Currently bus
provision is a mixture of local services and longer distance services to Auckland and its
suburbs. With implementation of the one system approach new public transport timetables are
being implemented in mid-2016. Pukekohe PT customers will be transferred by bus to the
Pukekohe rail station. The rail service will then form part of the Frequent Transport Network
(FTN) from Pukekohe to Auckland. Rail and bus timetables will be co-ordinated to provide a
seamless service for customers minimising delays waiting for connecting services.
At the moment there is limited connectivity between bus and rail as highlighted in Section 2.4.
With the change in PT arrangements the number and frequency of bus services will increase.
Development in the North Waikato area is also expected to increase the level of demand for
travel on rail and the consequent need for bus access and commuter car parking. Construction
of the bus interchange and park and ride car park adjacent to the rail station will encourage
greater take up of PT and improve the PT network’s efficiency and functionality.
Problem Description 2.5
It is our understanding there is no Agreement with KiwiRail on the preferred option for a
proposed upgrade for the existing Pukekohe Rail Station and there is no funding currently
available to implement this proposal. As part of the previous station upgrade design work,
various park and ride scenarios were considered. These assumed that the park and ride would
be situated on land west of the station, owned by KiwiRail and operated as a largely unused
rail yard. The options did not consider the use of park and ride as a bus interchange.
Consideration of Public Transport (PT) requirements was limited to provision for pick up and
drop off areas (e.g. for use by bus replacement services during track maintenance etc.).
During the development of the station upgrade the PT requirements were given further
consideration by AT. The conclusion of this review was that there was an opportunity to
substantially improve PT provision in Pukekohe and form an integrated interchange. The
problems identified with the current situation are:
• The existing bus terminus in the Pukekohe Town Centre is sub-standard with regard to its
facilities e.g. number of stops. This discourages use of the existing bus services;
• The existing bus station is some distance from the rail station. This discourages
integrated journeys (i.e. a door to door bus-train journey);
42127173/01/A 9
• Existing pedestrian or cycling links from the rail station to Pukekohe Town Centre do not
follow the shortest routes and the linkages to the surrounding networks are poor
discouraging the adoption of active modes;
• The pickup / drop off facilities for passengers are limited at both the existing bus terminus
and rail station discouraging use of these PT facilities; and
• There is limited parking for commuters using the train. Increasing patronage will
exacerbate this situation causing increased inconvenience to local resident and
businesses.
It is proposed that a new bus interchange / park and ride facility adjacent to Pukekohe Rail
Station will address all of these issues. The existing bus terminus in the Pukekohe town centre
would be closed.
Section 9.6 considers the issues associated with the Manukau Road / Custom Street
intersection. A robust problem definition will be developed as part of an investigation being
commissioned by AT into the intersection.
Project Objectives 2.6
It is proposed that Pukekohe Rail Station become an integrated public transport interchange.
The project objectives for the Pukekohe Rail Station site are therefore to:
• Provide stops / layover parking for 6 buses;
• Design the bus stops to be as close as possible to the station, to deliver the most
seamless bus-train connection that is possible;
• Make the movement of buses in and out of the interchange area as efficient as possible;
• Minimise conflicting movements between pedestrians, cyclists, buses and other users for
safe operation within the interchange;
• Design for a 13.5m bus to use the interchange;
• Substantially improve connectivity and integration of the rail / bus interchange into the
locality and with Pukekohe Town Centre. In particular, integrate the interchange with
existing and proposed walking and cycling infrastructure. The proposed upgrade should
address the needs of the mobility impaired: and
• Provide a desirable 80 No. car parking spaces for park and ride users.
42127173/01/A 10
3 SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Location 3.1
Pukekohe is located approximately 50km south of central Auckland. Pukekohe Train Station is
located just south of the Pukekohe Town Centre as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Location Plan
Pukekohe is the largest settlement in the Franklin Local Board Area. In 2013, Pukekohe had
approximately 21,000 residents, 32 per cent of the population of the Franklin Local Board
Area.
Key destinations for users of the train station are the Pukekohe rugby stadium (ECOlight
Stadium), the Town Centre, the Pukekohe V8 motor racing track and the A&P Showgrounds.
The majority of surrounding properties are classified as being in the business zone with
residential zone properties on Station Road adjacent to the train station.1
1 http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/DistrictRegionalPlans/franklindistrictplan/Pages/franklindistrictplanmaps.aspx, Map 61
Project Site
Pukekohe High School
Station Rd.
Subway Rd.
Town Centre
Ex. Bus Terminus
Rail Station
42127173/01/A 11
Currently commuters use Station Rd as an informal park and ride, accessing the rail station
from the east via the existing pedestrian access ramp. From site observation and consultation
Station Road is heavily used by park and ride commuters.
Pedestrian access from the west of the station is possible by using the ‘temporary’ V8
footbridge over the tracks from the station to the privately owned Mall access road south of the
site (on a line from the station to the Council offices). A concrete paved footpath has been
provided across land that is part of the Auckland Council office site to enhance this access.
There are no facilities (e.g. ramps) to assist mobility impaired pedestrians who wish to cross
the rail lines (mobility access is via Station Road). It is not known if there is any legal
agreement with the Mall to allow for access across their property to access the V8 footbridge.
Site observations indicate that an increasing number of commuters are parking on the Mall
land adjacent to the V8 footbridge and using this as an unofficial park and ride car park. So far
the Mall has taken no affirmative action regarding this apart from complaining to AT. It is likely
that, if unofficial car parking continues, the Mall will enforce parking restrictions on their land,
which will force commuters to park in other areas including residential roads.
Transdev currently operate an amenity (including parking and changing rooms) compound for
its workers (drivers etc.) within the proposed bus interchange area. This is a fenced surfaced
area approximately 600m2 with 12 car parking spaces and two temporary portable buildings.
Access is via an entrance off Manukau Road at the northern end of the site.
The proposed bus entry and bus exit / combined entry and exit are shown in Figure 2. The
preferred solution for entry into the site is a left turn in from Manukau Road from the northern
end of the site and a right out or left out of Custom Street.
Figure 2 Pukekohe Train Station
4
50
42127173/01/A 12
A fence and gate at the end of Custom Street currently prevents vehicular access to the
proposed interchange area and KiwiRail land.
Photographs taken on the joint AT / URS site visit are attached in Appendix A.
Copies of all planning maps referred to are located in Appendix B.
Topography 3.2
From site observations it was noted that Station Road was at a higher elevation than for the
western side of Pukekohe Rail Station. The station is at approximately the same elevation as
the western side of the station. Station Road northbound was noted to have an increasing
grade and southbound a decreasing grade.
The proposed bus interchange area on the western side of the train station is relatively flat
with a steep entrance down at the northern end from Manukau Road. Manukau Rd has an
increasing grade northbound. At the southern end of the site Custom Street westbound has a
gentle increasing grade on the approach to Manukau Road.
Surrounding Road Network 3.3
The Franklin District Plan indicates all roads are classified as minor roads except for Manukau
Road which is classified as a district arterial route.2 A copy of the road hierarchy plan is
located in Appendix B as part of the planning maps.
3.3.1 Traffic Volumes
Collected traffic data provided by AT (see Section 4.4), indicates that Manukau Road carries in
excess of 16,000 plus vehicles per day with 6% heavy commercial vehicles.
3.3.2 Over Dimension (OD) Route
Over dimension (OD) routes are routes which are in current use by OD vehicles and loads.
The Auckland Region Overdimension Vehicle Route Maps3 indicate that Manukau Rd, East St
(which intersects the northern section of Station Rd) and Harris St (intersecting with Manukau
Road opposite Custom Street) are OD vehicle routes. A copy of the OD route map is attached
in Appendix B.
3.3.3 Existing Bus Routes
The existing Pukekohe bus terminus is located in Roulston Lane (See Figure 1) approximately
500m (in a direct line) from the existing rail station.
There are currently five bus services in Pukekohe operating as follows:
• Pukekohe to Papakura (7 days)
• Local clockwise loop (Weekdays only)
2 http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/DistrictRegionalPlans/franklindistrictplan/Pages/franklindistrictplanmaps.aspx, Map 106 3 http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/overdimen-veh-route-maps/4-auckland/map-list.html, Map 4-57
42127173/01/A 13
• Local anti-clockwise loop (Weekdays only)
• Papakura to Tuakau (Weekdays only plus a Pukekohe to Tuakau one day a week))
• Pukekohe to Tuakau and Port Waikato (one day a week)
At the moment the closest any of these services get to the railway station is Manukau Rd
where there are two stops located south of Custom Street on Glasgow Road and south of
Subway Road. Both are in excess of 500m from the existing rail station. All of the above
services use Manukau Rd with the exception of the Papakura service. All services use the
Roulston Lane terminus.
3.3.4 Existing pedestrian and cycling facilities
There are currently few facilities to assist pedestrian movements close to the project area.
From the west access to the rail station is via a footpath adjacent to council offices and the
‘V8’ bridge. This is not accessible by those people mobility impaired, due to the steep stairs.
From the east access is via Station Road and the existing footbridge including ramps.
Cut-outs are provided in the approach islands to the roundabout at the intersection of
Manukau Road with Massey Avenue / Stadium Drive and King Street. A zebra controlled
crossing is located at 4 Manukau Road 25m north of the proposed northern entrance to the
bus interchange. There are no pedestrian crossing facilities from here 800m south until the
cut-outs in the approach islands to the roundabout of Manukau Road with Nelson Street.
There are intermittent footpath facilities along the Manukau Road corridor. There are currently
no facilities to assist pedestrians crossing Station Road but a footpath is provided on the
eastern side.
There are no dedicated (e.g. on road or off road signed and marked cycle paths) cycling
facilities in the vicinity of the study area.
3.3.5 Future Transport Upgrades and Other Projects
During investigation and consultation we have been advised of the following projects that
could influence implementation of the proposed interchange:
• As already described above, AT are proposing to upgrade Pukekohe Rail Station to
improve its operational efficiency and improve capacity. Various alternatives have been
discounted and three options have been investigated. All options involved construction of
a bridge over the rail tracks and a lift and stairs on the western side.
– Option 1 proposed construction of two new platforms to the west of the existing
platform which would be made redundant;
– Option 2 proposed construction of one new platform on the western side with the
existing platform being upgraded. This proposal required the existing fence between
the rail tracks and proposed interchange area to be moved (reducing the area
available for the interchange); and
– Option 3 proposed just upgrading the existing platform.
Copies of the Option plans are attached in Appendix B.
42127173/01/A 14
It is understood that Option 3 is preferred operationally as it accommodates increased
freight and passenger services and is also easier to manage operationally with regards to
future aspirations for electronic gating. The key outcomes from this selection are that the
existing interchange / fence boundary will not change and that the position of the
proposed bridge and lift / stairs is fixed. All the bus interchange options developed
assume this. This report assumes that Option 3 is the preferred option.
• The Auckland rail network has been electrified north of Papakura. Diesel trains shuttle
commuters from Papkura to Pukekohe. Electrification of the rail network from Papakura
to Pukekohe is proposed but it is not in the current Land Transport Plan. Implementation
is not expected prior to 2025. It is considered electrification will not affect the outcomes of
this SAR.
• As described above the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection will need to be
upgraded. Upgrading of this intersection is considered to be essential to the efficient
operation of the bus interchange as all bus egress will be through this upgraded
intersection. If it is not upgraded, bus service reliability and the safety of all vehicles
egressing will be affected. Upgrading of the intersection also provides the opportunity to
significantly improve pedestrian and cycling links across Manukau Road, particularly if a
signalised intersection is constructed.
Note: The National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) 2015-18 has allocated a
‘probable’ status to the Manukau / Harris / Custom Intersection activity with a profile of
MML*. It has also allocated a ‘proposed’ status to the construction phase of the
Pukekohe Bus/Rail Upgrade and Customs St Intersection Improvement activity with a
profile of HM*L*.
• The Pukekohe Cycle Network Route Identification and Prioritisation report, dated March
2013, (see section 4.6) recommended a package of improvements to improve cycling
facilities in Pukekohe. These included linkages to the rail station and in particular that any
proposals to upgrade the Harris Street / Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection
should provide adequate crossing facilities for cyclists through a controlled crossing or
preferably a Toucan Crossing to enable cyclists to cross without dismounting. The report
also recommended a shared path on the north side of Custom Street and a shared path
on Harris Street.
• Auckland Transport’s Road Corridor Operations (RCO) Team are proposing to install 2
No. pedestrian refuge islands across Station Road and Carlton Road (opposite the
station) to improve safety in the area. Copies of the plan received from the RCO team is
attached in Appendix B.
• The Auckland Council City Transformation Team is proposing to implement street scape
improvements on Manukau Road from Custom Street to the Massey Avenue/ Stadium
Drive roundabout. The delivery programme or funding arrangements for this work are not
known.
• The former Franklin Council offices are located adjacent to the site with access of both
Manukau Road and Custom Street. These are currently utilised by Auckland Council as a
service centre. The future use of this site is under consideration by the City
Transformation Team.
42127173/01/A 15
Land Ownership 3.4
The proposed site for the bus interchange / park and ride facility is KiwiRail owned land.
Current KiwiRail usage of the main area of land required for the interchange is not known. The
area is an unformed granular pavement of unknown thickness. The area to the south of the
proposed interchange has been identified as an area for a potential Park and Ride extension.
This is currently occupied by an overweight line that will be eventually relocated as part of the
proposed rail station upgrade. AT have negotiated a long term Agreement with KiwiRail for the
lease of the bus interchange and station areas (see Section 10).
Land to the north and west of the area is commercially owned; and land to the southern side of
Custom Street is Council owned offices. Land along Station Road within vicinity of the train
station is privately owned residential land.
The area of the proposed interchange is designated as Railway under the Franklin District
Plan and as a Strategic Transport Corridor under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. This is
shown on the planning maps is Appendix B. Section 15 includes a preliminary planning
assessment.
42127173/01/A 16
4 COLLECTED DATA
Information Supplied By AT 4.1
Information regarding the proposed bus services for the Pukekohe Station bus interchange /
park and ride facility were provided by AT.
During preparation of the Pukekohe Station - Bus Interchange and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility
Study dated June 2014, a site visit was undertaken on 19th of February 2014 with Simon
Milner of AT’s Public Transport (PT) Operations Team. Information regarding land ownership
by the Council and KiwiRail was discussed on site.
Other data provided by AT is discussed in the following Sections.
Proposed Bus Routes 4.2
AT propose to operate six bus services at the proposed interchange from mid-2016 as part of
the new Network arrangements. All services are proposed to be hourly and will be timed to
coincide with train timetables. Five of these serve will Pukekohe - the 6th is between Waiuku
and Papakura. Three of these are local loops around Pukekohe, one is to Waiuku and the
other to Wesley College and Paerata.
As the timetable is designed to meet the trains, this means buses being at the interchange at
the same time. At most times it will just be the three local loops, but there may be up to five if
and when the other two services are timed to be there at the same time. In total this will likely
equate to 141 trips per weekday, 103 trips Saturdays and Sundays.
The report on consultation for the new bus routes is located at:
https://at.govt.nz/media/1060543/Pukekohe-Waiuku-Consultation-Summary-and-Decisions-
Report-April-2015.pdf
A copy of the Pukekohe post consultation bus route map is attached in Appendix B.
Crash Data 4.3
The Crash Analysis System (CAS) was accessed on the 22nd
July 2015 to gather crash data
of the locality including Manukau Road and Station Road. A five year analysis period from Jan
2010 to Dec 2014 was used. A copy of the Crash Diagram and crash data is attached in
Appendix B.
The crashes reported are mainly associated with turning manoeuvres (43%) and rear end
crashes (33%). As these manoeuvres principally occur at intersections and accesses to key
developments (e.g. retail malls etc.) clusters of crashes are noted in these areas. The majority
of the crashes occur on Manukau Road where it is probable that the large volume of traffic
encourages drivers to make unsafe decisions (refer to Figure 3).
42127173/01/A 17
Figure 3 Example of traffic manoeuvre on Manukau Road
Only non-injury or minor injury crashes (no fatalities or serious injuries) are reported on
Manukau Road reflecting the lower speed environment. None of the crashes would appear to
be caused as a result of the road layout or design (less than 1%) – 32% are attributed to poor
observation and 23% to a failure to give way and stop. Only one serious injury for the area
investigated was recorded, involving a pedestrian injury, on Station Road. There are no
fatalities recorded.
No crashes are reported on Custom Street or at its intersection with Manukau Road probably
reflecting its low usage. Six crashes are reported at or close to the intersection of Harris Street
with Manukau Road. Two of these involve injuries to pedestrians, demonstrating the need for
a pedestrian crossing.
Traffic Data 4.4
Traffic data for Manukau Road, collected in June 2015, was received from AT’s Asset
Management Team on 15 July 2015. This latest data has been used by John Bolland in his
economic analysis.
Traffic count data using tube counters was obtained for seven days commencing on
Wednesday 17 June 2015. The tube counter was located on Manukau Road 130m south of
Customs Street. A copy of the traffic count data is attached in Appendix B.
A summary of the results is as follows:
• For both directions the traffic volumes per day range between 12,041(Sun) to 17,141
(Fri.) vehicles per day;
• The Total weekly volume was 108,240 with an average of 15,462 vehicles per day;
• The seven day average volume chart indicates that there are no clear peak traffic flows
(i.e. morning, mid or evening peaks). The traffic flows build quickly from 8:00am, peak at
lunchtime and only reduce at 18:00pm;
• The 85% traffic speed is 52.3kph (52.5kph southbound; 52.1kph northbound). 31.1% of
vehicles exceed the posted speed limit of 50kph; and
• The % of heavy vehicles (both directions) is 7.5%.
42127173/01/A 18
No traffic data (e.g. traffic turning counts) has been obtained by AECOM (URS) as part of
previous studies or this SAR. This includes the intersection of Manukau Road / Custom Street
intersection.
Forecast traffic flows were obtained for Manukau Road from the updated 3SM model
managed by AT. These were used in the economic analysis by John Bolland. Copies of the
results are contained in Appendix B.
Station Road Pedestrian Improvements 4.5
AT’s Road Corridor Operations (RCO) South Team were consulted regarding the proposals on
25 February 2014. One area of feedback sought was regarding known future transport
upgrades. AECOM (URS) were provided with a plan indicating that the RCO team were
proposing to install 2 No. pedestrian refuge islands across Station Road and Carlton Road
(opposite the station) to improve safety in the area. A copy of the plan received from the RCO
team is attached in Appendix B.
Note: The AT proposal indicates that the refuge on Station Road would be on the northern
side of Carlton Road. Following feedback at the ‘Long List’ meeting it is recommended that
this refuge be moved to the southern side. This is so that it better aligns with the pedestrian
‘desire line’. It is assumed that the RCO Team will be installing and paying for the refuges.
Cycling 4.6
Figure 4 from the AT Southern Cycle Map dated Jan 2013 (the AT website indicates this is
still applicable) indicates the following cycling routes in Pukekohe.
Figure 4 AT Recommended Cycling Routes in Pukekohe
42127173/01/A 19
Note:
Blue = Route with space for cyclists, maybe on busy roads
Yellow = Routes on quieter roads recommended by cyclists
Manukau Road is not recommended as a cycling route; Harris Street is recommended as a
blue route; and Station Road is recommended as a yellow route.
A copy of the Pukekohe Cycle Network Route Identification and Prioritisation report, dated
March 2013, was provided by AT for consideration as part of this study.
In the report, the following were identified as key trip generators in the vicinity of the proposed
interchange:
• Pukekohe rail station;
• Pukekohe High School on Harris Street;
• Pukekohe Town Centre; and
• Large retail developments on Manukau Road.
The report recommended a package of improvements to improve cycling facilities in Pukekohe
and in particular connectivity between key trip generators. A crossing of Manukau Road
(between Harris Street and Custom Street) was noted as a key ‘gap in cycling provision.
The following were identified as potential projects in the vicinity of the proposed interchange:
• Station Road - A off road shared path could be provided along the existing unsealed lane
between the entrance to the rail station and East Street;
Note: This land is owned by Kiwi Rail.
• Harris Street - A 3m shared path could be provided along the southern berm of Harris
Street to Manukau Road. This would link the Pukekohe High School to the rail station;
• Custom Street – An off road shared path on the north side of Custom Street would help to
facilitate cycle and pedestrian access to the station; and
• Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection - A controlled crossing or preferably a
Toucan Crossing was recommended to enable cyclists to cross without dismounting. This
would link the cycle facilities proposed on both Harris Street and Custom Street.
These recommendations from the report are supported and the bus interchange proposals tie
into these.
The AT Walking and Cycling team have been consulted as part of the SAR preparation. They
have confirmed cycling provision is a priority on Harris Street but that there is no budget to
implement this in the 2015 to 2018 period.
Geotechnical and Pavement 4.7
No site investigation was carried out by a geotechnical or pavement engineer.
The majority of the existing surface of the bus interchange is unformed granular pavement.
The construction of this is unknown. The access to the Transdev compound is sealed but
again the pavement construction is unknown. Custom Street is surfaced.
42127173/01/A 20
It is recommended a Geotechnical Appraisal Report is prepared ahead of tenders for detailed
design to provide AT with greater certainty with regard to geotechnical investigations that will
be required for detailed design.
Contamination Investigation 4.8
As part of the statutory application for the interim bus interchange and re-fuelling facility a
report on contamination was prepared by AECOM entitled Pukekohe Station Interim Bus
Interchange Site Investigation (Contamination) dated April 2015.
Although the investigation was only for a small part of the site the conclusions are considered
to add value to this SAR. Further investigations to verify the results across the site are
recommended when the project is developed. The report, attached in Appendix B, concluded:
• The Site has been utilised for rail purposes over 55 years;
• Metal and TPH concentrations recorded in soil samples indicate that soil materials may
have been marginally impacted as a consequence of historical land use activities;
• Analytical results do not indicate a significant contamination issue at the site which would
warrant further investigation i.e. a detailed contamination investigation;
• No exceedances of the NES Soil, Schedule 10 Permitted Activity Criteria, or the MfE Tier
1 Guidelines were recorded;
• Two minor exceedances of the Auckland Background Concentrations were recorded;
• An assessment of the results of site investigation against the provisions of contaminated
land resource consent requirements has concluded that a NES Soil resource consent
(Controlled Activity) was required in support of the proposed development works;
• The potential adverse human health and environmental effects be managed and
mitigated through the implementation of a Soil Management Plan; and
• Wherever possible excavated material generated could be re-used at the Site (i.e., cut to
fill). Where the materials are not considered to be geotechnically suitable for re-use they
should be disposed of off-site to an authorised facility i.e., managed fill facility.
The following observations can also be made with regard to the test pits carried out:
• 500 – 600 mm of compacted gravel, less than 100mm in size, overlays the subgrade;
• A geogrid was generally found at the base of the granular layer;
• The subgrade appears to be a silty clay; and
• No ground water was found in any of the test pits (3 were 1.0m in depth and another
2.2m).
Utilities 4.9
The following utilities are present in the area. A utility plan was prepared as part of another
commission (see Section 2.2). As agreed with AT this plan has not been updated as part of
preparing this SAR and no additional consultation has been carried out with the utility
42127173/01/A 21
operators. The following text is based on the data previously gathered. Consideration of the
existing utilities and potential relocations associated with the Manukau Road / Custom Street
intersection was excluded from the scope of works by AT.
The following Figure 5 is an extract from Auckland Councils GIS. This shows Council’s water
supply, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed bus
interchange. It is understood Auckland Council upgraded the stormwater reticulation network
in the area in Dec 2014. A copy of the As Built drawing can be obtained from AT. This is the
only known recent significant utility upgrade in the area.
Note:
Red = Waste water
Green = Stormwater
Blue = Water Supply
Figure 5 Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater Utilities
4.9.1 Electricity
There is power available from the end of the Custom Street to connect to the propose bus
interchange. High voltage power overhead power lines run across the railway tracks
42127173/01/A 22
approximately 60m south of the Custom Street. It is considered these will not have any
significant implication to the proposed project.
4.9.2 Street Lighting
There are no existing street lighting services within the area of the proposed bus interchange
and the lower part of Custom Street. Lighting is provided on Manukau Road and Station Road.
4.9.3 Communications
There are Vodaphone (formerly Telstra Clear) and AT fibre optic cable running parallel to the
railway track as shown on the services plan. There are no underground communications
cables within the area of the proposed bus interchange.
4.9.4 Gas
There is a gas pipe which runs along the eastern side of the site.
4.9.5 Water supply
Water supply pipes are located within the Manukau Road and Station Road corridors (see
Figure 5).
4.9.6 Waste water
There is a wastewater pipe that runs along the western side of Manukau Road and another
crossing the proposed bus interchange site (see Figure 5).
4.9.7 Stormwater
There is a manhole on the southern corner of the proposed bus entrance into the site. This
connects to a stormwater pipe which runs diagonally to the location of the Transdev
compound, then connects diagonally to another pipe which runs along the western wall of the
site. There is also a stormwater pipe that runs through the centre of Custom Street (see
Figure 5).
Note: Due to flooding of upstream properties and the rail corridor, Auckland Council SW
(South) have upgraded the existing stormwater pipes under the railway track and the existing
reticulation network under the proposed interchange area. It is understood this work was
undertaken in Dec 2014. No further details are available.
4.9.8 Private
During the site visit it was noted that there is a 415V electricity box and Telecom pillar
adjacent to the Custom Street entrance to the site.
It is expected that there are water supply and electricity feeds to the Transdev compound but
the location of these is not known.
42127173/01/A 23
5 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
No public consultation has been undertaken on this project.
Consultation was undertaken for the bus interchange as part of the investigation for the
Pukekohe Station Bus Interchange and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility Study dated June 2014.
The following AT and Auckland Council internal stakeholders were consulted at the ‘Long List’
and ‘Short list’ meetings:
• Simon Milner – AT PT Operations and Project Manager
• Shweta Rattan – AT PT Operations Graduate PT Planner
• Andy Maule - AT – PT Operations
• Hong Tan – AT Road Corridor Operations (South)
• Anna Wallace – Auckland Council City Transformation
• Jessica Fleet - AT Road Safety Engineer
• Keaton Lane - AT PT Operations
• Raymond Siddalls – AT Rail
• Simon Nicholls – AT PT Capital Improvements and Project Manager for Rail Station
Upgrade
• Christine Perrins – AT Rail Strategy
Minutes of the ‘Long List’ and ‘Short List’ meetings are attached as Appendix C of the Pre-
feasibility Study.
Feedback from the meetings was incorporated into the Concept Drawings in Appendix D of
the Pre-feasibility Study.
There has also been significant stakeholder engagement carried out as part of the Pukekohe
rail station upgrade investigation work since 2010. As this was focused on upgrade works
within the rail corridor it is not considered pertinent to this report and details of the consultation
carried out have therefore not been included.
AT (Stewart Thomson) have provided the following details on stakeholder engagement
undertaken by them for the bus interchange and park and ride:
• AT has been in regular contact with the Franklin Local Board in relation to the
development of the Bus Interchange and they are aware of the proposals. A copy of a
presentation made to the Local Board is attached in Appendix C along with minutes from
the meeting;
• Iwi are also aware of the AT’s intention to develop a Bus interchange in this area
following a Hui led by Auckland Council on 2 December 2014. They have indicated
interest in being involved with the development of the design. A copy of the minutes from
the meeting are included in Appendix C;
• KiwiRail and Transdev have also been involved with the scheme in relation to the
requirements to lease land and relocate Transdev with no issues raised. KiwiRail have
also reviewed a long term phasing proposal for improving the station that highlights the
bus interchange; and
42127173/01/A 24
• Formal public consultation has not yet begun for the larger scheme but the adjacent
landowners to Custom Street (Carters and Auckland Council) were engaged and are
aware of AT’s requirements to build a bus interchange in this area.
No details were provided about any consultation carried out for the Manukau Road / Custom
Street intersection.
No discussions have been held with utility providers regarding potential relocations and
upgrade works they have planned.
Section 15.7 recommends on going consultation as part of the statutory planning process.
42127173/01/A 25
6 OPTION DEVELOPMENT
Bus interchange and park & ride car park 6.1
The options for the bus interchange were developed collaboratively with AT during preparation
of the Pukekohe Station Bus Interchange and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility Study dated June
2014. Two meetings were held to discuss the options. The first was a ‘Long List’ meeting
where hand drawn sketches were presented. The feedback was used to develop option
designs and drawings. These were discussed at a ‘Short List’ meeting, after which the design
and drawings were then finally amended. Copies of information presented and minutes were
attached in Appendix C to the Pre-feasibility Study.
6.1.1 Alternatives considered
During development of the project the following alternatives were investigated.
6.1.1.1 Station Road bus interchange
Station Road was investigated as an alternative interchange. This was done and during the
site visit the location and access routes were investigated. With this alternative the bus stops
would be located in a line adjacent to the rail station - in the area currently used for park and
ride parking. See the first photograph in Appendix A. Access would be from the north via East
Street (which would require the buses to perform a U-turn on Station Road to egress by the
same route) or from the south via Subway Road (with egress via East Street).
This option was discussed at the ‘Long List’ Meeting (see the sketch and hand-out issued at
the meeting in Appendix C of the Pre-feasibility Study) and discounted as:
• It lacked integration with the Town Centre;
• The turnaround (e.g. at Birch Road) has safety issues and would require private land
acquisition;
• Subway Road floods regularly; the road under rail bridge is only single lane width with
height and visibility issues (see the second photograph in Appendix A). The alternative
route would also be a significant diversion for buses;
• A lot of improvement works would be required along Station Road;
• There are already existing access problems at the East Street intersection;
• Development of land along Station Road is scheduled in the unitary plan; and
• This interchange would be directly opposite a residential area and therefore likely to
encounter stakeholder opposition.
6.1.1.2 U-turn at the Manukau Road / Massey Avenue / King Street / Stadium Drive roundabout
Use of the Manukau Road / Massey Avenue / King Street / Stadium Drive roundabout for
buses to perform a U-turn was investigated as a way of removing the requirement for buses to
perform a right turn manoeuvre into the northern access. Figure 6 shows the tracking
required.
42127173/01/A 26
Figure 6 Tracking at the Manukau Road / Massey Avenue / King Street / Stadium Drive roundabout
This option was discounted on safety grounds. To eliminate the right turn manoeuvre into the
northern access it is understood AT PT Operations have reorganised the proposed bus routes
stops to remove this requirement.
6.1.2 Bus Interchange Options
At the ‘Long List’ Meeting (see the sketches and hand-outs issued at the meeting in
Appendix C of the Pre-feasibility Study) four options were presented for the proposed site.
These were all based around buses accessing the site using the northern entrance and
egressing via Custom Street. All other vehicles would access / egress via Custom Street only.
Various configurations of bus stops were shown. All options assumed that the Transdev
compound would remain. An indicative traffic signal and roundabout layout was marked on the
plans.
The key feedback from the attendees was:
• The Transdev compound could be moved if required. However this had not been
budgeted for in previous work and discussions had not been held with Transdev;
• Use of an island so that buses could be parked in two rows was not preferred. Parking in
a row was preferred. Use of Custom Street for bus stops could be considered even
though this was a distance away from the rail station; and
• The options did not consider the use of Custom Street only for the access and egress of
all vehicles.
Following the meeting it was agreed that options would be developed that showed relocation
of the Transdev compound, bus parking in a row and vehicular access / egress from Custom
Street only.
For the purposes of the Pre-Feasibility Study it was also agreed with AT that detailed
consideration of the type and design of the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection was
outside the scope of that study. Upgrading of this intersection is an important requirement for
42127173/01/A 27
the effective operation of all bus interchange options. However, as it was expected to be the
same for all of them, it was considered that the form of the intersection did not affect the
assessment of the bus interchange options.
Note: Section 9.6 of this report includes high level consideration of the issues and options for
the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection.
Four concept options were developed and presented at the ‘Short List’ meeting (see the
minutes in Appendix C of the Pre-feasibility Study). These were:
• Option 1: One way bus entrance off Manukau Rd and bus egress via Customs Street,
Transdev Compound retained;
• Option 2: One way bus entrance off Manukau Rd and bus egress via Customs Street ,
Transdev Compound relocated;
• Option 3: Access / egress through Custom St for all vehicle users, Transdev Compound
retained; and
• Option 4: Access / egress through Custom St for all vehicle users, Transdev Compound
relocated.
The key feedback from this meeting was that:
• For options 1 and 2 it was accepted that buses at the rear of the queue would not be able
to overtake those already parked (i.e. to get to the front of the queue). They would have
to wait for buses in front to move forward. Allowing for this manoeuvre would remove a
substantial amount of park and ride parking (and the desirable number of car parking
places would not be achieved). This situation currently occurs at other bus interchanges
but it is recommended that this operational issue is re-considered at the detailed design
stage.
Note: It will be possible for buses in the middle of the queue to overtake those at the front.
Feedback from both meetings has been incorporated into the Option 1 to 4 drawings attached
in Appendix D of the Pre-Feasibility Study.
6.1.2.1 Option 1 – Bus only access and bus egress via Customs Street, Transdev compound retained
This option is shown in Figure 7 from drawing C-001 in Appendix D of the Pre-Feasibility
Study. This option considers entry into the site through a left turn in from Manukau Road. This
entrance is reserved for buses (and emergency vehicles) only. Egress from the site for buses
and all other vehicles is via Custom Street. The advantage of the bus only entrance is the
separation of buses from other modes of transport therefore limiting the conflicts in movement.
The Transdev compound is retained. Access and egress will be via Custom Street and a
gated access at the end of the car park.
Because the Transdev compound is retained this option only allows for 5 bus stops to park
adjacent to the shared path alongside the rail station. The sixth bus stop required is proposed
to be on Custom Street. This bus stop will be reserved for a designated bus service. The
existing car parks will need to be removed to allow for this, with the current foot path being
widened and upgraded as a shared path. The existing vehicle crossing to the Council
buildings will also need to be sealed off.
42127173/01/A 28
A retaining wall is proposed along the western side of the site as indicated on the drawing.
From site observation the adjacent property in this area is in need of support.
In terms of provision for pedestrians and cyclists there is a shared path along the eastern side
of the site which connects Manukau Road to the rail station. Due to the position of the
Transdev building there is a small break in the path to allow for staff vehicles to enter and exit
the building. There are shared paths on both sides of Custom Street.
The car parking area provides 75 park and ride spaces and 2 drop off spaces within the
interchange area. The egress from the car park is left out only to minimise conflict with buses
and cars using the drop off area adjacent to the stairs / lift. 2 taxi ranks spaces are provided
on Custom Street.
Figure 7 Option 1 (Showing Bus Tracking)
Drawing C-001 shows land being required from No 50 Manukau Road (this is shown as a boat
yard on the aerial but is now a self-service petrol station) to allow buses to manoeuvre into the
entrance. However if a different tracking arrangement at the entrance is used, land from No 4
could be acquired instead or a combination of both.
Note: If the Transdev Compound is relocated the land requirements are reduced because of
the better tracking into the bus interchange. See Option 2 tracking and comments in Section
10 – Land Requirements / Constraints.
6.1.2.2 Option 2 – Bus only access and bus egress via Customs Street, Transdev compound relocated
Option 2 is similar to Option 1, the main difference being that the Transdev compound is
relocated. The option is shown in Figure 8 from drawing C-002 in Appendix D of the Pre-
Feasibility Study. The major advantage of this option is the smoother tracking for buses into
50
42127173/01/A 29
and out of the site which mitigates land acquisition requirements and allows all 6 bus stops to
fit adjacent to the shared path alongside the train station.
As the Transdev compound is relocated all bus movements and car movements within the
interchange are separated making the operation of the interchange much safer.
Pedestrian and cyclist facilities are the same as Option 1.
Approximately 86 park and ride places are provided.
This option does not require a bus stop on Custom Street.
Figure 8 Option 2 (Showing Bus Tracking)
Drawing C-002 shows land will be required from No 4 Manukau Road (this is a retail
development) to allow buses to manoeuvre into the entrance. However, if a different tracking
arrangement at the entrance is used, land from No 50 could be acquired instead or a
combination of both. See comments in Section 10 – Land Requirements / Constraints.
6.1.2.3 Option 3 –Access / egress through Custom St, Transdev compound retained
This option is shown in Figure 9 from drawing C-003 in Appendix D of the Pre-Feasibility
Study. All vehicular access and egress is via Custom Street. The northern access is just for
pedestrians, cyclists and emergency vehicles. Buses access via Custom Street, run through
and turn within the car park and egress via Custom Street.
The Transdev compound is retained. All access and egress will be via Custom Street and the
car park.
This option allows for 3 bus stops to park adjacent to the shared path alongside the rail
station. The 3 other bus stops are located on Custom Street. The existing car parks will need
to be removed to allow for this with the current footpath being widened and upgraded as a
4
42127173/01/A 30
shared path. The existing vehicle crossing to the Council buildings will also need to be sealed
off.
A retaining wall is proposed along the western side of the site as indicated on the drawing.
In terms of provision for pedestrians and cyclists there is a shared path along the eastern side
of the site which connects Manukau Road to the rail station. Due to the position of the
Transdev building there is a small break in the path to allow for staff vehicles to enter and exit
the building. There are shared paths on both sides of Custom Street.
The car parking area provides 77 park and ride spaces and 2 drop off spaces within the
interchange area. 2 taxi ranks spaces are provided on Custom Street
Figure 9 Option 3 (Showing Bus Tracking)
No private land is required with this option.
6.1.2.4 Option 4 – Access / egress through Custom St, Transdev compound relocated
Option 4 is similar to Option 3, the main difference being that the Transdev compound is
relocated (allowing additional parking). The option is shown in Figure 10 from drawing C-004
in Appendix D of the Pre-Feasibility Study. Buses access via Custom Street, turn at the
southern end before the car park and egress via Custom Street.
This option allows for 2 bus stops to park adjacent to the shared path alongside the rail
station. The 4 other bus stops are located on Custom Street (3 No. on the south side and 1
No. on the north side). The existing car parks will need to be removed to allow for this, with the
current foot path being widened and upgraded as a shared path. The existing vehicle crossing
to the Council buildings will need to be sealed off for this too.
92 park and ride places are provided. 1 drop off space and 1 taxi rank space are provided on
Custom Street.
42127173/01/A 31
No private land is required with this option.
Figure 10 Option 4 (Showing Bus Tracking)
Manukau Road / Custom Street Intersection 6.2
No investigation into the alternatives or options for this intersection has been carried out.
However Section 9.6 in the Design Philosophy Statement lists the issues to be considered and
a high level comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of a roundabout and traffic
signal option.
Footbridge 6.3
The proposed footbridge location and form has been considered in the reports listed in Section
2.2 and particularly the report entitled Pukekohe Station Footbridge Concept, URS, dated
2012. No detailed consideration of materials or design has yet been undertaken.
42127173/01/A 32
7 ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE AGREED CRITERIA
Assessment Criteria 7.1
The following criteria were agreed to assess the options as part of the Pukekohe Station Bus
Interchange and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility Study dated June 2014:
• Customer Experience – Bus users, taxi & personal vehicle users, pedestrians, cyclists;
• Bus Operations – Easy maneuverability of buses into and out of the site; safe flow of
buses throughout the site; convenient bus stop positions within close vicinity of train
station;
• Traffic Operations – Ease with which personal passenger cars can get safely into and
out of the site;
• Safety – Low conflicting points between modes of travel;
• Planning / Consenting – Land needed for purchase to provide more space, adding to
the cost and time required to negotiate and acquire land;
• Land Requirements – Land needed for purchase to provide more space, adding to the
cost and time required to negotiate and acquire land;
• Integration into the surrounding area – Multi model connections to the surrounding
network and integration with adjacent land use; and
• Implementation / Indicative Costing – Construction cost for the design including land
requirements.
Following the ‘Long List’ meeting an additional criteria was added – Integration into the
surrounding area.
Table 3 in the Park & Ride Pre-feasibility Study summarises the assessment. The following
method of scoring of 1 to 5 was adopted - 1 = poor; 2 = adequate; 3 = satisfactory; 4 = good; 5
= very good.
Note: The assessment attached no weighting to each criterion i.e. all are equal when one
could be considered more important than another. As such it is largely subjective. However
the assessment and scoring are considered valid because of the consideration given in the
analysis.
Option Differentiators 7.2
The key differentiators (other criteria were considered to be neutral for all options) in
assessing the options were:
• Options 1 and 2 utilise a bus only access at the north end of the site. This allows for a
better layout in terms of:
• Customer experience – The bus stops are as close to the station as possible and are
all in a row;
• Bus operations – The bus movements are smooth and allow buses to line up
alongside the bus stops;
• Traffic operations and safety – The car and bus movements are separated; and
42127173/01/A 33
• Land - Some private land is required.
• Options 3 and 4 access and egress via Custom Street. Although no private land is
required this has the following implications:
• Customer experience – Over half the bus stops are located away from the station on
Custom Street;
• Bus operations – It is difficult for buses to line up alongside the bus stops.
Manoeuvring requirements are much more onerous; and
• Traffic operations and safety – Buses and cars use the same area. Buses run through
the car park in Option 3. There is a concentration of movements in a small area –
buses, cars, pedestrians and cyclists.
Assessment Outcomes 7.3
The key points from the option assessments were:
Option 1 (Bus only access and bus egress via Customs Street, Transdev compound
retained) provides:
• 5 bus stops close to the rail station
• Retention of the Transdev Compound
• Separation of buses from other vehicle movements, apart from those needing to access
the Transdev Compound, and parking
• Poor tracking around the Transdev Compound
• Some private land is required
Option 2 (Bus only access and bus egress via Customs Street, Transdev compound
relocated) provides:
• 6 bus stops close to the rail station
• Separation of buses from all other vehicle movements and parking making this the safest
option
• Smooth intuitive tracking into the interchange that operationally makes best use of the
area available, maximising the number of stops adjacent to the kerb and allowing the
buses to line up easily adjacent to the kerb
• Some private land is required
• Relocation of the Transdev Compound
• Approximately 80+ park and ride spaces provided.
Option 3 (Access / egress through Custom Street, Transdev compound retained)
provides:
• Only 3 bus stops close to the rail station
• Retention of the Transdev Compound
• Buses driving through the car park
42127173/01/A 34
• Parking arrangement is not as logical or safe as Options 1 and 2
• Tight tracking and concentration of vehicle movements in one area – buses, cars and
people.
• No private land is required
Option 4 (Access / egress through Custom Street, Transdev compound relocated)
provides:
• Only 2 bus stops close to the rail station
• Relocation of the Transdev compound
• Buses driving through the car park
• Parking arrangement is not as logical or safe as Options 1 and 2
• Tight tracking and concentration of vehicle movements in one area – buses, cars and
people.
• No private land is required
42127173/01/A 35
8 RECOMMENDED OPTION
All of four options developed as part of the Pukekohe Station Bus Interchange and Park &
Ride Pre-feasibility Study dated June 2014 achieved the project objects of providing a bus
interchange.
Options 3 and 4, both with access / egress through Custom Street only, scored considerably
lower than Options 1 and 2 which allow access for buses through an access at the north
(currently used by Transdev). The difference in scoring is due to the operational and safety
benefits of allowing access from the north. If buses can only access through Custom Street
they have to perform a U-turn within the interchange that requires a large turning circle (taking
up an area that can be used for parking etc) and creates conflicts with other users and the
potential safety risks.
In terms of rough order cost all options were very similar with the main difference being the
relocation cost of the Transdev compound.
The Pukekohe Station Bus Interchange and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility Study dated June 2014
recommended Option 2 (Bus only access and bus egress via Customs Street, Transdev
compound relocated) is the recommended option as:
• It provides a bus interchange with the best bus stop arrangement
• It is the best operational layout for bus tracking
• It separates the buses from all other conflicting vehicle movements making this option the
safest
• It integrates well into its surroundings
• It provides the largest number of park and ride spaces in a logical manner
Following submission of the Pukekohe Station Bus Interchange and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility
Study dated June 2014, AT have accepted the AECOM (URS) recommendation that Option 2
be the preferred option. All the following reporting is based on that assumption.
42127173/01/A 36
9 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT (DPS)
The following should be read in conjunction with the concept drawing attached in
Appendix D. This is based on the recommended Option 2 (Bus only access and bus egress
via Customs Street, Transdev compound relocated) in the Pukekohe Station Bus Interchange
and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility Study dated June 2014.
Design Standards 9.1
The applicable standards adopted for preparation of the option design are summarised below:
9.1.1 Auckland Transport
• Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCoP). Relevant Chapters 1- 28.
In particular Chapter 21 Public Transport - Rail has been utilised. Section 21.3
articulates the functional design principles of a rail station which is considered to be
aligned with those for a bus interchange.
According to the AT rail station hierarchy, the following criteria are highlighted in order
of priority and have also been considered in the development of the options:
– Pedestrians and cyclists
– Buses
– Private car users:
� Drop off
� Taxis
� Park and ride
9.1.2 Austroads
• Austroads Guide to Road Design - Relevant Parts 1 – 8. In particular Part 4B:
Roundabouts.
9.1.3 The Transport Agency
• Manual of Traffic Signs and Markings (MOTSAM) - Part 1 Traffic
• Manual of Traffic Signs and Markings (MOTSAM) - Part 2 Road Markings
• Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM).
• Over dimensional Vehicle Route Maps
• RTS18 – New Zealand on-Road Tracking Curves for Heavy Vehicles
42127173/01/A 37
Bus Interchange and Park & Ride 9.2
9.2.1 Geometric Design
9.2.1.1 Design Speed
The posted speed at the site is currently 50km/hr. If required a design speed of 60kph has
been adopted for the geometric design. A design speed of 10kmph has been used for bus
tracking.
9.2.1.2 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The proposed design ties into the existing horizontal and vertical alignments.
9.2.1.3 Design Vehicle and Tracking
Two design vehicles were used in the tracking:
• 12.6m bus
• 13.5m bus
The 12.6m bus used is a standard vehicle as defined by Austroads. The 13.5m bus used was
a Scania K280 City Bus as Figure 11. This is the typical 13.5m bus used in Auckland.
Figure 11 Scania K280 City Bus
No tracking curves were available so a design vehicle was created in the Autoturn computer
software.
Both the buses were tested and the 13.5m bus was considered to be the worst case scenario.
Tracking for a 13.5m bus are therefore shown on the drawings in Appendix D of the Pre-
Feasibility Study.
9.2.1.4 Visibility
The proposed site is located in a low speed environment. This situation will not change with
the proposals. The approach sight distance will therefore not change.
42127173/01/A 38
9.2.2 Bus Interchange Design
9.2.2.1 Layout
The bus interchange has been developed using the following specific bus criteria:
• 6 No. stops / layover waiting areas are required;
• Stops are to be as close as possible to the platform stairs / lift access; and
• Access and interchange is to be operationally safe.
At the ‘Long List’ meeting held as part of the Pre-feasibility Study it was agreed that the
preference was for the bus stops to be in a row. Following the meeting it was clarified by AT
(e-mail dated 6/3/14) that where stops were in a row 17m would be required for each stop plus
provision for entry and exit tapers at each end of the combined bay as required by ATCoP.
The entry tapers are required for the drivers to align the bus as close to the kerb and stop as
close as possible and the exit tapers are required to avoid the rear end of an existing bus
swinging too far over the footpath.
The recommended option achieves all the above criteria in that it
• Provides all 6 stops within the interchange;
• All six stops are close to the platform stairs / lift access; and
• It totally separates conflicting movements. Access is via the northern entrance and exit
via Customs Street.
9.2.2.2 Bus Shelters
It is proposed that a full length passenger shelter be provided along bus stops with passenger
information displays (PIDs) for buses. This would be a cantilevered structure.
9.2.2.3 Miscellaneous
Two number unisex toilets are proposed adjacent to the proposed footbridge lift / stair
structure.
Pedestrian and Cycling Infrastructure 9.3
9.3.1 Cycling
The Cycling report in Section 4.6 recommended cycling infrastructure to connect with the
proposed bus interchange. These recommendations have been incorporated into the design
and its connections with its surroundings. These include inclusion of an off road shared path
for all options along the north side of Custom Street to link in with a crossing of Manukau Road
(design to be developed as part of the detailed design) and the off road shared path on the
south side of Harris Street. The rail station upgrade proposals will need to link to the
recommendations for Station Road.
An allowance for cycle storage facilities at the bus interchange has been included in the cost
estimate.
42127173/01/A 39
9.3.2 Pedestrian
The following pedestrian facilities are proposed as part of the project:
• A 4m minimum width path adjacent to the bus stops (alongside the rail tracks and eastern
fence);
• A 3m shared path linking the 4m path to the entrance / exit onto Manukau Road. This will
link with the Zebra crossing 25 m north of this point and on a desire line to the Pukekohe
Town Centre;
• Zebra crossing facilities are provided within the interchange to facilitate access to both
the park and ride parking and the shared path on the north side of Custom Street;
• Pedestrians can also connect with Manukau Road south of Custom Street using a path
on the south side of Custom Street. Concrete paths and vehicular crossings are included
in the design here to emphasise pedestrian priority;
• The proposed bridge and lift/stairs will provide access across the track from east of the
rail station to the west and the footpath described above;
Note: The temporary ‘V8’ footbridge will be removed as part of the project.
• Park and ride users will be able to walk to their cars safely using the raised island
separating the parking area from that used by the buses; and
• There is an opportunity to improve pedestrian accessibility to the Mall south of the site. It
is recommended that the possibility of including this path as part of the project be
discussed with the Mall landowner.
Drop Off, Taxi and Park and Ride Parking 9.4
9.4.1 Drop Offs
The recommended option provide 2 drop off parking spaces adjacent to the station stairs / lift.
9.4.2 Taxi
The recommended option provides 2 taxi rank spaces on Custom Street. These have a direct
line of sight to the station entrance exit and are linked to the station via the zebra crossings
and footpaths within the interchange.
9.4.3 Park and Ride Parking
The amount of park and ride parking provided within the interchange is largely dependent on
whether the Trandev compound is relocated. The design of the car parks spaces is in
accordance with ATCoP.
The recommended option separates the car parking from the bus operations. Access to the
park and ride car park is via a left turn in and egress is via a left turn out. The left turn out is
enforced by a ‘Teardrop’ central island. The left turn out is recommended on safety grounds to
remove conflicting movements.
AT Rail operations are currently investigating whether users of the park and ride facility should
be charged for car parking as discussed in the AT Parking Strategy document. A provisional
42127173/01/A 40
sum allowance has been included in the cost estimate for provision of pay meters (including
electricity supply) and ancillary ducting.
9.4.4 Parking on Custom Street
It is recommended that the existing 9 No diagonal parking spaces marked on the south side of
Custom Street are removed on safety grounds to minimise conflicting movements and to
improve operation of the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection. This also allows the
opportunity to widen the path on the south side of Custom Street thereby improving pedestrian
linkages between the interchange and Manukau Road south of Custom Street.
Custom Street Accesses 9.5
It is recommended that the accesses to the Council Offices adjacent to Custom Street are
closed on safety grounds to minimise conflicting movements and to improve operation of the
Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection. This stipulation should be included in any re-
development (including land sale agreement if applicable) of the Council Offices site.
Manukau Road / Custom Street Intersection Design 9.6
Although detailed consideration of the type of this intersection has been excluded from the
scope of this study the following comments are made to assist ongoing development.
The objective of improving the intersection is to aid the access and egress of public transport
and other vehicles to the bus interchange thereby improving PT operational efficiency.
Manukau Road is heavily trafficked with few opportunities for buses to access and egress
safely – particularly the egressing right turn manoeuvre. The situation is exacerbated by the
proximity of the busy Harris Street which is used by drivers as a bypass of Pukekohe’s town
centre.
At Custom Street, Manukau Road has one northbound lane and one southbound lane for
through traffic. A flush median with a northbound right turn pocket provides access into
Custom Street. There is also a northbound left turn lane into Harris Street which approaches
from the west and is located 35m north of Custom Street (centreline to centreline).
The intersection design will need to consider the following issues:
• Manukau Road traffic volumes are in the order of 16,000 vehicles per day. There are no
defined peak traffic flows;
• The posted speed is 50kph. The 85% measured speed is 47kph;
• Both Manukau Road and Harris Street are Overdimensional Routes;
• Crashes along the corridor are mainly associated with turning movements and rear end
shunts. The severity of the crashes is mitigated by the low measured speed;
• The proximity of Harris Street to Custom Street;
• 6% heavy vehicles use the corridor;
• The are no existing cycling facilities;
• There few existing opportunities for pedestrians or cyclists to cross Manukau Road. The
nearest controlled crossing is the Zebra to the north outside No. 4 Manukau Road; and
42127173/01/A 41
• There are no traffic signals located in Pukekohe. Intersections are either priority
controlled or single lane roundabouts.
Based on a very preliminary assessment it is considered there are two options for the type of
intersection required at this location. The following are the high level issues associated with
each:
Roundabout
• More land is usually required for a roundabout than other options;
• Roundabouts are generally more costly than other options;
• Roundabouts operate well in low volume situations particularly where flows are evenly
matched. The flows on Manukau Road would dominate this roundabout’s operation.
Vehicles exiting Custom Street would have to give way to southbound vehicles;
• A substantial apron would be required to assist turning buses and overdimensional
vehicles;
• Roundabouts in urban situations can be safer for vehicles but are not generally
considered to be cycling or pedestrian ‘friendly’;
• The operational effect on Harris Street by implementation would have to be given careful
consideration;
• Opportunity for vehicles to perform U-Turns; and
• A roundabout would match all the others in Pukekohe.
Traffic Signals
• Less land is usually required for traffic signals than other options;
• Less costly than the roundabout option;
• Better for overdimensional vehicles. Hinged poles or overhead mast arms would be
required;
• Better for pedestrians and cyclists – shorter crossing distances and signal phasing that
can provide a controlled crossing;
• Potential effect on Manukau Road traffic flows in low volume situations;
• Opportunity to give public transport vehicles priority through activation of the traffic
signals as they approach; and
• Potential to make the Harris Street intersection safer by forming a staggered traffic signal
intersection.
Transdev Compound Relocation 9.7
Relocation of the Transdev Compound allows:
• For better bus tracking into the bus interchange site, thereby reducing the amount of
private land required and property impact;
• Six bus stops to be in a row providing the a bus interchange with the best bus stop
arrangement of the options considered;
42127173/01/A 42
• Separation of buses from all other conflicting vehicle movements resulting in the safest
possible layout; and
• It allows for provision of the desirable number of park and ride spaces.
The proposed relocated Compound is show on the attached concept drawing attached in
Appendix D. This location is recommended as it is:
• Adjacent to the stabling facility;
• On KiwiRail owned land;
• Conflict with buses using the interchange and park and ride customers is minimised;
• It avoid the existing overweight rail spur and recently constructed re-fuelling facility; and
• The access can be gated to provide security for Transdev employees.
Stormwater 9.8
No stormwater design was carried out as part of this concept design as it was excluded from
the scope of works both as part of previous investigations and this SAR.
Stormwater reticulation and surface run-off from the proposed bus interchange and park and
ride have been assessed (at a concept level) as per Auckland Regional Council Technical
Publication No. 108 April 1999 - Guidelines for Stormwater Runoff Modelling and calculated as
per AC Code of Practice for Stormwater.
The design assumes kerb and channel with a piped system (including catch pits and sub-soil
rains).
It is understood that Auckland Council have implemented a stormwater improvement in the
area based on a design prepared by Opus Consultants. AECOM (URS) attended an early
concept meeting but since then have had no involvement in the investigations or design.
Based on the early discussions we understand that once the network was upgraded, there will
be spare capacity in the system allowing direct connection of the proposed Pukekohe Station
and interchange works to the new stormwater infrastructure. Our cost estimate assumes this.
An allowance has been made for stormwater treatment in the cost estimate that was not
allowed for in previous estimates.
It is recommended early negotiations are carried out with Auckland Council’s Stormwater
Team at the detailed design stage to confirm treatment and attenuation requirements.
Lighting 9.9
No lighting assessment was carried out as part of this concept design. Lighting will need to be
assessed in terms of that required at the site in accordance with AT lighting standards and
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) guidance.
The design includes provision for 2 CCTV cameras on poles and connection to the
telecommunications network.
Pavement Design 9.10
No pavement design was carried out as part of this concept design.
42127173/01/A 43
The majority of the existing surface of the site is unformed granular pavement and a mix of
unused ballast, being KiwiRail stockpile sites for track upgrading and construction of a stabling
yard several years ago. The design assumes the following pavement construction for this
area:
• The existing ground requires reshaping to obtain adequate cross-fall up to 2% for surface
drainage as required by the ATCoP car park design standard;
• The option design assumes that an average of 250mm of sub-base using GAP65 and
150mm of basecourse using AP40 aggregates is required, with a DG10 40mm asphaltic
concrete surface finished on a membrane seal for the car park and bus access roads;
and
• If subgrade condition is poor or unsuitable for the bus loading or an extended design life
is required a concrete pavement can be adopted for bus parking and turning area.
The estimate assumes that the existing unbound aggregate area can be utilised as part of the
design if this is of an adequate standard (i.e. only reshaping and fill are required). A pavement
and geotechnical investigation, in conjunction with the geometric design, is recommended for
the detailed design stage to confirm this opportunity to reduce cost and comply with
sustainability guidelines.
Utilities 9.11
Based on this desktop review no public utilities will be affected (i.e. no underground or
overhead services are proposed for relocation).
Private utility supplies to the Transdev compound will need to be made safe and removed.
There is an opportunity to utilise the 415V supply and Telecom pillar as well as the Transdev
utility connections as part of the design.
There are several manholes located within the site and these will require raising or lowering as
required by the geometric design.
Signs and Markings 9.12
It is recommended that advanced direction signing be used to direct customers to the bus
interchange.
Signs and markings within the interchange will need to be in accordance with MOTSAM and
ATCoP. No Stopping at Any Time road markings will be required in non-parking areas and
especially near the roundabout turning area adjacent to the stairs / lift to ensure operational
efficiency and safety.
Landscape 9.13
It is anticipated that some of the exiting trees on Custom Street will require pruning. Hard and
soft landscaping will be used in areas not required for bus operation and parking. It is
anticipated that landscaping will be low level low maintenance native plants.
42127173/01/A 44
Structures 9.14
9.14.1 Footbridge
The bridge and lift / stairs structure have been considered as part of the Rail Station Upgrade
project and are based on a similar project for AT at Swanson.
The key constraints in locating the footbridge are:
• Siting of the lift tower on the existing platform;
• Avoiding the Heritage building on the platform;
• Maintaining the existing footbridge to provide access during construction;
• Avoiding the newly constructed re-fuelling area on the west side of the rail tracks; and
• Avoiding the existing 11m high lighting poles in the rail stabling yard.
9.14.2 Retaining walls
During the site visit it was noted that the existing wall along the western boundary, particularly
at the northern end, was in poor condition. The design includes for replacement of this wall. It
may also be necessary to consider a wall along the northern boundary. This would be
confirmed following a topographical survey.
9.14.3 Canopies
A key goal of the AT PT Operations Team is to create a positive experience for its customers.
One way of doing this is to ensure that all journeys are covered from start to finish. With this in
mind the design and estimates include for canopies to all the bus stops with additional
provision at the first stop. A canopy has also been included to the footbridge.
Departures from Standard 9.15
There are no known Departures from Standard required.
Maintenance and Safety in Design 9.16
No construction or maintenance health and safety requirements, other than those that can be
reasonably be expected for a project of this type, are anticipated.
Constructability 9.17
This will require further consideration as part of the detailed design.
9.17.1 Project Staging
To ensure that the operational and economic benefits are realised as early as possible it is
recommended that the bus interchange and associated infrastructure be implemented as
follows:
42127173/01/A 45
• Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection upgrade. Implementing this ahead of or at the
same time as the bus interchange will assist bus operations and reliability, and significantly
improve pedestrian and cycling accessibility to both the bus interchange and rail station.
Implementing the intersection first will also support better access for construction activities;
• The bus interchange can be implemented on a staged basis to suit operational
requirements if required, although it is recommended a safety in design assessment is
carried out to confirm the acceptability of this proposal; and
• The proposed footbridge across the railway. Implementing this ahead of or at the same
time as the bus interchange will significantly improve the customer experience as well as
pedestrian and cycling accessibility to both the bus interchange and rail station. The V8
footbridge can also be utilised to maintain access across the rail tracks during construction.
42127173/01/A 46
10 LAND REQUIREMENTS / CONSTRAINTS
The following Table 1 indicates the approximate land requirements for the recommended
option:
Option KiwiRail
(m2)
Land for
Trandev
Compound
Relocation #
(m2)
4 Manukau
Road * (m2)
50 Manukau
Road **(m2)
Recommended Option –
Bus Only Access;
Transdev Building
Relocated
(Option 2 from the Pre-
Feasibility Report)
7390 585 10 Nil
Table 1 Land Requirements
Notes:
1. The above figures should not be used in land acquisition negotiations as they are based
on an aerial drawing only – no topographical survey has been carried out in this area.
2. # = The current area of the Trandev compound is 585 m2. It is assumed that the same
area will be required if the Compound is relocated.
3. * = No. 4 Manukau Road is the retail development north of the bus only access (total area – 1,951 m
2). The land required is currently part of the car park. It is considered that at
worst only one retail car park place would be lost.
4. ** = No 50 Manukau Road is the commercial development (this is shown as a boat yard
on the aerial but is now a self-service petrol station) south of the bus only access (total
area – 2,053 m2). The land required is currently part of an area used for landscaping and
is supported by a mass concrete retaining wall (<1m high) with a chain link fence on top.
It is considered that a new wall could be constructed and the landscaping reshaped
without effecting the operation of the petrol station.
The following comments are made with regard to land requirements:
• The KiwiRail land has been leased, for a period of 35 years from May 2015 for use as a
bus interchange and park and ride, rather than purchased. Details of the lease approved
by the AT Board are contained in an e-mail attached in Appendix E. The leasing costs
have not been included in the cost estimate and there are no purchase costs;
• The form of the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection is unknown and pending
further investigation. It is assumed the intersection will be traffic signal controlled and for
the purposes of this SAR that no additional land purchase is required;
• A lump sum has been assumed in the estimate for relocation of the Transdev Compound;
42127173/01/A 47
• Depending on the No 4 and 50 Manukau Road landowners response to consultation
there may be an opportunity to mitigate the effect of land acquisition i.e. rather than take
land from just one property it may be possible to mitigate the overall effect by taking
smaller amounts of land from both;
• The investigations completed to date indicate that less land is required from No. 4
Manukau Road than from No.50. However the cost of acquiring from No. 4 may be more
because of the potential loss of parking;
• Relocation of the Transdev Compound allows for better bus tracking into the bus
interchange site and thereby reduces the amount of private land required and effects; and
• It is recommended that a topographical survey be carried out with additional design to
confirm the private land requirements before AT enters into land negotiations.
42127173/01/A 48
11 COST ESTIMATES AND PROJECT RISKS
The cost estimates have been prepared based on the recent AT construction contracts and
related similar works. A formal risk analysis (e.g. Monte Carlo analysis) has not been carried
out in preparation of the feasibility cost estimates.
Cost Estimates 11.1
A cost estimate has been prepared for the recommended option only as required by AT. This
is attached in Appendix F and has been prepared in accordance with Auckland Transport’s
2013 Project Cost Estimation Manual to OE estimate level (Option Estimate). The estimate
form is based on that included with the Transport Agency’s Cost Estimation Manual – SM014.
Auckland Transport’s 2013 Project Cost Estimation Manual recommends a contingency of 20-
30% and 40-50% be added to the base estimate for Investigation Phase Expected and 95th %
Funding estimates. For this project a total analysed contingency of 20% and 16% was applied
to the base construction cost, investigation and design costs / management costs to
respectively derive the project Expected and Funding Estimates.
11.1.1 Assumptions
The cost estimate was prepared on the following assumptions:
• The estimate uses a base date of July 2015 and the latest available information of
Statistics NZ - Construction Cost index : 1106 (September 2014 Table 5.1);
• No land acquisition costs have been included for the intersection. It is assumed that a
traffic signal intersection can be constructed within the existing designation;
• It is assumed land will not need to be leased for the relocated Transdev Compound;
• The project will be implemented in one contract, although it is noted that AT requires an
interim solution for the bus interchange, to comply with the proposed timetable changes
in mid-2016. This may require a separable portion in the contract;
• The design was carried out without geotechnical investigation and therefore assumed a
generic pavement base and subgrade construction for Auckland region;
• KiwiRail land leasing costs have not been included in the cost estimate but they are part
of the operation and maintenance costs (see Section 11.1.3);
• An allowance has been included for the private land required for the recommended
option. Accommodation works (e.g. landscape mitigation has been included in the cost
estimate);
• The recommended option design includes for the relocation of the Trandev Compound at
a base cost of $330,000 for relocating the existing structures (it is assumed these can be
moved), servicing these, provision of a car park and security fencing. This is based on the
cost of providing a similar facility at Henderson;
• No design has been completed for the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection. A
base cost of $1.7M as agreed with AT has been included in the cost estimate for this
element of the project. This sum assumes that the intersection will be traffic signals as
this is the form of intersection that is best aligned with the project objectives;
• The investigation stage fees allow for additional site investigations including
topographical survey, a geotechnical investigation and pavement investigation etc.;
42127173/01/A 49
• The AT Station Road proposals (e.g. the refuge islands at Carlton Road) are excluded
from the estimates;
• The footpath to the Mall on Mall land has been excluded from the estimate;
• The existing unformed pavement can be utilised as part of the proposed pavement
design (i.e. only shaping and additional fill is required);
• The estimate does not include for the upgrades to the existing stormwater network;
• An allowance for stormwater treatment has been included;
• The project cost does not include for Kiwi Rail block of line costs;
• No underground utilities require relocation / upgrades; and
• No allowance for cost escalation.
Please also refer to the preliminary DPS.
11.1.2 Capital and Upgrading Cost
The following Table 2 provides a summary of the cost estimates for the recommended option.
Option Base Estimate
($) Expected
Estimate ($) Funding
Estimate ($)
Bus interchange
and park and ride
with footbridge and
intersection works
(Option 2 from the Pre-
Feasibility Report)
$12,022,226 $14,417,651
(inc. 20%
contingencies)
$16,662,611
(inc. 36%
contingencies)
Table 2 Summary of Cost Estimate
11.1.3 Operation and Maintenance Cost
The operation and maintenance costs for the proposed bus interchange will need to be
allowed for in the annual road maintenance budget. This additional cost will be partially offset
by the budget currently used for maintaining and operating the existing bus terminus.
Operation and maintenance costs for the carpark include energy (power) cost, security
monitoring, maintenance of the lighting, pavement and drainage, rubbish collection, sweeping
and cleaning and routine maintenance including corrosion protection to the structures - lighting
mast, handrails and resurfacing with asphaltic concrete.
An average annual maintenance and operation cost is estimated to be from $150K to $200K
per year (excluding leasing costs).
The leasing costs are contained in the following extract from the lease agreement:
42127173/01/A 50
Risks and Opportunities 11.2
A Risk / Opportunities Register is attached in Appendix G.
11.2.1 Risks
The following are considered to be the principal project risks:
• Investigation and design of the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection delays
implementation of the bus interchange and implementation of the revised bus timetables;
• The lack of investigation and design of the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection
causes a cost ‘blow out’;
• Agreement of the private landowners (No. 4 and 50 Manukau Road) to purchase land
causes a project delay;
• Uncertainty regarding the rail station upgrade option to be implemented delays the project
and potentially adds additional cost;
• Objections during the statutory approval process (e.g. to the Manukau Road / Custom
Street intersection and other access arrangements or loss of parking) cause a project
delay and some additional cost;
• Limited stakeholder engagement causes a project delay and some additional cost;
• Transdev demand improved facilities( i.e. the compound cannot be relocated on a ‘like for
like’ basis) or KiwiRail protract land negotiations causing additional cost and delay;
• Council office land is sold and developer seeks vehicular access onto Custom Street
impacting on the safety and efficiency of the interchange and Manukau Road / Custom
Street intersection;
• The design work completed to date is based on limited investigations and data availability
(e.g. 2 D geometric design, retaining wall design, footbridge design, stormwater design,
utility relocations etc) particularly with regard to the Manukau Road / Custom Street
intersection. This may result in additional cost;
• Availability of construction funding set against other AT and NZTA priorities;
42127173/01/A 51
• Stormwater treatment and attenuation. Due to limited space for parking and bus
movement, a treatment device such as swale and raingarden will be difficult to
accommodate. It is possible to construct underground detention tank with treatment
filters to retain the pre-construction flow rates, however, this will incur a significant cost.
For such significant infrastructure, this will affect both the project cost but also potentially
the amount of land available for parking etc.;
• Constructability of works within the rail corridor (e.g. establishment of a piling rig or other
equipment on the platform and gaining access) causes a cost increase; and
• Unforeseen utilities and ground conditions cause a delay and additional cost during
construction.
11.2.2 Opportunities
The following three key opportunities have been identified during development of the project:
• The City Transformation streetscape upgrade project be co-ordinated with the proposals
for the Manukau Road / Custom Street interchange once these are confirmed. Consider
integrating this into the greater project to minimise disruption and as part of a coordinated
initiative;
• Future proofing for a park and ride extension on other KiwiRail adjacent to the proposed
interchange and park and ride by carrying out feasibility design, future proofing the
current proposals accordingly and commencing negotiations with KiwiRail now; and
• To improve community integration further, consider investigation of additional paths to the
Mall and Town Centre from Station Road. These are desirable but not essential to
successfully achieving the project goals.
42127173/01/A 52
12 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Economic Analysis 12.1
John Bolland Consulting, as sub-consultant directly appointed by Auckland Transport, has
undertaken the economic analysis for the project. A copy of the economic analysis report is
attached in Appendix H. A summary is provided below:
12.1.1 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Analysis
12.1.1.1 Assumptions
The economic analysis has been completed in accordance with the (November 2013) issue of
Economic Evaluation Manual (EEM) and assumed the following:
• Electrification of the rail line from Papakura to Pukekohe will be completed at the end of
FY 2025/26, which is consistent with current projections;
• Three train services per hour both before and after electrification;
• Actual patronage data for the year to May 2015 has been used;
• The analysis has made use of the most recently available forecasts, namely June 2015
runs of the Auckland Passenger Transport (APT) model for the AM peak in 2026, 2036
and 2046;
• Year zero has been taken as 2015 /16;
• The Do Minimum for the economics is to take no action and continue with the existing
station;
• 2026 was taken as the first year of electrification from Papakura to Pukekohe;
• An expected cost estimate of $14.7m, of which $13m will be spent in the 2016 /17
financial year and the remainder in the current (2015 /16) year;
• The scheme will open, and benefits begin, on July 1st 2017;
• The number of new passengers resulting from the improvements has been taken to be
3% of expected patronage before electrification and 4% following electrification;
• There would be no patronage growth after 2046; and
• The net effect on person delay (car and bus passengers and pedestrians) for all users of
the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection will be neutral.
12.1.1.2 Outcome
The BCR of the recommended option is (depending on whether the revenue from new
passengers is deducted from the costs):
• BCR (National (no account of additional revenue)) 1.25; or
• BCR(Government (additional revenue deducted from costs)) 1.30.
The economic benefits are derived as follows:
• New passengers (82.5%):
o Peak – 70.5 %
42127173/01/A 53
o Off-peak – 12 %
• Benefits attributable to improvements in facilities – 17.5%
12.1.2 Incremental
An incremental analysis of the recommended option was undertaken against:
• A base or interim interchange that would only provide the minimum facilities for the bus
services to operate as proposed in the New Network with an assumed capital cost of $1M
and 1% growth in patronage; and
• The recommended option plus the full rail station upgrade including the addition of a third
rail line through the station. This would move rail passenger services off the main line so
that they do not delay freight services and both signalling and track layout upgrades and
changes would be undertaken to achieve the proposed layout. The capital cost would be
$33.9M with growth in patronage as per the recommended option. The key difference
between this option and the recommended option is that freight benefits are included.
The results of the incremental analysis were:
• Base upgrade 1.82 BCR(National); 1.94 BCR (Government)
• Full station upgrade 1.06 BCR(National); 1.09 BCR(Government)
The incremental analysis confirmed that the recommended option is the economically
preferred option.
12.1.3 Sensitivity
The following sensitivity analysis was undertaken to test the recommended option:
• An increase in patronage growth by 1% resulted in BCRs of 1.5 (National) and 1.6
(Government);
• A decrease in patronage growth by 1% and electrification in 2030 resulted in BCRs (in
both National and Government) of 0.9;
• Using the 95 %ile capital cost gives BCRs of 1.1 (National) and 1.2 (Government); and
• A 35-year evaluation (rather than the EEM 40 year period) period was tested as the lease
is for only 35 years. This resulted in both BCRs being 1.2.
Note: If the frequency to Pukekohe was assumed to increase to 6 services per hour in later
years this would also have a positive effect on patronage; however modelling shows that the
impact of this would be offset by the proposed new station at Paerata taking some traffic from
Pukekohe. Hence this effect has not been taken into account in the sensitivity testing.
12.1.4 Conclusion
The recommended option has a 1.25 BCR (National – no account of additional revenue) or
1.30 BCR (Government – additional revenue deducted from costs). Based on the John Boland
Consulting report, and the incremental analysis carried out, the recommended option is
considered to the economically preferred option.
42127173/01/A 54
Independent Peer Review 12.2
An independent peer has been undertaken internally by Ben Lewis, Senior Investment
Analyst, of Auckland Transport. The review was undertaken collaboratively with John Bolland.
It is understood that all matters relating to the economic analysis have been reconciled to the
satisfaction of the peer reviewer and that the BCR is an accurate representation of the
economic viability of the project. A copy of both the agreed economic analysis report and e-
mail from Ben Lewis confirming approval of the report are attached in Appendix H.
42127173/01/A 55
13 SAFETY AUDIT
A Safety Audit was carried out by T2 Traffic and Transportation Engineers Ltd in August 2014.
This was on the proposals included in the AECOM (URS) Pukekohe Station Scheme
Assessment Report dated July 2014 which included the Pukekohe Station Bus Interchange
and Park & Ride Pre-feasibility Study dated June 2014 as an Appendix. The recommended
option was reviewed.
A copy of the safety audit and designers response is attached in Appendix I. The designer’s
response did not recommend any changes to the concept design with several matters
recommended for review during detailed design. This approach was accepted by the client.
No changes to the concept design or further work have therefore been carried out as part of
the safety audit process.
As no further design work has been carried out since the safety audit was carried out,
specifically for the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection, it is considered that no further
safety audit is required at this stage of project development.
42127173/01/A 56
14 ROADING NETWORK IMPACT REPORT
It is considered that the construction of an intersection at Manukau Road / Custom Street will
have an impact on the Pukekohe roading network. Preparation of a Roading Network Impact
Report is outside the scope of this SAR. However, it is recommended that this is prepared as
part of the investigation into the form of the intersection currently being procured by AT.
Preparation of this report will assist in ongoing stakeholder engagement, particularly the Local
Board. It is understood that the Local Board has previously opposed the implementation of
traffic signals. A Roading Network Impact Report will address some of those concerns i.e. to
demonstrate that traffic signals will not cause unacceptable delays.
42127173/01/A 57
15 STATUTORY PLANNING
A preliminary assessment of the proposed works has been undertaken, against the relevant
provisions of the following plans and legislation to determine what consents and authorisations
are or will likely be required to facilitate the proposed works. The analysis also considers the
possibility of works being carried out under existing Auckland Transport designations. The
preliminary assessment assumes a ‘worst case’ planning scenario.
• Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA);
• National Environmental Standard (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and
Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NES);
• Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement (RPS);
• Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ALWP);
• Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control November 2001 (SCP);
• Auckland Council District Plan – Operative Franklin Section 2000;
• Auckland Council Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP);
• Historic Places Act 1993 (HPA);
• Reserves Act 1977 (RA).
General commentary on the PAUP and findings about work on designated land are presented
below. Site specific considerations and conclusions about the necessary or likely statutory
applications and authorisations are indicated below.
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 15.1
We specifically note the following considerations in relation to the PAUP and the proposed
projects:
• The PAUP provisions are not static and will change through the plan-making process—
therefore resource consent ‘triggers’ are subject to modification. Future detailed planning
analyses will take these changes into account relative to lodgement and construction
timeframes; and
• At the time of writing, the PAUP Transport provisions do not have legal effect. However,
in undertaking this preliminary planning analysis, it is assumed that consents would not
be required under these provisions as either the detailed design will comply with the
relevant performance conditions (i.e. vehicle crossing dimensions) or that project
construction will commence prior to these provisions having legal effect.
Works on Designated Land 15.2
15.2.1 Auckland Transport Auckland-Wide Designation
In 2012, Auckland Transport (AT) requested a Notice of Requirement (NoR) for a designation
of ‘the Auckland Council owned and AT managed roads in the Auckland Region as identified
in the various district plans’. The purpose of the NoR is to allow for on-going maintenance,
renewal and replacement, as well as improvements. The NoR also requested that AT be
exempt from providing an Outline Plan of Works (OPW). However, the status of the NoR is
42127173/01/A 58
unknown and is therefore assumed to be unconfirmed. Accordingly, it has not been relied
upon in terms of undertaking this assessment.
15.2.2 New Zealand Railways Corporation (KiwiRail) Designations
The Pukekohe Station project works are located within the existing North Island Main Trunk
Railway designation (Designation 89, Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section)). The
New Zealand Railways Corporation (KiwiRail) is the Requiring Authority.
Figure 12 Extract from Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section)
The PAUP (notified 30September 2013) designates the area as a Strategic Rail Corridor.
Figure 13 Extract from PAUP Planning Maps
The proposed works will require section 176(1)(b) RMA approval from KiwiRail for works on
designated land.
Site Specific Considerations 15.3
These are:
42127173/01/A 59
• Works to be conducted within a potential floodplain area;
• Underground services – wastewater, stormwater, power cables etc;
• Any private service connection;
• Impact on private property – Business Zoning (Lot 2 DP 138830 (Retail development –
No. 4 Manukau Road) and/or Lot 1 DP 148387 (Petrol Station – No. 50 Manukau Road);
• Removal of vehicle entry to Auckland Council Office (Lot 1 DP 99706);
• Removal of several car parks along Custom Street (within the formed road reserve), and
potential impact on local businesses in the area;
• High probability of land contamination given the surrounding land uses (notable timber
storage and within the rail corridor).
Resource Consents 15.4
In the ‘worst case’ scenario the following consents would be required:
• Network Utility consent required under the Auckland Council District Plan – Operative
Franklin Section 2000 (assuming the acquisition of additional land therefore failing
permitted activity control 15.1.2.2G);
• Works carried out which are not within the defined road boundary (e.g. works on business
zoned land);
• Earthworks consent under the Auckland Council District Plan – Operative Franklin
Section 2000
• Stormwater consents under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water;
Note: The additional impervious areas (approximately 6000m2) exceed the permitted
combined impervious area as permitted by the ALWP.
• Contaminated discharge consent under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land
and Water;
Note: Given the potential for contamination at the site, it is unlikely that the soil
disturbance activity would meet the requirements of the ALWP, Rule 5.5.40 in
particular volume of earthworks to be less than 200m2.
• Earthworks consents under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control
November 2001 in relation to watercourses (likely requiring a Sediment Management
Plan);
• Consents under the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for
Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations
2011 for any work for any work sites considered to be contaminated;
Note: Earthworks likely to exceed 25m3 per 500m2 as permitted soil disturbance
under the NES.
• The following consents under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan:
– Earthworks (both area/volume and works within the 100 year floodplain);
– Stormwater.
42127173/01/A 60
Other Authorisations 15.5
• Requiring Authority approval pursuant to section 176(1)(b) of the RMA, as required.
Including, but not limited to, New Zealand Railways Corporation (KiwiRail);
• Necessary authorisations associated with the disturbance/relocation of network utility
services; and
• Corridor Access Approval from Auckland Transport for construction works in legal road.
Specialist Reports 15.6
The preliminary analysis indicates the following specialist reports may be required to inform
the development of detail design, consenting strategy and to support subsequent
consent/authorisation applications.
• Arboriculture assessment;
Note: This has been included for the potential effects on the existing trees on Custom
Street (e.g. pruning and construction works within the drip line). This may not be
required.
• Archaeological investigation;
Note: After a review of the planning maps/Historic Places Register the proposed
works do not appear to impact any recorded historic places or areas. However, given
the potential delays resulting from accidental discovery, it is recommended that an
archaeological survey/investigation is undertaken across the three project areas to
assess the likelihood of discovery of archaeological sites (and support any necessary
application for an authority to destroy, damage or modify archaeological sites under
the Historic Places Act 1993).
• Stormwater analysis (to ensure compliance with conditions under section 5.5.1 of the
ALWP);
• Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigations (given the surrounding and historic use of
land within the project area) for the remainder of the site not covered by the investigation
previously carried out;
• Construction Management Plan (including addressing the outcome of consultation with
network utility operators); and
• Traffic engineering analysis.
Consultation 15.7
We recommend that consultation be undertaken with at least the following third parties:
• Local Board;
• Individual property owners/occupiers of land directly impacted by the project (i.e.
temporary/permanent loss/reconfiguration of vehicle accessways/adjacent on-street
carparks, land acquisition, proximity to construction/bus manoeuvring areas etc.);
• New Zealand Railways Corporation (KiwiRail) as a Requiring Authority;
• Network utility operators with services located within the project area which will be directly
affected;
42127173/01/A 61
• Local road users and business owners directly impacted by construction and roading
reconfigurations; and
• General public - including railway commuters.
42127173/01/A 62
16 FUNDING PROFILE
The funding profile has been assessed in accordance with the 2015-18 NLTP Investment
Assessment Framework. This considers 3 factors:
• Strategic fit i.e. selecting the right things to do;
• Effectiveness i.e implementing them in the right way; and
• Benefit and cost appraisal i.e. the right project at the right time and for the right price.
Strategic Fit 16.1
The Pukekohe bus interchange and park and ride has been assessed under the Public
transport improvements activity class, specifically work category 531 - Public transport
infrastructure improvements, major renewals and minor improvements.
This is considered appropriate as this category includes:
• Rail stations, interchanges or terminals and shelters;
• Infrastructure with a total cost of more than $5 million;
• Electronic ticketing and real-time system infrastructure;
• Park and ride infrastructure including cycle storage facilities; and
• Pedestrian and cycle access to public transport services.
Note: This has been assumed to include the footbridge
For the purposes of this project the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection improvement
have been included as part of the Public Transport Activity Class. This is considered
appropriate as the intersection is considered critical to the safe and efficient operation of the
interchange. It is unlikely the buses can achieve journey time reliability without a positive
facility allowing them to exit. This will be examined when AT commission the investigation into
the proposed intersection.
16.1.1 Assessment
16.1.1.1 Rating Requirements
The default strategic fit rating for public transport improvements is low.
Requirements for medium rating
A medium strategic fit rating may be given if, in the short to medium term, the problem, issue
or opportunity is:
• A service provision that does not meet forecast demand, including in and to main urban
areas, within a region; OR
• Access to social and economic opportunities, particularly for those with limited access to
a private vehicle; OR
42127173/01/A 63
• A deficiency in reliability, or resilience in the transport system
Requirements for high rating
A public transport improvements activity must only be given a high strategic fit rating if, in
addition to meeting the criteria for a medium rating, in the short to medium term, the problem,
issue or opportunity is:
• A service provision does not meet forecast demand on networks or corridors in major
urban areas, OR
• A deficiency in journey time reliability in major urban areas
16.1.1.2 Assessment
The Auckland Plan and Pukekoke Area Plan have predicted that the population of
Pukekohe will significantly increase from 21,000 to over 50,000 in the next 30 years with
intensified development is proposed adjacent to the rail station. It is proposed to
accommodate the additional movements utilising a one system approach and doubling of the
public transport trips from 70 million per year in 2012 to 140 million in 2022. The Integrated
Transport Programme proposes to achieve this by utilising a Frequent Transport Network
with connecting ‘feeder’ bus services, along with good pedestrian and cycling connections. At
Pukekohe the rail service will be Frequent Transport Network. The existing bus terminus is an
unacceptable distance from the rail station. The proposed bus interchange is therefore
essential infrastructure to support implementation of the goals in the Integrated Transport
Programme. This is reflected in Regional Public Transport Plan which has identified the
bus interchange as Essential works ‘required in advance in order to run the proposed services
/ the project significantly enhances patronage growth’.
There is currently no official park and ride facility in Pukekohe. The Auckland Transport
Parking Strategy proposes park and ride adjacent to the bus interchange to intercept
commuter trips that would otherwise have been made by car and encourage public transport
patronage by providing a high quality integrated facility.
The proposed footbridge, Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection and walking and cycling
facilities all improve accessibility and connectivity to the town centre, train station and
Manukau Road as per the Pukekohe Area Plan and Integrated Transport Programme.
The Strategic Fit is assessed as meeting the requirements for High.
42127173/01/A 64
Effectiveness 16.2
16.2.1 Effectiveness criteria
The Effectiveness of the project has been assessed against the following criteria for Public
Transport Improvements, listed in the 2015-18 NLTP Investment Assessment Framework.
Effectiveness
Criteria
Explanation / Guidance
Outcomes
focused
• tangible change in addressing the problem, issue or
opportunity identified in the Strategic Fit assessment
• consistency with levels of service in an appropriate
classification system where a classification system
exists
Integrated • consistency with the current network and future
transport plans
• consistency with other current and future activities
• consistency with current and future land use planning
• accommodates different needs across modes
including the integration between public transport
modes, e.g. bus to rail connections, if applicable
• support as an agreed programme across partners,
including public transport and other infrastructure
improvements, operation and maintenance
Correctly
scoped
• the degree of fit as part of an agreed strategy or
business case
• has followed the intervention hierarchy to consider
alternatives and options including low cost
alternatives and options
• is of an appropriate scale in relation to the
issue/opportunity
• covers and/or manages the spatial impact (upstream
and downstream, network impacts)
• mitigates any adverse impacts on other results
Affordable • is affordable through the lifecycle for all parties
• has understood and traded off the best whole of life
cost approach
• has understood the benefits and costs between
transport users and other parties and sought
contributions as possible
• on-going impact on the costs of providing the public
transport services programme are understood and
42127173/01/A 65
accepted by all funding partners
Timely • delivers enduring benefits over the timeframe
identified in the justified strategy or business case
• provides the benefits in a timely manner
Confidence • manages current and future risk for results/outcomes
• manages current and future risk for costs
Overall • Assessment based on lowest rating of all
components
16.2.2 Assessment
16.2.2.1 Outcomes focused
It is considered the recommended option addresses the strategic need and problems by
providing:
• An integrated solution i.e. siting the bus interchange at the rail station, that will allow a
seamless connecting service for AT’s customers between buses and trains
• A park and ride facility as part of the bus interchange to encourage patronage of public
transport and reduce car journeys
• An intersection upgrade to facilitate safe and efficient access and egress and reliable
journey times for bus services
• Good pedestrian and cycling connections to the surrounding area and community
including the footbridge across the rail tracks (also reducing community severance
caused by the rail tracks) and potentially as part of the intersection upgrade.
The ‘outcome focused’ effectiveness assessment is High.
16.2.2.2 Integrated
It is considered there is good alignment with the current policies, strategies and
implementation plans as listed in Section 2.3 of this SAR.
The Pukekohe Area Plan lists the following as outcomes:
• Provision of a more frequent train service
• Upgrade of Pukekohe Train Station to include a permanent pedestrian over bridge, bus
interchange, park and ride and passenger facilities.
• Improved transport connections to Pukekohe
• Investigation of potential local traffic improvements at Manukau Road, Custom Street and
Harris Street, to reduce congestion.
42127173/01/A 66
• Identification of and improvements to walking and cycling routes connecting the town centre, train station and Manukau Road shopping area, such as through the provision of street trees, furniture, paving and cycle facilities.
The Regional Public Transport Plan (Table 8-2: Proposed infrastructure programme for new
network (prioritised)) identifies that the improvements at Pukekohe Station as ‘Essential’.
The ‘Integrated’ effectiveness assessment is High.
16.2.2.3 Correctly scoped.
While there has been no investigation carried out into the proposed Manukau Road / Custom
Street Intersection to date, it is acknowledged that the intersection improvements will improve
the effectiveness of the overall scheme due to the increased vehicle movements required
through the intersection. It should also be noted that the investigation and design into the bus
interchange and footbridge has only been carried out to concept level with only limited site
investigations (topographical survey, traffic surveys, geotechnical or utilities).
It is considered that although the site investigation / design work completed to date has been
limited, the elements of the project have been correctly scoped to deliver an effective and
integrated outcome.
The ‘Correctly scoped’ effectiveness assessment is Medium.
16.2.2.4 Affordable
The recommended option is considered affordable and the best whole of life cost approach
through the project lifecycle, although maintenance costs should be discussed with the AT
Asset Management team as the project is developed.
The ‘Affordable’ effectiveness assessment is Medium.
16.2.2.5 Timely
The recommended option delivers enduring benefits over the timeframe identified in the
Regional Public Transport Plan and Pukekohe Area Plan.
The ‘Timely’ effectiveness assessment is High.
16.2.2.6 Confidence
The risks associated with the project have been assessed and are considered to be
manageable within the Expected Estimate. The biggest risk is associated with the Manukau
Road / Custom Street intersection, with regard to both timing and cost, as no investigation has
been carried out into this. Similarly only limited site investigations (as described above) have
been carried out including geotechnical data for structural foundations.
The ‘Confidence’ effectiveness assessment is Medium.
16.2.2.7 Overall
Based on the 2015-18 NLTP Investment Assessment Framework guidance that the
assessment based on lowest rating of all components, the ‘Overall’ effectiveness
42127173/01/A 67
assessment is Medium. With additional investigation it is considered that the project will
achieve a High effectiveness rating.
Benefit and Cost Appraisal 16.3
The John Bolland Consulting peer reviewed economic analysis report (Appendix H) indicated
that the recommended option has a BCR of either 1.25 (National) or 1.3 (Government).
The benefit and cost appraisal for the recommended option is therefore a quantitative
assessment of 1 to 3.
Funding Profile 16.4
In accordance with the 2015-18 NLTP Investment Assessment Framework the funding profile
has been assessed as High: Medium: 1 to 3.
42127173/01/A 68
17 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion 17.1
The recommended option is considered to be an effective and optimal layout in terms of bus
operations, safety, integration into its surroundings and provision of park and ride parking.
There is also strong alignment with strategic plans particularly Auckland Council’s Pukekohe
Area Plan and Auckland Transport’s Regional Public Transport Plan. This is confirmed by the
economic analysis which confirms that the recommended option is the economically preferred
option.
Recommendations 17.2
It is recommended that the recommended option is progressed to detailed design.
The following recommendations are made:
• Consult with KiwiRail / Transdev regarding relocation of the compound, obtaining
agreement in principle before detailed design commences;
• Consult the owners of 4 and 50 Manukau Road regarding the possibility of land purchase.
If they are supportive it will greatly assist in developing the project;
• It is strongly recommended investigation into the proposed Manukau Road / Custom
Street intersection (probably combined with Harris Street) is commenced immediately.
This is integral to the efficient operation of the Bus Interchange. Delay in implementing
the intersection improvement has the potential to delay implementation of the greater
project. This will mitigate the identified risks to both programme delay and cost
escalation, as well as allowing early engagement with key stakeholders;
• A parking survey is carried out on Station Road and the Mall;
• Traffic turning counts are commissioned at the Manukau Road / Custom Street / Harris
Street intersection;
• A pavement investigation into the existing construction of the existing hard standing area
on the bus interchange site will assist in refining the cost estimate;
• A topographical survey will assist in refining the requirement for retaining walls;
• A geotechnical investigation will assist in the design particularly for the footbridge;
• That Auckland Transport does not allow any proposed development of the Council Office
site to have access onto Custom Street; and
• Improve community integration further by consider investigation of additional paths to the
Mall and Town Centre from Station Road. These are desirable but not essential to
successfully achieving the project goals;
• The City Transformation streetscape upgrade project be co-ordinated with the proposals
for the Manukau Road / Custom Street interchange once these are confirmed. Consider
integrating this into the greater project to minimise disruption and as part of a coordinated
initiative; and
• Consider future proofing for a park and ride extension on other KiwiRail adjacent to the
proposed interchange and park and ride by carrying out feasibility design, future proofing
the current proposals accordingly and commencing negotiations with KiwiRail now.
42127173/01/A 69
18 LIMITATIONS
Except as required by law, no third party may use or rely on this Report unless otherwise
agreed by AECOM in writing. Where such agreement is provided, AECOM will provide a letter
of reliance to the agreed third party in the form required by AECOM.
To the extent permitted by law, AECOM expressly disclaims and excludes liability for any loss,
damage, cost or expenses suffered by any third party relating to or resulting from the use of,
or reliance on, any information contained in this Report. AECOM does not admit that any
action, liability or claim may exist or be available to any third party.
Except as specifically stated in this section, AECOM does not authorise the use of this Report
by any third party.
It is the responsibility of third parties to independently make inquiries or seek advice in relation
to their particular requirements and proposed use of the site.
Any estimates of potential costs which have been provided are presented as estimates only as
at the date of the Report. Any cost estimates that have been provided may therefore vary from
actual costs at the time of expenditure.
42127173/01/A 70
APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Subway Road looking east
Parking along Station Road looking south
Single lane road and low bridge
Existing P&R parking on Station Road
Vacant space west of station
Adjacent properties west of station
Carters Rail stabling yard
Site of proposed bus interchange
V8 bridge
Private access behind mall west of station
Customs St looking east toward station
V8 bridge
Mall land
Unofficial P & R parking on private
Mall land adjacent to V8 bridge
Carter’s entrance Parking to be removed
Council office
entrance to be
removed
Entrance west of station
Customs Street intersection
Harris Street
Custom Street
Transdev Compound
Entrance to bus interchange
Land required here
42127173/01/A 71
APPENDIX B COLLECTED DATA
�� � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � �� � � � � � �� �� � � � �� �
DESIGNATIONNUMBER PLAN MAP NUMBER Date DESIGNATING AUTHORITY LEGAL DESCRIPTION DESIGNATED PURPOSE AREA (Ha) UNDERLYING ZONE Revision C dated 08.01.01.
88 11, 56, 57, 58, 87
New Zealand Transport Agency
State Highway 22 within the former Franklin District, described as from northern boundary of the former Franklin District as to a point of the intersection with Adams Drive, Pukekohe
State Highway - Declared Limited Access Road
89 11, 18, 24, 25, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66A, 67, 74, 75, 77, 79
Aug 04-Dec 04
New Zealand Railways Corporation
North Island Main Trunk (N.I.M.T.) Railway Railway
90 16, 54 Aug 2004-Dec 04
New Zealand Railways Corporation
Mission Bush Railway Railway
91 (A) 5, 6 Watercare Services Limited
Cosseys Dam - Part CT 17A/877 Water Supply Purposes ForestConservation
91 (B) 6, 13 Watercare Services Limited
Wairoa Dam - Part CT 17A/877 Water Supply Purposes ForestConservation
91 (C) 6, 13 Watercare Services Limited
Upper Mangatawhiri Dam - Part CT 17A/877 Water Supply Purposes ForestConservation
91 (D) 6, 13 Watercare Services Limited
Future Lower Mangatawhiri Dam - Part CT 17A/877 Water Supply Purposes ForestConservation
91 (E) 6, 13 Watercare Services Limited
Mangatangi Dam - Part CT 17A/877 Water Supply Purposes ForestConservation
92 6, 13, 14 Watercare Services Limited
Water supply purposes part CT 17A/877,all CT's 18B/242 18D/1198, 19C/633, 19C/634, 19D/1093, 20B/925, 22C/1211, 23C/1470, 25A/313, 25A/314, NZ Gazette Doc A404052 and NZ Gazette 1973 p357.
Water Supply Purposes - Headworks Service Lands
ForestConservation
93 27 Waikato Regional Council Part Allotment 186, Waiuku West Parish River Control Purposes 5.2887 Rural
94 23 Waikato Regional Council Parts Kaiwaka A2 Block, Parts Te Aka Aka 4A Block River Control Purposes 4.3133 WetlandConservation
95 25 Waikato Regional Council Allotments 256, 258, 259 and 274 Koheroa Parish Soil Conservation and River Control Purposes
7.6284 WetlandConservation
96 25 Waikato Regional Council Allotments 250, 251, 252 Part Allotment 84 Mangatawhiri Parish and Lot 1 DP 61203
River Control Purposes 17.8417 WetlandConservation
97 24 Waikato Regional Council Part 2 DP 20923, Part 2 DP 1902, Parts 1 DP 89834 (SO 54444)
River Control Purposes 4.7009 Rural
98 30 Waikato Regional Council Part Allotment 1, Part Lot 3 DP 14623, Part Allotment 24, River Control Purposes 2.8620 Rural
11, 18, 24, 89 Aug 04- New Zealand Railways North Island Main Trunk (N.I.M.T.) Railway Railway11, 18, 24, 25, 56, 57,
Aug 04-Dec 04
New Zealand Railways Corporation25, 56, 57,
59, 61, 63, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66A, 65, 66A, 67, 74, 75, 67, 74, 75, 77, 79
RuralÿZone
BusinessÿZone
ResidentialÿZone
RecreationÿZone
ProposedÿEsplanadeÿReserve
WetlandÿConservationÿZone
KingseatÿSpecialÿZone
AggregateÿExtractionÿ&ÿProcessingÿZone
ForestÿConservationÿZone
DesignatedÿLand/Sites(ReferÿtoÿScheduleÿatÿbackÿofÿPlan)
PukekoheÿHillÿSpecialÿPolicyÿArea
IronÿandÿSteelÿProductionÿZone
MotorwayÿServiceÿZone
AucklandÿCouncilDistrictÿPlan
(FranklinÿSection)
MAPLEGEND
SitesÿofÿSpecialÿWildlifeÿInterest(ReferÿScheduleÿ5AÿandÿMapÿ103ÿSeries)
(Mapÿ64)
(Mapÿ10ÿ&ÿ51)
(Mapÿ16)
(Mapÿ18)
88
SpecialZones
Copyrightÿ©ÿAucklandÿCouncil.ÿÿCadastralÿInformationÿisÿderivedÿfromÿ
LINZÿDigitalÿCadastralÿDatabaseCROWNÿCOPYRIGHTÿRESERVED
11
StructureÿPlanÿArea
CoastalÿZone
VillageÿZone
VillageÿBusinessÿZone
ManagementÿArea
SpecialÿCharacterÿAreas
Printed:ÿÿ 26/11/201326/11/2013
Rural-ResidentialÿZone
Update:ÿOctoberÿ2013
NationalÿGridÿTransmissionÿLines(ReferÿPartsÿ17B.6,ÿ22.8,ÿ22D.7,ÿ22D.8,ÿ26.4A.2(h),ÿ27.A.2ÿ
&ÿ27A.4)
VillageÿGrowthÿArea(ReferÿRuleÿ22D.6)
VillageÿGrowthÿArea
VillageÿOverlayÿPlan(ReferÿPartÿ55)
ConceptÿPlanÿRequired(ReferÿRuleÿ22D.9)
Industrial
IndustrialÿServices
Heritage
(ReferÿPartsÿ5ÿ&ÿ50)
(ReferÿPartÿ8)
A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10
LocalÿAuthorityÿBoundaries(AucklandÿWaikatoÿ&ÿHaurakiÿCouncilsÿfromÿ01ÿNovÿ2010)
Residentialÿ2ÿZone
LightÿIndustrialÿZone
Industrialÿ2ÿZone
(ReferÿPartÿ54)
RuralÿCountrysideÿLivingÿZone
AwhituÿPeninsulaÿPolicyÿArea
ProposedÿTree(ProposedÿPlanÿChangeÿ39.ÿEffectiveÿfromÿ1ÿJanuaryÿ2012.ÿ
DecisionÿNoÿ[2011]ÿNZEnvCÿ388)
A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10A10
Pukekohe
Copyrightÿ©ÿAucklandÿCouncil.CadastralÿInformationÿisÿderivedÿfromLINZÿDigitalÿCadastralÿDatabase
CROWNÿCOPYRIGHTÿRESERVED
EASTÿSTREET
BELGIUMÿROAD
ÿROAD
CHERRYÿC
RESCENT
YOUNGSÿGROVE
NGAHEREÿROAD
BIRCHÿROAD
VALLEYÿROAD
RIDGEWAYÿROAD
PARVIN
AVONLEAÿLANE
MATATEAÿAVENUE
ROOSEÿAVENUE
CROMWELLÿPLACE
TOTARAÿPLACE
EASTÿSTREET
CARLTONÿR
OAD
TOTARAÿAVENUE
LENÿBROWNÿPLACE
KOWHAIÿPLACE
AD SUBWAYÿRO
AD
THEÿGLADE
PROSPECTÿTERRACE
KINGÿSTREET
STATIONÿROAD
FRANKLINÿROAD
HALLÿSTREET
MANUKAUÿROAD
HARRISÿST
REET
GRAHAMÿSTREET
CUSTOMÿST
REET
MASSEYÿ
AVENUE
BLAIRÿAVENUE
GRIERSONÿPLACE
HAMILTONÿPLACE
STEMBRIDGEÿAVENUE
TREET
EDINBURGHÿSTREET
ROULSTONÿSTREETEET
ALBERTÿSTREET
STADIUMÿDRIVE
HALLÿSTREET
TOBINÿSTREET
LODGEÿSTREET
JOHNÿSTREET
151
1
14
89
123
69
82
20
102
67
83
68
67
AucklandÿCouncilDistrictÿPlan
(FranklinÿSection)
Printed:
ReferÿtoÿMapÿLegend
Update:ÿOctoberÿ2013
0 100 200 300ÿm
Scaleÿ1:8000
31/10/201331/10/2013
Pukekohe
East
Kingseat
PaerataNorth
Patumahoe
BucklandPuni
Awhitu
Pollok
ClarksBeach
PortWaikato
AkaÿAka
Otaua
Onewhero Pukekawa
Mercer
GlenMurray
Naike
Mangatawhiri
Paparimu
Hunua
Bombay
Ramarama
Pokeno
Koheroa
Kaiaua
Miranda
Mangatangi
ManukauCity
PapakuraDistrict
WÿA IÿKÿAÿTÿO
DÿIÿSÿTÿRÿIÿCÿT
CÿOÿUÿNÿCÿIÿL
HÿAÿUÿRÿAÿKÿI
DÿIÿSÿTÿRÿIÿCÿT
CÿOÿUÿNÿCÿIÿL
ManukauHarbour
TasmanÿSea
SEEÿINSETÿ
MAP
HÿAÿUÿRÿAÿKÿI
DÿIÿSÿTÿRÿIÿCÿT
CÿOÿUÿNÿCÿIÿL
Waiuku
Pukekohe
AucklandÿCouncilDistrictÿPlan
(FranklinÿSection)
ROADINGÿ
HIERARCHY
Update:ÿOctoberÿ2013
%Approxÿscaleÿ1:345,000
Printed:ÿ29/10/2013
Copyrightÿ©ÿAucklandÿCouncil.ÿÿCadastralÿInformationÿisÿderivedÿfromÿLINZÿDigitalÿCadastralÿDatabaseÿCROWNÿCOPYRIGHTÿRESERVED
MAPÿ106
Legend
TLAÿBoundaries
MinorÿRoads
TownÿBoundaries
CollectorÿRoutes
DistrictÿArterialÿRoute
NationalÿRoutes
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
QUEEN
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
STREET
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
MANUKAU
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
WESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREETWESLEYÿSTREET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EETNELSO
NÿSTREET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EETNELSO
NÿSTREET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EETNELSO
NÿSTREET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EETNELSO
NÿSTREET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EETNELSO
NÿSTREET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EETNELSO
NÿSTREET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EET
NELSONÿSTR
EETNELSO
NÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREET
WARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREETWARDÿSTREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EDINBURGHÿ STREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
EASTÿSTREET
INSETÿMAP
�� � � �� � � � � � ���� � � �
�� � � � � � � � � � �
� �� � � �� � �� ! " #$ % & $ '()*+ *,-. )/ /.
0123456789: ; <= > ? <@ A A <
BCDEFG CHIJ HKL MN O PQ RN S R TU V WX W V X
Y Z [\ ] _ ` _ a b [\ [ a ac \ de d [f g h b ai b j ^ a a [ b k he ] d [ h b \ Z hc a j l g [ b j g _ g b j g b d ai f g e [ k [ g jh b \ [ d g l g k h e g d ^ m [ b n bi o d [ h bp q h _i e [ n Z d rc o m a b j q hc b o [ ap s b j t e o g a u hc b j e i[ b k h e ] d [ h b ke h ] s v w x y q e h z b q h _i e [ n Z d { g\ g e f g j |p} Z [ a\ d jc g o e g Z \ l g g b d ^ m g b~ rc o m a b j q hc b o [ a n [f g\ b h z e e b di \ d h d Z go oc e oi b j o h ] _ a g d g b g\ \ h k bi [ b k h e ] d [ h b h b d Z [ \ ] _ ` _ a b b j o o g _ d\ b ha [ ^ l [ a [ di k h e bi g e e h e ~ h ] [\ \ [ h b he c \ g h k d Z g [ b k h e ] d [ h bp� g [ n Z d j ^ dc ] � rc o m a b j � � � �p�� � � MN O T P� � O � � M
Neighbourhood Centre
Local Centre
Town Centre
Metropolitan Centre
City Centre
Mixed Use
General Business
Business Park
Light Industry
Heavy Industry
Coastal Transition
Defence
General Coastal Marine [ rcp ]
Ferry Terminal [ rcp/dp ]
Marina [ rcp/dp ]
Minor Port [ rcp/dp ]
Mooring [ rcp ]
ZONING
OVERLAYS
Coastal Natural Character Areas [rps/rcp/dp]
The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
# Notable Trees
High
Outstanding � � � � � �� � � � � �Outstanding Natural Features [ rps/rcp/dp ]
Outstanding Natural Landscape [ rps/rcp/dp ]
V V V
V V V
V V V
Extent of Volcanic Viewshafts [ rps ]
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
Blanket Height Sensitive Areas [ rps/dp ]
Precincts & Sub-Precincts
His
tori
c H
erit
age
# Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua
Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua [ dp/rcp ]
! Historic Heritage Place [ dp/rcp ]
Historic Heritage Extent of Place [ dp/rcp ]
E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E
Pre 1944 Building Demolition Control
Auckland Museum Viewshaft
StormwaterManagement Area
Indicative Stream [i]
( ( ( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( ( ( ( Aquifer [ rp ]
Natural hazards - Coastal Inundation
Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì
Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì
Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì
Land [ rps/rp ]
Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì
Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì ÌMarine 1 [ rps/rcp ]
Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì
Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì ÌMarine 2 [ rps/rcp ]
Natural Stream Management Area
High Use Stream Management Area
Natural
Urban
G G G G G G
G G G G G G Flow 1
E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E Flow 2
W W W W W W
W W W W W W Water Supply Management Area
LakeManagement Area
SignificantEcological
Areas
BuildingFrontage
Key Retail Frontage
General Commercial Frontage
Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç
Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç
Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç
Additional Subdivision Controls
City Centre Fringe Office
Indicative Road
Indicative Open Space
Ridgeline Protection
« « « « « « «
« « « « « « « Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation
Industry Transition
Sensitive Activity Restriction
Special Character
Local Public Views
12.5m Additional Height Controls
Public Open Space - Conservation
Public Open Space - Informal Recreation
Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation
Public Open Space - Community
Public Open Space - Civic Spaces
Rural Production
Rural Coastal
Rural Conservation
Mixed Rural
Countryside Living
Single House
Mixed Housing Urban
Mixed Housing Suburban
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
Large Lot
Rural and Coastal Settlement
Special Purpose
Strategic Transport Corridor
Water [ i ]
Indicative Coastline [ i ]
Rural Urban Boundary [ rps ]
[ rp ]
[ rp ]
[ rp ]
[ rp ]
[ rp ]
(notified 30 September 2013)For more information refer to:http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/unitaryplan
Rur
alC
oas
tal
New
Gro
wth
Key
to
A
bbre
viat
ion
s of
Pro
visi
on
s
Indicative Roads& Open Space
Arterial Road� � � �� � � �Parking
Designations
Airspace Restriction Designations
Airport Approach Paths� � � � � � �� � � � � � �Level Crossings with Sightline Controls� � � Quarry Buffer Area
E E E E E E E
E E E E E E EQuarry Transport Route
Electricity Transmission Corridor
Aircraft Noise
City Centre Port Noise
High Land Transport Route Noise
X X X X X X X Adjacent to Level Crossings� � � � � � �General
" " " " " Motorway Interchange Control
Infr
astr
uctu
reN
atu
ral R
eso
urc
es
Future Urban
Green Infrastructure Corridor
Bu
ilt E
nvi
ron
men
tN
atu
ral H
erit
age
Pub
lic
Op
en S
pac
eR
esid
enti
alB
usi
nes
s
123
123
VehicleAccess
Restrictions
Heavy IndustryAir Quality
[dp/rcp]
Volcanic Viewshafts &
HeightSensitive Areas
Designations
To be read in conjunction with viewshaft contour layer in GIS viewer or diagrams within the text
[ rp ] = Regional Plan
[ dp ] = District Plan (only used to depict dual provisions. Otherwise, District Plan is the default category, i.e. no abbreviation)
[ rcp ] = Regional Coastal Plan
[rps/rcp] (or any other combination using /) = dual provisions
[ rps ] = Regional Policy Statement
[ i ] = Information only
Transit New Zealand
Overdimension Vehicle Route Maps
10 1km
SCALE 1 : 25 000500m
Traffic light
Roundabout
Overdimension Vehicle Route
State Highway
One way street
November 2004
22
PUKEKOHE
BUCKLAND
A
PO
LLO
CK R
OAD
WIL
LO
WBRO
OK
FAIR OAKS
ROAD
JELLICOE
CA
LCU
TTA
RO
AD
ROUTLY
HAMLET
WIL
LIS
DO
MAIN
RO
AD
RO
WLES R
OAD
STUART R
OAD
FO
Y R
OAD
PU
RIR
I RO
AD
BELMO
NT
ROA
D
BERESFORD STREET
PHILLIP RUSSELL
MA
SO
N A
VE
CROSBIE
NELSON
STREET
CO
LLIE
RD
AVERIE
LAW
GA
RD
EN
LA
ND
SC
AP
E
FAIRFIELD ST
CORO
NATIO
N
KIW
I
ALA
ME
IN
KEN
NELLY
CR
ES
FREYBE
RG
E N
McSHA
WIN
DM
ILL
TIMES
PRINCES
WEST
ST
TCE
NEY
MOLO
PA
TERS
ON
LIO
NE
L S
HA
RP
E
WARDSTREET
DALTON
ASHBY
REVELL
CO
OPE
R
ST
RE
ET
HEN
RY
CURD
LYNLEY
BILKEY
DUN
OLLY
RO
AD
AN
ZA
C
WOODLANDS ROAD
BIRCH ROAD
GRO
VE
NG
S
YO
U
CARLTON RD
CUSTOM
GR
AH
AM
TOBIN
LODGE
KING
DEVON
ALB
ER
T
ALBERT ST
STEMBRIDGE
GRIERSON
HAMILTONBLAIR
CH
ILDS
AVE
MO
RR
OW
TURN
ER
PRINCES
STREET
ED
EN
CHURCHILLH
OO
PERAVE
MO
NTG
OM
ERY A
VE
RATA
KEITH ROAD
BE
AT
TY
R
OA
D
ROAD
BE
AT
TY
ARNHEM
BIRD
WO
OD
ROA
D
ST
LAN
D
HO L
TA
SM
AN
S
TR
EE
T
HE
LV
ET
IA
RO
AD
HELVETIA
RO
AD
KAU
RI
RO
AD
JU
TLA
ND
RO
AD
FA
CTO
RY
RD
McN
ALL
Y
RO
AD
RO
AD
PUNI
WAIU
KU
RO
AD
DRIVE
O’C
O
NN
OR
QU
EE
N
ST
RE
ET
HARRIS
ED
INB
UR
GH
S
TR
EE
T
SEDDON
STREET AVE
RO
ULS
TO
N
SE
DD
ON
VICTO
RIA
STREET
HA
RRIN
GTO
N
VICTO
RIA
STREET
WEST
RO
AD
KITCHENER ROAD
KITCHENER ROAD
ST
RE
ET
TU
AK
AU
RO
AD
WEBB
STREET
QU
ARRY R
D
NG
AH
ER
E
BELG
IUM
RO
AD
KO
WH
AI
CR
OM
WE
LL
LE
N B
RO
WN
PA
RV
IN
AVETOTARA
THE GLA
DE
RY
CH
E
R
RO
AD
EAST
STREET
TE
RR
AC
E
PR
OS
PE
CT
BROWNLEE
ADRO
KEITH
DR
ADAM
S
IVE
COMRIE
CRISP
HEIGHTS
RO
AD
HE
IGH
TS
RO
AD
STREET
HOGAN
NO
TR
E D
AM
E
STREET
DU
BLIN
KAYES
ROA
DP
AE
RA
TA
RO
AD
CAPE
CA
PE
HIL
L
RO
AD
VA
LLE
YR
OA
D
IVE
DRR
EE
TS
T
MA
NU
KA
U
RO
AD
WEST
STREET
JO
HN
ST
RE
ET
SO
UT
H
JO
HN
ST
RE
ET
ST
RE
ET
WE
LLIN
GT
ON
GR
EE
N L
AN
E
RO
AD
BUCKLAND
GE
OR
GE
C
YAT
ST
AT
ION
RO
AD
STA
TIO
N
RO
AD
SUBWAY ROAD
RO
AD
HIL
L
TO
P
RO
AD
BLA
KE
RO
AD
JU
TLA
ND
AD
AM
S R
OA
D S
OU
TH
CLUB
ROAD
FR
AN
KLIN
RO
AD
EMSWORTH
JACKSON
HARRY
MOORE
FAU
SE
TT
FRAN
K H
EW
ITT
R SON
AVE W
EST
PA
T
STREET
MASSEY
DUKE
ARVID
S
N
O
CLOV
ER
LE
A
SUNSET D
R
ISA
BE
LLA
D
RIV
E
ELSIE
ALE
XA
ND
ER
CA
STELLE
OS
TR
ICH
FARM
ROA
D
HILL LN
DA
N
BR
YA
NT
WO
OD
CRO
FT
BUTCHER ROAD
MA
RV
EL
OA
KW
OO
D
AVO
NLEA
SH
AN
NO
N
GR W
AY
SA P L
ING
JACARANDA
TO M
KEVEN
SWEETC
ORN
BONAPARTE
RA
NC
H
PREMILA
MARBLEW
OOD
WA
Y
LIESHOUT
VA
LLEY
FIE
LD
S
AVONBRO
OK
MAX
S
HORT DR
LES F
ISH
ER
EASTSID
E
VALLEY SIDE
REYNOLD
S RD
LANDON
LES M
ARSTO
N
WES
T P
ALM
S
MA
RGAR
ITA
TH
E
GLA
DE
N
ORTH
HILL ROAD
HA
LL
BIR
DW
OOD
RD E
AST
RIDG
EW
AY
RD
W
ESLEY
GIR
DHAR
LO
CH
VIE
W
THA
MES
LON
DO
N
RIC
HA
RD
SO
N
EDW ARD
S
REYN
OLD
S
REIDY
HA
WKE
CA
RD
IFF
STREET
STADIUM
GLASGOW ROAD
RO
OS
E
AVE
T
OTARA
MA
TA
TE
A
BLEDISLOE
LAURELWO
OD
TREMEN
GREIG P
L
aen
ui
S
tre
am
Wh
an
ga
po
uri
Cre
ek
Section 4 Auckland Region -Page 57 of 57
PUKEKOHE 4-57
JOINS MAP 53
© 2002 Terralink International Ltd
JOINS MAP 52
STATION ROAD
NIMT UPMAIN
NIM
T D
OW
NM
AIN
STABLING AREA 3x6 CAR
1 IN 7.5
STABLING 2
STABLING 3
STABLING 1
FUTURE STABLING
EXPANSION
TO BRITOMART
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
EXISTING 1 IN 12
CROSSOVER
DERAILER
1 IN 121 IN 12
NIMT DOWNMAIN
NIMT UPMAIN
LOOP TRACK
STATION ROAD
OLD PLATFORM
REDUNDANT
1 IN 12
DERAILER
DERAILER
1 IN 12
1
2
3
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
PARK AND RIDE
TRANSDEV
YARD
OVERWEIGHT TO BE RELOCATED
TO DOWNMAIN SIDE
150m x 5m PLATFORM
150m x 5m PLATFORM
CORRIDOR BOUNDARY
EXISTING TRACK CENTRELINE
PROPOSED TRACK CENTRELINE
TRACK TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED PLATFORM
JO
IN
L
IN
E
JO
IN
L
IN
E
JO
IN
L
IN
E
JO
IN
L
IN
E
DRAFT CONCEPT
PUKEKOHE STATION CONCEPT REVIEW
AT054 -P01B C
INFORMATIONCONCEPT SITE LAYOUT PLANOPTION 1B
(TWO ACTIVE PLATFORMS)
STATION ROAD
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
R 1000m
R 1000m
DERAILER
(DETAILS TBD)
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
FUTURE STABLING
EXPANSION
NEW NIMT UPMAIN
TO BRITOMART
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
R = ~620m
NEW NIMT UPMAIN
NIMT DOWNMAIN
NEW NIMT UPMAIN
TRANSDEV
COMPOUND
STATION ROAD
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
DERAILER
(DETAILS TBD)
R = ~900m
NEW NIMT UPMAIN
NIMT DOWNMAIN
3x150m STABLING
MODIFICATION SOUTH END
NEEDED FOR FULL 150m USE
UPGRADED PLATFORM
PARK 'N' RIDE WITH ~80 PARKING SPACES
INDICATIVE LAYOUT BASED ON AMENDED
2010 CONCEPT
ACTIVE SIDE ONLY
OVERWEIGHT TO BE RELOCATED
TO DOWNMAIN SIDE
JO
IN
L
IN
E
JO
IN
L
IN
E
JO
IN
L
IN
E
JO
IN
L
IN
E
DRAFT CONCEPT
CORRIDOR BOUNDARY
EXISTING TRACK CENTRELINE
PROPOSED TRACK CENTRELINE
TRACK TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED PLATFORM
PUKEKOHE STATION CONCEPT REVIEW
AT054 -P02B C
INFORMATIONCONCEPT SITE LAYOUT PLANOPTION 2B
(TWO ACTIVE PLATFORMS)
STATION ROAD
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
R 1000m
R 1000m
DERAILER
(DETAILS TBD)
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
FUTURE STABLING EXPANSION
TO BRITOMART
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
DERAILER
(DETAILS TBD)
R = ~620m
1 IN 12
NEW NIMT UPMAIN
NEW NIMT UPMAIN
NIMT DOWNMAIN
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
DERAILER
(DETAILS TBD)
R = ~900m
1 IN 12
1 IN 12
NEW NIMT UPMAIN
TRANSDEV
COMPOUND
STATION ROAD
NEW NIMT UPMAIN
NIMT DOWNMAIN
PARK 'N' RIDE WITH ~108 PARKING SPACES
INDICATIVE LAYOUT BASED ON AMENDED
2010 CONCEPT
EXISTING STABLING 3No 150m
UPGRADED PLATFORM 150m x 10m WIDE
(REDUCED WIDTH)
OVERWEIGHT TO BE RELOCATED
TO DOWNMAIN SIDE
RELOCATE HERITAGE BUILDING
INTERCHANGE AMENITIES TBC
PUKEKOHE STATION CONCEPT REVIEW
AT054 -P03A B
INFORMATIONCONCEPT SITE LAYOUT PLANOPTION 3A
(TWO ACTIVE PLATFORMS)
CORRIDOR BOUNDARY
EXISTING TRACK CENTRELINE
PROPOSED TRACK CENTRELINE
TRACK TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED PLATFORM
JO
IN
L
IN
E
JO
IN
L
IN
E
JO
IN
L
IN
E
JO
IN
L
IN
E
DRAFT CONCEPT
PukekoheHospital
Pukekohe
PalmsAged Care
LakesideRetirement
Lodge
Nga Hau E Wha O Pukekohe Marae
Pukekohe Family Health Care
Pukekohe Family
Health Care
St Patricks Retirement
Village
ParkviewEstate
Franklin Village
PukekoheHigh
School
PukekoheIntermediate
Tuakau
Rd
Victoria
St
Victoria
St West
Prince
s St W
est
Factory R
d
Princes St
King St
Svendsen Rd
Wrightson Way
Fra
nklin
Rd
Valle
y Rd
Station Rd
Ed
inb
urg
h S
t
Pa
era
ta R
d
Qu
een
St
Twomey Dr
Helvetia R
d
Cap e Hill
Rd
Birdwood Rd
Custom St
Kayes
Rd
Beatty Rd
Massey Ave W
esley St
Joh
n S
t
Wellin
gto
n S
t
Nelson St
Ward St
Beresford St
East St
Sed
do
n S
t
Man
ukau
Rd
Bu
ckla
nd
Rd
Buckland
Rd
Kitchener Rd
Puni R
d
West
St Harris St
An
selm
i Rid
ge Rd
P1
P2
P3
476
50
P4
Pukekohe
Options to amend P1
when area develops.
Bus may not travel
the full length of
Valley Rd
For bus services in Waiuku
and other areas outside
Pukekohe please go to
www.at.govt.nz/newnetwork
P4 continues to
Wesley College
via Paerata Rd
P1 service removed
from Ina Ville Drive
No changes to
routes 50 and
476 as part of
this consultation
P2 will be
amended when
area develops
LOCAL SERVICES
Bus Services will operate at least hourly, 7 days a week between 6am and 9pm.
P1Pukekohe northeast loop. Via East St and Cape Hill Rd. (anticlockwise direction only)
P2Pukekohe northwest loop. Via Seddon St and Helvetia Rd. (anticlockwise direction only)
P3Pukekohe south loop. Via Manukau Rd and West St. (clockwise direction only)
Services operating at frequencies and hours/days of operation to best cater for demand.
P4 Wesley College to Pukekohe Train Station
EXISTING SERVICES (No Change)
Existing Services (No changes as part of this consultation)
Buckland Rd
Geo
rge S
tSa
int
Step
hen
s A
ve
476
50
50 to Port Waikato
KEY SYMBOLS Interchange
Southern Line (Passenger Service)
Railway (Freight and Long Distance Passenger trains)
Tuakau Terminus
Pukekohe Post-consultation map
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Direction 1 Direction 2 Both
0515 0615 113 108 114 34 27 119 112 113 120 111 41 16 121 117 226 228 225 75 43 240 229 119 121 240
0530 0630 129 125 121 39 47 114 114 129 119 130 42 26 124 132 258 244 251 81 73 238 246 129 132 258
0545 0645 144 146 134 48 83 136 130 145 135 141 48 26 138 142 289 281 275 96 109 274 272 146 145 289
0600 0700 188 173 166 65 119 172 157 168 163 166 49 28 156 153 356 336 332 114 147 328 310 188 168 356
0615 0715 239 238 240 89 135 231 225 241 207 221 69 32 196 196 480 445 461 158 167 427 421 240 241 480
0630 0730 309 309 331 119 129 316 291 278 260 261 90 39 245 231 587 569 592 209 168 561 522 331 278 592
0645 0745 391 385 399 146 114 383 368 329 293 306 111 44 290 275 720 678 705 257 158 673 643 399 329 720
0700 0800 470 442 474 206 119 464 437 384 356 343 148 66 339 345 854 798 817 354 185 803 782 474 384 854
0715 0815 536 470 490 234 130 485 487 411 401 406 189 78 387 407 947 871 896 423 208 872 894 536 411 947
0730 0830 577 505 485 290 158 504 532 495 464 459 244 92 434 458 1072 969 944 534 250 938 990 577 495 1072
0745 0845 586 512 499 335 196 522 560 559 523 522 284 122 482 538 1145 1035 1021 619 318 1004 1098 586 559 1145
0800 0900 591 545 521 376 236 516 573 612 558 570 332 147 540 568 1203 1103 1091 708 383 1056 1141 591 612 1203
0815 0915 576 574 560 464 295 553 568 663 601 610 397 188 583 592 1239 1175 1170 861 483 1136 1160 576 663 1239
0830 0930 589 603 619 504 354 570 577 649 608 633 454 241 595 628 1238 1211 1252 958 595 1165 1205 619 649 1252
0845 0945 564 648 659 576 412 590 580 627 601 640 529 287 578 613 1191 1249 1299 1105 699 1168 1193 659 640 1299
0900 1000 592 667 687 617 460 592 598 601 615 652 591 353 570 601 1193 1282 1339 1208 813 1162 1199 687 652 1339
0915 1015 603 687 687 680 512 596 615 580 618 650 616 454 561 590 1183 1305 1337 1296 966 1157 1205 687 650 1337
0930 1030 605 680 687 762 551 614 639 556 642 653 654 530 593 596 1161 1322 1340 1416 1081 1207 1235 762 654 1416
0945 1045 663 671 693 803 564 617 654 594 693 670 700 573 636 613 1257 1364 1363 1503 1137 1253 1267 803 700 1503
1000 1100 632 656 684 819 590 647 662 608 685 692 723 600 644 654 1240 1341 1376 1542 1190 1291 1316 819 723 1542
1015 1115 675 667 681 817 607 658 669 635 698 707 734 588 655 642 1310 1365 1388 1551 1195 1313 1311 817 734 1551
1030 1130 711 694 678 822 648 664 680 700 705 719 735 593 660 653 1411 1399 1397 1557 1241 1324 1333 822 735 1557
1045 1145 716 727 670 836 669 656 675 717 714 743 725 651 686 651 1433 1441 1413 1561 1320 1342 1326 836 743 1561
1100 1200 725 770 692 842 684 625 688 746 719 739 753 666 689 653 1471 1489 1431 1595 1350 1314 1341 842 753 1595
1115 1215 703 799 724 835 686 642 712 742 751 757 784 713 686 696 1445 1550 1481 1619 1399 1328 1408 835 784 1619
1130 1230 686 769 773 816 662 657 703 736 762 779 781 742 676 683 1422 1531 1552 1597 1404 1333 1386 816 781 1597
1145 1245 686 755 809 789 687 695 711 703 755 765 768 712 638 690 1389 1510 1574 1557 1399 1333 1401 809 768 1574
1200 1300 688 752 814 780 697 713 729 696 758 770 720 731 634 643 1384 1510 1584 1500 1428 1347 1372 814 770 1584
1215 1315 693 725 842 791 684 696 745 668 711 747 689 758 647 640 1361 1436 1589 1480 1442 1343 1385 842 758 1589
1230 1330 676 736 806 760 670 679 720 641 696 742 695 773 673 651 1317 1432 1548 1455 1443 1352 1371 806 773 1548
1245 1345 670 736 809 764 674 665 727 635 673 735 676 782 688 632 1305 1409 1544 1440 1456 1353 1359 809 782 1544
1300 1400 649 713 808 735 635 662 697 621 691 727 688 753 654 665 1270 1404 1535 1423 1388 1316 1362 808 753 1535
1315 1415 643 723 774 705 617 679 676 629 689 711 696 689 639 674 1272 1412 1485 1401 1306 1318 1350 774 711 1485
1330 1430 630 722 778 708 624 703 711 647 682 699 695 639 625 667 1277 1404 1477 1403 1263 1328 1378 778 699 1477
1345 1445 639 700 760 671 597 688 697 650 671 696 697 646 629 686 1289 1371 1456 1368 1243 1317 1383 760 697 1456
1400 1500 677 684 736 675 600 709 700 653 642 693 678 650 659 677 1330 1326 1429 1353 1250 1368 1377 736 693 1429
1415 1515 670 663 739 656 622 695 712 658 656 702 656 654 660 658 1328 1319 1441 1312 1276 1355 1370 739 702 1441
1430 1530 680 662 739 633 642 689 699 674 679 731 646 630 636 664 1354 1341 1470 1279 1272 1325 1363 739 731 1470
1445 1545 665 635 693 633 614 701 712 691 681 701 639 638 629 654 1356 1316 1394 1272 1252 1330 1366 712 701 1394
1500 1600 649 654 683 578 610 686 704 704 684 725 619 603 624 666 1353 1338 1408 1197 1213 1310 1370 704 725 1408
1515 1615 679 677 710 554 566 692 694 719 692 735 596 563 626 692 1398 1369 1445 1150 1129 1318 1386 710 735 1445
1530 1630 710 678 703 537 516 686 690 700 670 707 563 543 656 672 1410 1348 1410 1100 1059 1342 1362 710 707 1410
1545 1645 725 739 770 499 491 676 690 711 722 734 557 505 681 699 1436 1461 1504 1056 996 1357 1389 770 734 1504
1600 1700 719 735 758 491 445 667 693 724 740 719 544 479 685 675 1443 1475 1477 1035 924 1352 1368 758 740 1477
1615 1715 702 711 713 448 409 644 690 731 731 721 538 477 685 673 1433 1442 1434 986 886 1329 1363 713 731 1442
1630 1730 665 674 666 392 351 618 662 696 722 686 513 455 654 670 1361 1396 1352 905 806 1272 1332 674 722 1396
1645 1745 621 602 587 339 319 582 628 656 666 652 470 400 587 632 1277 1268 1239 809 719 1169 1260 628 666 1277
1700 1800 579 550 535 304 268 502 582 586 609 587 452 392 530 608 1165 1159 1122 756 660 1032 1190 582 609 1190
1715 1815 520 504 491 285 255 448 511 520 540 509 399 333 457 527 1040 1044 1000 684 588 905 1038 520 540 1044
1730 1830 467 462 448 271 241 373 467 488 498 464 337 283 376 465 955 960 912 608 524 749 932 467 498 960
1745 1845 441 435 408 256 207 319 402 411 472 432 308 239 325 382 852 907 840 564 446 644 784 441 472 907
1800 1900 398 390 364 246 185 287 355 369 423 396 256 193 308 329 767 813 760 502 378 595 684 398 423 813
1815 1915 353 347 311 218 150 247 307 303 390 350 239 156 305 306 656 737 661 457 306 552 613 353 390 737
1830 1930 312 330 281 195 127 225 263 268 344 325 220 140 281 277 580 674 606 415 267 506 540 330 344 674
1845 1945 255 277 267 170 118 196 236 254 276 276 178 127 249 257 509 553 543 348 245 445 493 277 276 553
Both Directions Daily Maximums
Mid
dle
Day
Evenin
gDirection 1 Direction 2
Morn
ing
Summary of RAMM Traffic and Loading Table
Data to upload to RAMMRoad ID 71372
Carraigeway Start 236
Direction B
Northing 5880689
Easting 1769406
Latest L
Count Date 17/Jun/15
Count Status C
Peak Hour 1115
Count Duration 7D
Financial Year 2014/15
7 day ADT 15463
PeakTraffic 1619
PcCar (CL1 & CL2) 91%
PcLCV (CL3) 2%
PcMCV (CL4) 6%
PcHCVI (CL5 to CL7) 1%
PcHCVII (CL8 to CL13) 0%
PcHeavy (CL4 to CL13) 7%
EsaMCV
EsaHCVI
EsaHCVII
EsaHeavy
Notes 85th %ile Speed -52.3 km/hr
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
7 Day Average Volume
Volume
Summary of 7 Days - Traffic and Speed Data
2Lane MANUKAU RD (PUKEKOHE) - HARRIS ST to CUSTOM ST (E1769406-N5880689) 2015-Jun.xlsm
Auckland Transport Direction: P S 0 0 ## SouthCount Programme Site ID: R1370 Location: Manukau Rd (Approx 130m south Custom St Rd Pukekohe [50kph])
Road Name: MANUKAU RD (PUKEKOHE) Carriageway ID:
Road ID:
GPS Location: Carriageway start:
Carriageway Start Name: HARRIS ST Posted Speed Limit (Kph):
Carriageway End Name: CUSTOM ST Count Start Date:
Note:
Direction 1: Towards CUSTOM ST
Date <10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 121+ Daily CL1 CL2 CL3 CL4 CL5 CL6 CL7 CL8 CL9 CL10 CL11 CL12 CL13 CL14 Daily %HCV
June Day Total Total Speed Total
Wednesday, 17-Jun-15 3 2 16 48 505 5134 2397 132 4 0 3 1 0 1 8243 8227 52.1 4 7420 165 580 28 3 15 11 2 10 0 1 0 4 8243 7.89%
Thursday, 18-Jun-15 4 2 6 38 560 5422 2294 123 7 3 1 0 0 3 8459 8451 51.8 0 7614 179 563 41 5 27 14 1 7 0 3 0 5 8459 7.81%
Friday, 19-Jun-15 5 2 9 33 678 5516 2306 99 6 1 0 0 0 0 8650 8623 51.6 4 7810 182 562 30 2 28 13 3 9 1 3 0 3 8650 7.53%
Saturday, 20-Jun-15 6 18 110 114 592 4369 1982 98 7 1 0 0 0 1 7292 7292 51.6 3 6778 164 288 5 8 23 6 0 5 0 1 0 11 7292 4.61%
Sunday, 21-Jun-15 7 0 3 8 169 3171 2521 156 6 3 0 0 0 0 6037 6020 53.9 4 5714 130 168 5 1 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 6037 3.03%
Monday, 22-Jun-15 1 0 6 31 423 4892 2327 113 5 2 0 1 0 0 7800 7767 52.1 7 6940 161 608 33 5 25 9 0 9 0 1 0 2 7800 8.85%
Tuesday, 23-Jun-15 2 0 6 30 401 5187 2466 108 7 2 2 2 0 1 8212 8187 52.3 4 7355 165 598 30 3 31 12 1 9 0 1 0 3 8212 8.34%
Total 24 156 302 3328 33691 16293 829 42 12 6 4 0 6 54693 54567 52.1 26 49631 1146 3367 172 27 154 66 7 52 1 10 0 34 54693 7.05%
Direction 2: Towards HARRIS ST
Date <10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 121+ Daily CL1 CL2 CL3 CL4 CL5 CL6 CL7 CL8 CL9 CL10 CL11 CL12 CL13 CL14 Daily %HCV
June Day Total Total Speed Total
Wednesday, 17-Jun-15 3 5 32 124 939 4781 2095 114 5 1 1 0 2 0 8099 8078 52.1 12 7328 87 571 34 12 23 17 3 6 1 1 0 4 8099 8.25%
Thursday, 18-Jun-15 4 27 54 134 1041 4976 2014 112 4 1 1 0 1 2 8367 8338 51.7 8 7512 92 642 33 12 32 17 2 7 2 2 0 6 8367 8.95%
Friday, 19-Jun-15 5 19 157 180 1034 4912 2060 117 10 1 0 0 0 1 8491 8474 51.6 12 7668 96 593 43 15 26 14 4 8 0 2 1 9 8491 8.31%
Saturday, 20-Jun-15 6 16 137 177 731 3924 1962 120 5 0 1 0 1 3 7077 7070 52.3 3 6635 70 317 9 8 21 5 1 0 1 1 2 4 7077 5.16%
Sunday, 21-Jun-15 7 0 4 39 321 2978 2457 193 10 0 0 0 2 0 6004 6004 54.5 2 5700 52 227 2 3 8 6 0 2 0 1 0 1 6004 4.15%
Monday, 22-Jun-15 1 3 18 97 739 4265 2327 153 4 2 0 0 0 0 7608 7605 52.9 7 6769 82 670 38 6 16 10 4 2 0 1 0 3 7608 9.82%
Tuesday, 23-Jun-15 2 6 55 75 647 4456 2491 161 4 3 1 1 0 1 7901 7885 53.1 6 7072 95 641 28 6 24 20 3 2 0 0 0 4 7901 9.16%
Total 76 457 826 5452 30292 15406 970 42 8 4 1 6 7 53547 53454 52.5 50 48684 574 3661 187 62 150 89 17 27 4 8 3 31 53547 7.86%
Both Directions
Date <10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 121+ Daily CL1 CL2 CL3 CL4 CL5 CL6 CL7 CL8 CL9 CL10 CL11 CL12 CL13 CL14 Daily %HCV
June Day Total Total Speed Total
Wednesday, 17-Jun-15 3 7 48 172 1444 9915 4492 246 9 1 4 1 2 1 16342 16305 52.1 16 14748 252 1151 62 15 38 28 5 16 1 2 0 8 16342 8.07%
Thursday, 18-Jun-15 4 29 60 172 1601 10398 4308 235 11 4 2 0 1 5 16826 16789 51.8 8 15126 271 1205 74 17 59 31 3 14 2 5 0 11 16826 8.38%
Friday, 19-Jun-15 5 21 166 213 1712 10428 4366 216 16 2 0 0 0 1 17141 17111 51.6 16 15478 278 1155 73 17 54 27 7 17 1 5 1 12 17141 7.92%
Saturday, 20-Jun-15 6 34 247 291 1323 8293 3944 218 12 1 1 0 1 4 14369 14362 51.9 6 13413 234 605 14 16 44 11 1 5 1 2 2 15 14369 4.88%
Sunday, 21-Jun-15 7 0 7 47 490 6149 4978 349 16 3 0 0 2 0 12041 12024 54.2 6 11414 182 395 7 4 13 7 0 5 0 1 0 7 12041 3.59%
Monday, 22-Jun-15 1 3 24 128 1162 9157 4654 266 9 4 0 1 0 0 15408 15372 52.5 14 13709 243 1278 71 11 41 19 4 11 0 2 0 5 15408 9.33%
Tuesday, 23-Jun-15 2 6 61 105 1048 9643 4957 269 11 5 3 3 0 2 16113 16072 52.7 10 14427 260 1239 58 9 55 32 4 11 0 1 0 7 16113 8.74%
Total 100 613 1128 8780 63983 31699 1799 84 20 10 5 6 13 108240 108035 52.3 76 98315 1720 7028 359 89 304 155 24 79 5 18 3 65 108240 7.45%
SUMMARY OF 7DAYS DATA
Direction 1: Towards CUSTOM ST
Posted Speed 50 kph 5/Day (Av) = 8273 Cars & LCV = 92.9 %
Vehicles Exceeding Posted Speed 17192 7/Day (Av) = 7813 MCV = 6.2 %
Percentage Exceeding Posted Speed 31.4 % Saturday = 7292 HCV1 = 0.6 %
85th Percentile Speed 52.1 kph Sunday = 6037 HCV2 = 0.2 %
Total Vehicles Surveyed 54693 Total HCV = 7.1 %
Direction 2: Towards HARRIS ST
Posted Speed 50 kph 5/Day (Av) = 8093 Cars & LCV = 92.1 %
Vehicles Exceeding Posted Speed 16444 7/Day (Av) = 7650 MCV = 6.8 %
Percentage Exceeding Posted Speed 30.7 % Saturday = 7077 HCV1 = 0.7 %
85th Percentile Speed 52.5 kph Sunday = 6004 HCV2 = 0.3 %
Total Vehicles Surveyed 53547 Total HCV = 7.9 %
Both Directions
Posted Speed 50 kph 5/Day (Av) = 16366 Cars & LCV = 92.5 %
Vehicles Exceeding Posted Speed 33636 7/Day (Av) = 15463 MCV = 6.5 %
Percentage Exceeding Posted Speed 31.1 % Saturday = 14369 HCV1 = 0.7 %
85th Percentile Speed 52.3 kph Sunday = 12041 HCV2 = 0.3 %
Total Vehicles Surveyed 108240 Total HCV = 7.5 %
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue
AM PEAK
60 Minutes beginning 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900 0815 0900 0900 0900 0900 0830 0830
Volume 592 667 687 617 460 592 598 663 615 652 591 353 595 628
MID PEAK
60 Minutes beginning 1100 1115 1215 1100 1200 1200 1215 1100 1130 1130 1115 1245 1100 1115
Volume 725 799 842 842 697 713 745 746 762 779 784 782 689 696
PM PEAK
60 Minutes beginning 1545 1545 1545 1415 1430 1445 1415 1615 1600 1515 1415 1415 1600 1545
Volume 725 739 770 656 642 701 712 731 740 735 656 654 685 699
Summary of Vehicle ClassificationSummary of Speed Classification
85th Percentile
Summary of Vehicle Classification
Summary of Speed Classification Summary of Vehicle Classification
Summary of Speed Classification
85th Percentile
85th Percentile
Direction 1 Direction 2Peaks Summary
785
71372
50
17-Jun-15
236E1769406 N5880689
Manukau Road, Pukekohe Actual Flows
2021AM PM
2031AM PM
2041AM PM
Locationof flows
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Auckland Transport
16-Apr-2015
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
Site Investigation (Contamination)
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
Site Investigation (Contamination)
Client: Auckland Transport
ABN: N/A
Prepared by
AECOM New Zealand Limited
8 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland 1010, PO Box 4241, Auckland 1140, New Zealand
T +64 9 967 9200 F +64 9 967 9201 www.aecom.com
16-Apr-2015
Job No.: 42126463
AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to the latest version of ISO9001, ISO14001, AS/NZS4801 and OHSAS18001.
© AECOM New Zealand Limited (AECOM). All rights reserved.
AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other
party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any
third party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements and
AECOM’s experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional
principles. AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of which
may not have been verified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Quality Information
Document Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
Ref
42126463
Date 16-Apr-2015
Prepared by Naomi Macorison
Reviewed by Emma Trembath
Revision History
Revision Revision
Date Details
Authorised
Name/Position Signature
A 16-Apr-2015 Draft for Client Review Emma Trembath
Principal
Environmental
Scientist
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Purpose A 1.1 Introduction A 1.2 Summary of Proposed Construction A 1.3 Purpose A
2.0 Site and Environmental Setting B 2.1 Site and Environmental Setting B
2.1.1 Environmental Setting B 2.2 Historical Site Information C
2.2.1 Summary of Historical Aerial Photographs C 2.3 Review of Council Information D
2.3.1 Auckland Council Site Contamination Enquiry D 3.0 Field Methodology E
3.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern and Investigation Rationale E 3.2 Summary of Field Works E
4.0 Results G 4.1 Summary of Field Observations G 4.2 Adopted Acceptance Criteria G 4.3 Summary of Results G 4.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control H
5.0 Discussion I 5.1 Resource Consent Requirements I 5.2 Management of Potential Adverse Human Health and Environmental Effects K 5.3 Excess Spoil Disposal K
6.0 Summary L 7.0 References M 8.0 Limitations N
Appendix A Figures A
Appendix B Auckland Council Information B
Appendix C Photo Page D
Appendix D Test Pit Logs E
Appendix E Results Tables F
Appendix F Laboratory Reports G
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
1.0 Introduction and Purpose
1.1 Introduction
AECOM New Zealand Limited (AECOM) were engaged by Auckland Transport (AT) to complete a site
investigation (contaminated land) in support of the development of an interim bus interchange as part of the long
term proposal to upgrade the Pukekohe Train Station located at Custom Street, Pukekohe, Auckland (the Site).
Figure 1 in Appendix A illustrates the Site location.
1.2 Summary of Proposed Construction
The bus interchange will improve the public transport connection between buses and the Pukekohe Train Station.
By creating a transport interchange and encouraging people to use public transport the proposed bus interchange
will offer people better opportunities to reduce their need to travel by car and consequently reduce atmospheric
emissions. This aligns with the regional objectives and policies of the Draft Auckland Regional Land Transport.
The bus interchange includes two bus stops on Custom Street. The northern side stop will allow for two buses
and three on the southern side. Access to the bus interchange will be in and out of the Custom Street/Manukau
Road intersection. The works include the development of a bus turning area, footpath access and a medium size
unsealed ‘Park N Ride’ facility for approximately 30 vehicles. This bus interchange will also have new lighting and
security surveillance of Custom Street. Associated works include minor earthworks, stormwater facilities,
pavement construction, footpaths, together with road signs and markings.
There are currently nine angled parking bays and the southern side of Custom Street. These are to be removed
as part of the project and replaced with a bus stop capable of accommodating three buses.
Features of the bus interchange including the bus turning area, parking facility, footpath and rain garden are
located within KiwiRail Holdings Ltd (KiwiRail) designation (Designation Id 89), which AT has leased. An outline
plan of works (OPW) is currently being prepared in accordance with section 176A of the Resource Management
Act (RMA) on behalf of KiwiRail in partnership with AT for the establishment and operation of the Interim Bus
Interchange at the Pukekohe Station.
In addition to the above works AT is also undertaking the following works within the designation:
- A re-fuelling area within the rail corridor (the fuelling points are the only facilities located outside the rail
corridor). This work is the subject of a separate OPW and consent application to Auckland Council (AC).
- A temporary scaffold bridge linking the proposed bus interchange to the rail over bridge (the ‘V8’bridge)
located to the south. This work is being progressed separately and is not included in this site investigation.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of the site investigation was the following:
- Understand contaminant conditions of spoil materials scheduled for land disturbance as part of the bus
interchange development works.
- Confirm contaminated land resource consent requirements for spoil materials scheduled for land
disturbance as part of the bus interchange development works under the following legislation:
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land, and Water (ACRP:ALW).
Resource Management Act (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing
Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations, 2011 (NES Soil).
- Provide waste spoil classification advice for:
Spoil materials to be re-used within the bus interchange development works area i.e., cut to fill
activities.
Spoil materials to be disposed of off-site as part of the bus interchange development works i.e., spoil materials which may be geotechnically unsuitable for re-use within the development area.
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
2.0 Site and Environmental Setting
2.1 Site and Environmental Setting
The Site is located south of Pukekohe Town Centre at the end of Custom Street adjacent to the existing Council
offices at No.82 Manukau Road as indicated on Figure 1 in Appendix A. Table 1 presents a summary of Site
details.
Custom Street is bordered with private land on the north (Carters), and the AC office to the south.
Site access is via the Custom Street/Manukau Road intersection.
The Custom Street surface is asphalt, with the area within the rail corridor comprising unbound granular material –
basalt and road construction aggregate used predominantly by trucks transferring goods from freight trains.
Table 1 Summary of Site Details
Item Description
Site Address Custom Street, Pukekohe
Legal Description N/A
Regulating Authority Auckland Council
Operative Zoning Road Reserve
Proposed Zoning Road Reserve and Strategic Transport Corridor
Precincts/Overlays Designation ID 6302, Non Statutory: Floodplain 1% AEP
Table 2 presents a summary of surrounding land use for the Site.
Table 2 Summary of Surrounding Landuse Activities
Direction From Site
North Commercial landuse – Portacoms offices (also on Kiwirail Land)
East Rail corridor
South Commercial landuse – Pukekohe Service Centre (Auckland Council)
West Commercial / industrial landuse – Carters
2.1.1 Environmental Setting
Table 3 presents a summary of the environmental conditions at the Site.
Table 3 Summary of Environmental Conditions
Item Description
Topography The Site is predominantly flat with a gentle north eastern slope toward the Pukekohe Train Station.
Geology The underlying geology comprises the South Auckland Volcanic Field, basalt lava (New Zealand
Geological Survey, 1967).
Hydrogeology AC bore records indicate that there are seven consents which have authorised the installation of up to
21 groundwater bores within a 1 km m radius of the Site. AC bore search documentation is presented
in Appendix B. The closest bores to the Site are approximately 450 m south of the Site in the inferred
down gradient direction.
The depth shallow groundwater at the Site is unknown. Locally it is expected that groundwater will flow
in an estimated southerly direction towards an unnamed stream located approximately 80 m south of
the Site.
Sensitive Ecological
Receptors
An un-named stream is located approximately 80 m south of the Site.
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
2.2 Historical Site Information
Limited historical Site information is available for the Site as it is located on Kiwi Rail land and has no physical
address; therefore LIM report and certificates of title were unavailable for review.
2.2.1 Summary of Historical Aerial Photographs
Aerial photographs available at Tonkin and Taylor were reviewed for the period 1960 through 2010. Table 4
presents a summary of available aerial photographs.
Table 4 Summary of Historical Aerial Photographs
Year & Historical Photograph Review
1960
Source: Tonkin and Taylor Aerial Photography
The rail corridor is present, as is Custom
Street. The neighbouring properties (60 and
82 Custom Street) appear to be vacant. Wider
landuse activities in this area appears to be a
mix of commercial/industrial and residential.
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Year & Historical Photograph Review
2010
Source: Auckland Council GIS
The Site layout remains similar to the 1960
historic aerial photograph. The neighbouring
properties (60 and 82 Custom Street) have
been developed as commercial/industrial
purposes. Wider landuse activities in this area
remain a mix of commercial/industrial and
residential.
2.3 Review of Council Information
2.3.1 Auckland Council Site Contamination Enquiry
A copy of the AC site contamination enquiry is presented in Appendix B. The report noted that AC held no
specific contamination information with respect to the Site and 60 Custom Street (neighbouring property). A
number of pollution incidents were identified by the report to have occurred at 82 Custom Street (neighbouring
property). However, upon review of AC file records none of the incidents related to the Custom Street area.
Rather, these pertained to incidents recorded in the wider catchment. Rooseville Park, a historical fill site is
located on Ngahere Road, approximately 200 m to the south west of the Site. Given the proximity of the historical
fill site, this is unlikely to have adversely influenced soil quality at the Site.
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
3.0 Field Methodology
3.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern and Investigation Rationale
The results of the PSI suggest the Site has been used for railway purposes since at least 1960. Railway yards are
included in Ministry for the Environment (MfE) Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) as Category F6.
The contaminants of potential concern for this landuse include heavy metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH),
and semi volatile organic compounds (SVOC).
In order to meet the purpose of the site investigation it was proposed that soil samples be collected from across
the proposed land disturbance areas, and that soil samples be collected from depths commensurate with those
proposed as part of future excavation, i.e., rain gardens, Park ‘N’ Ride unsealed carpark, refuelling area and the
bus turning area. Table 5 presents a summary of investigation locations. Figure 2 in Appendix A illustrates
investigation locations.
Table 5 Summary of Investigation Locations
Sample Location
Identifier Borehole Location
BH1 In the proposed Park ‘N’ Ride unsealed carpark.
BH2 In the proposed rain garden.
BH3 In the proposed refuelling area.
BH4 In the proposed bus turning area.
3.2 Summary of Field Works
On 2 April 2015 fieldworks were completed. Fieldworks included the completion of a Site walkover, underground
service mark-out, advancement of four test pits, and the collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis. Table 6
presents a summary of field works methodologies.
Table 6 Summary of Field Methodologies
Scope of Field
Works
Completed
Date Methodology Supporting Documentation
Site Walkover and
Preliminaries
1 April
2015
- Walk over of the Site.
- Completion of underground service clearance by
Underground Service Locators (USL).
- Mark-out of investigation locations by AECOM field
staff members and USL.
- Summary of field
observations (Section
4.1).
- Photo log (Appendix C).
Soil Test Pit
Advancement and
Sample Collection
2 April
2015
- Urban Civil were engaged to advance four test pits at
the Site (sample locations BH1 through BH4 refer
Figure 2 (Appendix A).
- Sample locations were cleared to depths of between 1
and 2.2 m below ground level (bgl).
- During work, Urban Civil ceased advancement at
approximately 0.3 to 0.5 m intervals, and soil samples
were collected off the excavator bucket by the AECOM
field staff member.
- Soil samples were placed on ice in chilled storage
containers provided by Hill Laboratories Limited (Hills).
- Field screening of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
in soil was completed using a photoionisation detector
(PID).
- To prevent cross contamination, nitrile gloves were
replaced between samples.
- At the completion of field works, soil samples were
dispatched to Hills under AECOM chain of custody
- Test Pit logs (Appendix
D).
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Scope of Field
Works
Completed
Date Methodology Supporting Documentation
procedures, with selected soil samples analysed for
heavy metals, TPH, and SVOC.
- For quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
purposes, one duplicate soil sample was collected for
analysis. The duplicate sample was analysed for the
same suite of analysis as the primary sample.
- Spoil generated during the advancement of the test
pits was reinstated once target depth was reached.
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
4.0 Results
4.1 Summary of Field Observations
Soil materials observed during the advancement of the test pits comprised gravel fill materials underlain by silty
clays in test pit BH3 only.
Field observations noted no visual evidence of contamination. A bitumen like layer (indicative of historical
roading) was observed in test pit BH1 at 0.6 metres below ground level (m bgl). Copies of test pit logs are
provided in Appendix D.
The maximum PID reading recorded during the field works was 2.2 parts per million (ppm) (borehole BH3). This
result is considered to be negligible.
4.2 Adopted Acceptance Criteria
The acceptance criteria for the investigation has been adopted in accordance with the hierarchy defined by
Ministry for the Environment (MfE) Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No.2 (MfE, 2002) and are
summarised below. Acceptance criteria for a future commercial/industrial land use scenario have been adopted.
1) Resource Management Act (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in
Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations, 2011. NES soil contaminant standards for a
commercial/industrial land use. Hereinafter referred to as the NES Guidelines.
2) Auckland Regional Council, 2002. Background Concentrations of Inorganic Elements in Soil from the
Auckland Region. Background ranges for metals in Volcanic and Non-Volcanic range soils. Hereinafter
referred to as the Auckland Background Concentrations. Volcanic range soil value have been adopted for
soil samples collected of gravel fill materials which are of volcanic origin. Non-volcanic range soil values
have only been applied to a single soil sample collected from natural materials in test pit BH3.
3) Auckland Council, 2012. Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land, and Water, Schedule 10 Permitted
Activity Criteria. Hereinafter referred to as Schedule 10 Permitted Activity Criteria.
4) MfE Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand
(MfE, 1999, revised 2011). Tier 1 soil acceptance criteria for a commercial/industrial landuse scenario;
sandy and silty clay soil types; encountered at depths of less than 1 m bgl and between 1 and 4 m bgl
(depending on soil sample depth). Hereinafter referred to as the MfE Tier 1 Guidelines.
4.3 Summary of Results
Tabulated soil analytical results are presented in Table B1 (Appendix E). Copies of the laboratory reports are
provided in Appendix F. Overall, analytical results do not indicate a significant contamination issue at the Site
which would warrant further investigation. In summary:
- Inorganic Compounds:
A total of seven soil samples were analysed for the suite of metals including arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc.
No exceedances of the NES Soil Guidelines were recorded.
No exceedances of Schedule 10 Criteria were recorded.
Auckland Background Concentrations were exceeded for the following metals:
Nickel in test pit BH3 (2.2 m bgl; 52 mg/kg).
Lead in test pit BH4 (1 m bgl; 84 mg/kg)
- Organic Compounds:
A total of seven soil samples were analysed for TPH. Concentrations of TPH above the laboratory
detection limit (LDL) were identified in the following sample locations:
BH1 – 0.6 m bgl; TPH C15-C36 (1,890 mg/kg).
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
BH3 – 1 m bgl; TPH C15-C36 (93 and 2,200 mg/kg including duplicate sample).
Whilst the detected concentrations were above the LDL, the results were below the adopted soil
acceptance criteria.
A total of two soil samples were analysed for SVOCs. Both soil samples returned concentrations below
the adopted soil acceptance criteria.
4.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Hills hold IANZ accreditation for the sample analyses undertaken. The laboratory report did not note any issues
with analytical quality.
For QA/QC purposes, one duplicate soil sample was collected for analysis. The relative percentage difference
(RPD) between the primary sample (Puk-BH3-1.0) and the duplicate soil sample (Puk-BH3-QA01) are presented
in Table 7. The RPD data met the variability range of up to 50 % allowed by MfE good practice guidelines (MfE,
2004, revised 2011) for the metal analytes. RPDs between the primary and duplicate soil samples for TPH
analytes were up to 184%. This is most likely due to the inherent heterogeneity of samples collected from
gravel/backfill materials.
It is considered that the soil analytical results are appropriate and suitable for the purpose of this site investigation.
Table 7 Summary of Soil Analytical Results - Quality Assurance Quality Control Relative Percentage Difference Calculations
Analyte Puk-BH3-1.0 Puk-BH3-QA01 Relative Percentage
Difference (%)
Metals
Total Recoverable Arsenic 3 4 28
Total Recoverable Cadmium 0.16 0.12 29
Total Recoverable Chromium 49 54 10
Total Recoverable Copper 50 51 2
Total Recoverable Lead 18.7 16.1 15
Total Recoverable Nickel 116 121 4
Total Recoverable Zinc 86 92 7
TPH
TPH C7 - C9 < 8 < 9 NC
TPH C10 - C14 < 20 79 119
TPH C15 - C36 93 2,200 183
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) 93 2,300 184
Note: NC – Not calculated as recorded concentration was below the laboratory detection limits.
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
5.0 Discussion
5.1 Resource Consent Requirements
An assessment of the results of site investigation against the provisions of contaminated land resource consent
requirements has been completed (refer Table 8). The assessment has concluded that a NES Soil resource
consent (Controlled Activity) will be required in support of the proposed development works.
Table 8 Summary of Contaminated Land Resource Consent Requirements
Statutory
Document Assessment
NES Soil Rule 5 (3) If a requirement described in regulation 8(4) is not met, the activity is controlled while the following requirements are met:
a) A detailed site investigation of the piece of land must exist: b) The report of the detailed site investigation must state that the soil contamination does
not exceed the applicable standard regulation 7: c) The consent authority must have the report: d) Conditions arising from the application of subclause (4), if there are any, must be
complied with. Auckland Background Concentrations were not exceeded across the investigation area, however
heavy end hydrocarbons were recorded. Although the reported concentrations did not exceed
applicable guidelines, their presence poses a risk to human health and the environment during
land disturbance works, and is required to be managed in way of resource consent.
Assessment: Controlled Activity, consent required.
PAUP Part 3, Chapter H: Auckland Wide Rules, Section 4.5: Contaminated Land, Rule 2.1.3
1) For in-situ soil and material imported or deposited onto land, the concentrations of target contaminants, or the 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean, determined in accordance with the ‘Contaminated Land Management Guidelines – No.5 – Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils’, Ministry for the Environment (2011), must not exceed the greater of a. or b. below:
a. For in-situ soil and material imported and/or deposited onto the land i) the criteria specified in Table 1; or for contaminants not included in Table 1: ii) the tier 1 soil acceptance criteria for the protection of groundwater quality specified
in Table 4.20 of the ‘Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand,’ Ministry for the Environment (October 2011); or for contaminants not included in Table 1 or Table 4.20:
iii) the soil quality guidelines for the current land use or, in the case of a proposed change in land use, the proposed land use in the ‘Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines’, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2013):
iv) for dieldrin and lindane only, the soil guideline values in Table A.5 of the report ‘Identifying, Investigating and Managing Risks Associated with Former Sheep Dip Sites: A Guide for Local Authorities,’ Ministry for the Environment (2006).
b. The natural background levels for that soil or material or the relevant background levels specified in Table 2.
The land and the discharge must not contain separate phase liquid contaminants including separate phase hydrocarbons.
Assessment: Permitted Activity, no resource consent required.
ACRP:ALW Rule 5.5.41 Other than as provided by Rule 5.5.40A, the discharge of contaminants to land or water from land is a Permitted Activity subject to: a) Concentrations of target contaminants, or the 95% upper confidence limit of the mean
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Statutory
Document Assessment
which shall be determined in accordance with the Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No 5 Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils (MfE, February 2004), shall not exceed the greater of (i) or (ii) below:
(i) for in situ soil and material imported and/or deposited onto the land: 1) the criteria specified in Schedule 10: Permitted Activity Criteria. The human health values in Schedule 10 apply unless the effects of land use on human health have been expressly authorised either through District Plan rules or a resource consent granted by a territorial authority. For contaminants not included in Schedule 10;
2) the Tier 1 soil acceptance criteria for the current land use or, in the case of a proposed change in land use, the proposed land use and for the more stringent of either the protection of human health or sensitive groundwater specified in the ‘Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand’, MfE 1999; or for contaminants not included in Schedule 10 or the Petroleum Hydrocarbon guidelines; or the current land use or, in the case of a proposed change in land use, the proposed land use in the ‘Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines’, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, CCME 1991 (update 2002) for the currently zoned landuse, or for contaminants not included in Schedule 10, the Petroleum Hydrocarbon guidelines or the CCME guidelines; 3) for dieldrin and lindane only, the soil quality guidelines in “Identifying, Investigating and Managing Risks Associated with Former Sheep-dip Sites: A guide for local authorities”, MfE 2006. (ii) for in situ soil and material imported and/or deposited onto the land the natural background levels for that soil or material or the relevant background levels specified in ARC Technical Publication “Background concentrations of inorganic elements in soils from the Auckland region”, TP153, October 2001.
(b) The in situ soil or material historically imported shall not contain separate phase liquid contaminants including separate phase hydrocarbons and shall be located above the highest seasonal groundwater table.
The discharge of contaminants to land or water from land containing elevated levels of contaminants that does not meet the standards, terms and conditions of Rule 5.5.40A, or standards, terms and conditions (a) or (b) of Rule 5.5.41, or standards, terms and conditions (i), (ii) or (iii) of Rule 5.5.42 is a Controlled Activity subject to: (a) Standards and terms (i), (ii) and (iii); or alternatively (b) Standards and terms (i) and (iv); or alternatively (c) Standards and terms (i) and (v). Standards and terms: (i) The resource consent applicant preparing an (Intrusive) Site Investigation Report (SIR) which shall be provided to the ARC. The SIR shall be prepared in general accordance with Schedule 13 (A3) – Schedules for Reporting on Contaminated Land to a scale and degree of detail commensurate with the potential effects of the discharge and the contaminants concerned and the physical conditions of the land. The SIR shall include a groundwater investigation unless such an investigation is shown to be unnecessary by a site specific risk assessment; and (ii) The concentration of soluble contaminants in any of: 1)stormwater discharged as overland flow from the land at the site boundary, excluding
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Statutory
Document Assessment
stormwater from buildings and impervious surfaces; or 2) surface water within the site; or 3) groundwater at the site boundary. shall not exceed the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC) Guidelines (October 2000 version) Table 3.4.1 “Trigger values for toxicants at alternative levels of protection” for marine or freshwater, where relevant, at the level of protection for 80% of species. (v) the in situ soil or material imported and/or deposited onto the land shall be contained beneath a continuous impervious layer and shall be located above the highest seasonal groundwater level beneath the site.
Assessment: Permitted Activity, no resource consent required.
5.2 Management of Potential Adverse Human Health and Environmental
Effects
Metal and TPH concentrations recorded in soil samples within the investigation area indicate that soil materials
may have been marginally impacted as a consequence of historical landuse activities. However, the fact that the
NES Guidelines, Schedule 10 Permitted Activity Criteria, and the MfE Tier 1 Guidelines were not exceeded in any
soil samples analysed would indicate that the risk to human health and the environment associated with proposed
land disturbance activities at the Site are low.
Any potential adverse human health and environmental effects can be managed and mitigated through the
implementation of a soil management plan (SMP) which should include the following elements:
- Summary of health and safety legislative requirements.
- Human health controls including planning, minimum PPE requirements, and personal decontamination.
- Environmental controls including dust, odour, and sediment control.
- Procedures for unexpected materials discovery.
- Soil disposal options.
5.3 Excess Spoil Disposal
Wherever possible spoil generated during the land disturbance activities can be re-used at the Site (i.e., cut to fill).
Where the materials are not considered to be geotechnically suitable for re-use spoil materials may be disposed
of off-site to an authorised facility authorised to accept such materials.
Based on the results of the soil investigation excess spoil generally meets the definition of managed fill (minor
recorded concentrations of TPH compounds). There are a number of authorised facilities in Auckland and
Waikato which have site specific acceptance criteria based on the requirements of their resource consents. It is
recommended that a copy of the soil analytical results be provided to the nominated disposal facilities for review
as part of the tender process. Contractors are likely to hold relationships with these facilities which will influence
disposal rates.
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
6.0 Summary
The purpose of the site investigation was to:
- Understand contaminant conditions of spoil materials scheduled for land disturbance as part of the bus
interchange development works.
- Confirm contaminated land resource consent requirements for the project.
- Provide waste spoil classification advice.
The following scope of works was completed:
- Desktop review of historical Site information and the identification of areas of potential environmental
concern which would warrant further investigation.
- Field works included the completion of a soil investigation which targeted the areas of disturbance.
Analytical samples were collected for laboratory analysis and interpretation.
The following is a summary of the results of the site investigation:
- The Site has been utilised for rail purposes over 55 years.
- Metal and TPH concentrations recorded in soil samples within the investigation area indicate that soil
materials may have been marginally impacted as a consequence of historical landuse activities.
However, analytical results do not indicate a significant contamination issue at the Site which would warrant
further investigation:
No exceedances of the NES Soil, Schedule 10 Permitted Activity Criteria, or the MfE Tier 1 Guidelines
were recorded.
Two minor exceedances of the Auckland Background Concentrations were recorded.
- An assessment of the results of site investigation against the provisions of contaminated land resource
consent requirements has concluded that a NES Soil resource consent (Controlled Activity) will be required
in support of the proposed development works.
- It is recommended that any potential adverse human health and environmental effects be managed and
mitigated through the implementation of a soil management plan.
- Wherever possible spoil generated during the land disturbance activities can be re-used at the Site (i.e., cut
to fill). Where the materials are not considered to be geotechnically suitable for re-use spoil materials may
be disposed of off-site to an authorised facility authorised to accept such materials i.e., managed fill facility.
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
7.0 References
Auckland Council, 2012. Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land, and Water.
Auckland Council, 2013. Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal.
Auckland Regional Council, 2002. Background Concentrations of Inorganic Elements in Soil from the Auckland
Region.
Institute of Geological and Nuclear Science (2001). Auckland (Geological Map 3, Scale 1:250,000)
Kermode, L.O. (1992). New Zealand Geological Map. (Sheet 3, Scale 1:250 000). Auckland, New Zealand: New
Zealand Geological Survey.
Ministry for the Environment, 2001. Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 1. Reporting on
Contaminated Sites in New Zealand. Revised 2011.
Ministry for the Environment, 2003. Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 2. Hierarchy and Application
in New Zealand of Environmental Guideline Values. Revised 2011.
Ministry for the Environment, 2004. Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 5. Site Investigation and
Analysis of Soils. Revised 2011.
Ministry for the Environment, 2012. User’s Guide, National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing
Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health.
Resource Management Act (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil
to Protect Human Health) Regulations, 2011.
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
8.0 Limitations
The information contained in this document was produced by AECOM New Zealand Limited for the sole use of
Auckland Transport (the Client).
AECOM has used its reasonable endeavours to ensure that this document is based on information that was
current as of the date of the document. AECOM’s findings represent its reasonable judgments within the time and
budget context of its commission and utilising the information available to it at the time.
AECOM has relied on information provided by the Client and by third parties (Information Providers) to produce
this document and arrive at its conclusions. AECOM has not verified information provided by the Information
Providers (unless specifically noted otherwise) and we assume no responsibility and make no representations
with respect to the adequacy, accuracy or completeness of such information. No responsibility is assumed for
inaccuracies in reporting by the Information Providers including, without limitation, by the Client’s employees or
representatives or for inaccuracies in any other data source whether provided in writing or orally used in preparing
or presenting the document.
Neither AECOM nor its parent corporation, or its affiliates (a) makes any warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the use of any information or methods disclosed in this document or (b) assumes any liability with
respect to the use of any information or methods disclosed in this document.
Subject to AECOM’s obligations to its client and any authorised third parties under their contract:
- Any other recipient of this document, by their acceptance or use of this document, releases AECOM, its
parent corporation and its and their affiliates from any liability for direct, indirect, consequential or special
loss or damage whether arising in contract, warranty, express or implied, tort or otherwise, and irrespective
of fault, negligence and strict liability.
- AECOM undertakes no duty to, nor accepts any responsibility to, any other party who may use or rely upon
this document unless otherwise agreed to by AECOM in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a
reliance letter) herein or in a separate document.
- Any other party who is entitled to rely on this document may do so only on the document in its entirety and
not on any excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon this document is conditional upon the entitled party
accepting full responsibility and not holding AECOM liable in any way for any impacts on the development of
the Site arising from changes in "external" factors such as changes in government policy or changes in the
owner's policy affecting the operation of the project.
This document may include “forward-looking statements”. These statements relate to AECOM’s expectations,
beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. These statements may be identified by the use of words like
“anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “will,” “should,” “seek,” and similar
expressions. The forward-looking statements reflect AECOM’s views and assumptions with respect to future
events as of the date of this document and are subject to future conditions, and other risks and uncertainties,
including but not limited to economic and political conditions and sovereign risk. Circumstances and events will
occur following the date on which such information was obtained that are beyond AECOM’s control or knowledge
and which may affect the findings or projections contained in this document. We may not be held responsible for
such circumstances or events and specifically disclaim any responsibility therefore.
No section or element of this document may be removed, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any
form by parties other than those for whom the document has been prepared without the written permission of
AECOM. All sections in this document must be viewed in the context of the entire document including, without
limitation, any assumptions made and disclaimers provided. No section in this document may be excised from the
body of the document without AECOM’s prior written consent.
From a technical perspective, the subsurface environment at any Site may present substantial uncertainty. It is a
heterogeneous, complex environment, in which small subsurface features or changes in geologic conditions can
have substantial impacts on water, vapour and chemical movement. Uncertainties may also affect source
characterisation, assessment of chemical fate and transport in the environment, assessment of exposure risks
and health effects, and remedial action performance.
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Appendix A
Figures
_
Fig
ure
:1
SIT
E L
OC
AT
ION
PL
AN
AU
CK
LA
ND
TR
AN
SP
OR
T
Pro
ject N
o.:
421
264
63
Date
: 9/0
4/2
015
Iss
ue
Sta
tus
: D
RA
FT
La
st
sa
ve
d b
y:
Se
rge
y_
So
ko
lov (
9/0
4/2
01
5)
File
na
me
: D
:\U
RS
-DA
TA
\Wo
rks\4
21
26
46
3\S
ite
_L
oca
tio
n.m
xd
La
st
Plo
ted
: 9
/04
/20
15
Pro
ject
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
Initia
ls:
De
sig
ne
r:X
XC
he
cke
d:
XX
Ap
pro
ve
d:
XX
MA
NU
KA
U (P
KO
HE
) RO
AD
HARRIS ST
CUSTOM ST
_
SITE LOCATIONScale 1:35,000
CUSTOM STREET
/
Scale 1:2,500
Pukekohe
SITE LOCATION
C
U
S
T
O
M
S
T
R
E
E
T
M
A
N
U
K
A
U
R
O
A
D
30KL DIESEL ABOVEGROUND TANK
SPEL PURACEPTORPROPOSED SPILLCATCHMENT
BH1
BH2
BH4
BH3
LUMINAIRE LED120 ON
8.5m LIGHTING POLE
PTZ CAMERA ON
NEW 8.0m LIGHT
POLE
LUMINAIRE ON 8.0m
GALVANISED POLE
BUS TURNING
AREA
1 : 250
25m201510505
PTZ CAMERA ON NEW
8.5m LIGHT POLE
NEW 4.0m AT
STD LIGHT POLE
EXISTING
MONTROSE
CABINET
REFUELLING
FACILITIES
(BY OTHERS)
X40mm PVC
DUCTSP
2 X 100mm
PVC DUCTS
BH2
IS
O A
1 594m
m x 841m
m
Last saved by: S
ER
GE
Y_S
OK
OLO
V(2015-04-09
) Last P
lotted: 2015-04-09
Project M
anagem
ent Initials:
Designer:
Checked:
Approved:
Filenam
e: U
:\JO
BS
\42126463\D
WG
-C
UR
RE
NT
\42126463-K
-001.D
WG
Da
te
:P
ro
je
ct N
o.:
Fig
ure: 2
20
15
-0
4-0
9
SS
NM
NM
SIT
E L
AY
OU
T A
ND
SA
MP
LE
L
OC
AT
IO
N P
LA
N
AU
CK
LA
ND
T
RA
NS
PO
RT
42
12
64
63
Issu
e S
tatu
s: D
RA
FT
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Appendix B
Auckland Council Information
PROJECT TITLETAKE ID PURPOSE USE TYPE DATE CREATE TLA MANAGEMENT DAILY ALLOWANCECONSENT HOLDER PROPERTY ADDRESS
3203
TO TAKE WATER FROM AN
UNDERGROUND SOURCE
FOR~INDUSTRIAL USE~~~ Industrial Use 24/03/2015 19:21 Franklin Franklin Groundwater 250
Franklin Machinery Limited
C/o -The Gallagher Group
Limited
SUBWAY
ROAD
PUKEKOHE
Franklin District
BORE_ID CONSENT_HO PURPOSE ACTIVITY_D WORKS_DESC ACTIVITY_SSITE_NAME SITE_DESCR AQUIFER PROPERTY_A BORE_USE TOTAL_DEPT
21067 MONTGOMERY WATSON NZ LTD
Authorise the construction of
bores for groundwater level
and/or chemistry investigation.
Ground investigation
(underground petroleum
storage tank) bore 1.See also
ID 21083
Construction of two 50mm diameter bores to a depth 2m below the water table.
Installation of PVC casing to 1m above water level and PVC screen from 1m above to 2m
below water level. Drilled Mobil Truckstop 149-165 Manukau Rd Pukekohe Franklin Kaawa 149 Manukau Road Pukekohe Franklin null 5
23526 null
To authorise the construction of
four bores for contaminated site
investigation.
To authorise the construction
of four bores for contaminated
site investigation.
The construction of four 50mm diameter bores to a maximum depth of 6m. Installation of
PVC casing material to an approximate depth of 6m. Drilled Challenge Pukekohe null null 167 Manukau Rd Pukekohe Franklin Water Quality null
22831 Mobil Oil NZ Limited
To authorise the construction of
four bores for groundwater
monitoring.
To authorise the construction
of four bores for groundwater
monitoring.
A construction of four 50mm diameter bores to an approximate depth of 6m. Installation of
PVC casing material to an approximate depth of 6m. Proposed grouting to 0.5m. Proposed null null null 144 Manukau Road Pukekohe Franklin Observation / Piezo null
22693 Z Energy Limited
To authorise the construction of
four bores for environnmental
sampling purposes.
To authorise the construction
of four bores for
environnmental sampling
purposes.
Construction of four 50mm diameter bores to an approximate depth of 6m. Installation of
NZS 1477 uPVC casing material to an approximate depth of 4m. Depth to top of screen
to 4m and bottom to 6m. Proposed null null null 18 Queen St Pukekohe Franklin Observation / Piezo null
21083 null null
Bore No.2. See also ID 21067
BP 2480 same site null Proposed Mobil Truckstop 159 Manukau Rd Pukekohe Franklin Kaawa null Observation / Piezo 4
3721 null null
Drilled pre-1987 for
PUKEKOHE BOROUGH
COUNCIL by BROWN
BROTHERS LTD. null Drilled Pukekohe Borough Council Nelson Street Depot Pukekohe Franklin Kaawa null Industrial 360
3749 null null
Drilled pre-1987 for CANNING
FACTORY by BROWN
BROTHERS LTD. null Drilled null null Franklin Kaawa null null 130
3750 null null
Drilled pre-1987 for CANNING
FACTORY by GILBERD
HADFIELD LTD. null Drilled null null Franklin Kaawa null null 121
3751 null null
Drilled pre-1987 for CANNING
FACTORY by DE MEY DE null Drilled null null Franklin Volcanic null null 110
3767 null null
Drilled pre-1987 for by ***
DRILLER UNKNOWN ***. null Drilled null null null null null 49
22043 Mobil Oil NZ Limited
To authorise the construction of
3 bores for groundwater
monitoring purposes.
To authorise the construction
of 3 bores for groundwater
monitoring purposes.
Construction of up to 3 bores with a diameter of 100mm and to a depth of approximately
5m. Proposed null null null 149 Manukau Road Pukekohe Franklin Observation / Piezo null
22066 Franklin District Council
To authorise the construction of
4 bores for monitoring of
groundwater quality adjacent to
abandoned landfill site.
To authorise the construction
of 4 bores for monitoring of
groundwater quality purposes.
Construction of up to four bores to a depth of approximately 10m. Installation of D grade
PVC casing to a depth of approximately 4m and PVC screens from 4-10m. Proposed null Ngahere Road Pukekohe null Ngahere Road Pukekohe Franklin Observation / Piezo null
28299 null null null null Drilled Canning Factory Waikato id = 578466 null null null 48
28302 null null null null Drilled Franklin Mach Waikato id = 578636 Franklin Kaawa null null 123
28304 null null null null Drilled Franklin Mach Waikato id = 578637 Franklin Volcanic null null 110
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Appendix C
Photo Page
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Auckland Transport
Site Location: Custom Street, Pukekohe
Project No. 42126463
Photo No.
1 Date:
02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: East
Description: Overview of site facing east with the rail corridor in the background.
Photo No.
2
Date: 02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: North
Description: View from the Site facing north showing commercial/industrial land.
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Auckland Transport
Site Location: Custom Street, Pukekohe
Project No. 42126463
Photo No.
3 Date:
02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: South
Description: View from the Site facing south showing the Pukekohe Service Centre (Auckland Council office) in the background.
Photo No.
4
Date: 02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: South East
Description: View from Site facing south east showing the rail corridor in the background.
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Auckland Transport
Site Location: Custom Street, Pukekohe
Project No. 42126463
Photo No.
5 Date:
02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: West
Description: View from Site facing west showing the Carters yard.
Photo No.
6
Date: 02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: North
Description: Location of test pit BH1.
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Auckland Transport
Site Location: Custom Street, Pukekohe
Project No. 42126463
Photo No.
7 Date:
02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: North
Description: Location of test pit BH2.
Photo No.
8
Date: 02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: South
Description: Location of test pit BH3.
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Auckland Transport
Site Location: Custom Street, Pukekohe
Project No. 42126463
Photo No.
9 Date:
02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: West
Description: Location of test pit BH4.
Photo No.
10
Date: 02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: West
Description: Geology of test pit BH1 showing fill material.
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Auckland Transport
Site Location: Custom Street, Pukekohe
Project No. 42126463
Photo No.
11 Date:
02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: West
Description: Geology of test pit BH2 showing fill material.
Photo No.
12
Date: 02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: North west
Description: Geology of test pit BH3 showing fill material underlain by silty clay.
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Client Name: Auckland Transport
Site Location: Custom Street, Pukekohe
Project No. 42126463
Photo No.
13 Date:
02/04/15
Direction Photo Taken: West
Description: Geology of test pit BH4 showing fill material
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Appendix D
Test Pit Logs
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Appendix E
Results Tables
Table B1: 2015 Soil Analytical Results
Client Name: Auckland Transport
Project Name: Pukekohe Station - Interim Bus Interchange
Project No: 42126463
Sample Location
Sample Name Puk-BH1-0.3 Puk_BH1-0.6 Puk-BH2-0.5 Puk-BH2-1.0 Puk-BH3-1.0 Puk-BH3-QA01 Puk-BH3-1.2 Puk-BH3-2.2 Puk-BH4-0.4 Puk-BH4-1.0
Laboratory Sample Reference 1408153.1 1408153.2 1408153.4 1408153.5 1408153.7 1408153.8 1408153.9 1408153.10 1408153.11 1408153.13
Sample Date 02-Apr-15 02-Apr-15 02-Apr-15 02-Apr-15 02-Apr-15 02-Apr-15 02-Apr-15 02-Apr-15 02-Apr-15 02-Apr-15
Sample Type Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Duplicate Primary Primary Primary Primary
Soil Type Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Silty CLAY Gravel GravelSurface (< 1 m)
/ 1 m - 4 m
Surface (< 1 m)
/ 1 m - 4 m
Oil Industry Guideline Soil Type Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand SAND Silty CLAY
Heavy MetalsTotal Recoverable Arsenic 8 < 2 10 - 3 4 < 2 < 2 - 5 - - 0.4 - 12 0.4 - 12 100 70
Total Recoverable Cadmium 0.14 < 0.10 < 0.10 - 0.16 0.12 < 0.10 < 0.10 - 0.15 - - < 0.1 - 0.65 < 0.1 - 0.65 7.5 1,300
Total Recoverable Chromium 21 64 21 - 49 54 25 39 - 59 - - 3 - 125# 2 to 55 400 >10,000
Total Recoverable Copper 29 50 24 - 50 51 8 14 - 49 - - 20 - 90 1 to 45 325 >10,000
Total Recoverable Lead 16.8 5.5 18.7 - 18.7 16.1 8.4 11.6 - 84 - - < 0.1 - 65 < 1.5 - 65 250 3,300
Total Recoverable Nickel 41 144 24 - 116 121 20 52 - 67 - - 4 - 320 0.9 - 35 105 -
Total Recoverable Zinc 78 80 82 - 86 92 11 16 - 94 - - 54 - 1,160 9 - 180 400 -
TPH
TPH C7 - C9 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 - - < 8 < 10 120 m / 120
m(8,800)
v / (20,000)
m - - - -
TPH C10 - C14 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 79 - - < 20 < 20 (1,500) x / (1,900)
x(1,900)
x / (8,900)
x - - - -
TPH C15 - C36 < 40 1,890 < 40 < 40 93 2,200 - - 170 81 NA NA - - - -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 1,890 < 70 < 70 93 2,300 - - 170 81 - - - - - -
SVOCs
Polcyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene - < 0.6 - - < 0.6 < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -
Acenaphthylene - < 0.6 - - < 0.6 < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -
Anthracene - < 0.6 - - < 0.6 < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -
Benzo[a]anthracene - < 0.6 - - < 0.6 < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) - < 1.2 - - < 1.2 < 1.2 - - - - - - - - - -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j]fluoranthene - < 1.2 - - < 1.2 < 1.2 - - - - - - - - - -
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene - < 1.2 - - < 1.2 < 1.2 - - - - - - - - - -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene - < 1.2 - - < 1.2 < 1.2 - - - - - - - - - -
2-Chloronaphthalene - < 0.6 - - < 0.6 < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -
Chrysene - < 0.6 - - < 0.6 < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene - < 1.2 - - < 1.2 < 1.2 - - - - - - - - - -
Fluoranthene - < 0.6 - - < 0.6 < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -
Fluorene - < 0.6 - - < 0.6 < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene - < 1.2 - - < 1.2 < 1.2 - - - - - - - - - -
2-Methylnaphthalene - < 0.6 - - < 0.6 < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -
Naphthalene - < 0.6 - - < 0.6 < 0.6 - - - - (190)(v)
/(230)(v)
(230)(v)
/(1,100)(v) - - - -
Phenanthrene - < 0.6 - - < 0.6 < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -
Pyrene - < 0.6 - - < 0.6 < 0.6 - - - - NA/NA NA/NA - - - -
BaP Equivalent* - < 2.826 - - < 2.826 < 2.826 - - - - (11)(d)
/(25)(m)
(11)(d)
/(25)(m) - - 2.15 35
Notes Prepared by NM
All results are presented in mg/kg unless otherwise stated. Reviewed by SH
Black - result is above the laboratory level of detection. Last Modified 14/04/2015
Grey - result is below the laboratory level of detection.
1. Ministry for the Environment, 1999. Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand (Oil Industry Guidelines).
2. Values taken from Tables 4.11 & 4.14 of the Oil Industry Guidelines.
3. Ministry for the Environment, 2012. User's Guide National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health . Values taken from Appendix B Soil Contaminant Standards, Tables B2 and B3 (NES SCS).
4. Auckland Regional Council, 2001. Technical Publication Background Concentrations of inorganic elements in soils from the Auckland Region. Table 3, Non-Volcanic Range.
5. Auckland Council , 2013. Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water Schedule 10 Permitted Activity Criteria.
Bold - Sample exceeds the Auckland Background Concentrations.
* - Risk associated with mixture of carcinogenic PAHs assessed by comparison with criteria based on benzo(a)pyrene equivalent concentration.# - Work suggests special cases have been found to apply for Ti Point Basalts (Cr), Mt Smart Volcanics (Pb, Sn), Franklin Basalts (Sn), and Awhitu-type Mineral Sands (Mn, V) and as such these lithologies need to be considered individually.
Values in brackets exceed Oil Industry Guideline solubility limit for compound in water when present as part of a typical gasoline mixture.
NA indicates contaminant not limiting as estimated health-beased criterion is significantly higher than that likely to be encountered on site.
- no criteria
BH1 BH2
DischargeCommercial / Industrial
Land UseNon-Volcanic Range
BH3 BH4 Oil Industry Tier 1 Soil Acceptance Criteria All
Pathways 1
All Pathways for Commercial/Industrial Land use 2
Contamination Depth
Auckland Background Concentrations 4
Volcanic Range
Schedule 10 Permitted
Activity Criteria 5 NES Guidelines
3
B1 - 13-14
Revision 1 09 April 2015
\\akl-fs.ursapac.local\akl-jobs\42126463\5 Works\Contaminated Land\PSI Report\Appendix E - Results Tables\Soil results.csv.xlsx
Page 1 of 1
Print Date: 16/04/2015
AECOM
Auckland Transport - Pukekohe Station Interim Bus Interchange
16-Apr-2015 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A
Appendix F
Laboratory Reports
R J Hill Laboratories Limited1 Clyde StreetPrivate Bag 3205Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
+64 7 858 2000+64 7 858 [email protected]
TelFaxEmailWeb
This Laboratory is accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ), which represents New Zealand in the InternationalLaboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). Through the ILAC Mutual Recognition Arrangement (ILAC-MRA) this accreditation isinternationally recognised.The tests reported herein have been performed in accordance with the terms of accreditation, with the exception of tests marked *, whichare not accredited.
A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T Page 1 of 7
Client:Contact: N Macorison
C/- AECOM New Zealand LimitedPO Box 4241Shortland StreetAUCKLAND 1140
AECOM New Zealand Limited Lab No:Date Registered:Date Reported:Quote No:Order No:Client Reference:Submitted By:
140815304-Apr-201514-Apr-2015
4212646342126463 Pukekohe StationN Macorison
SPv1
Sample Type: SoilSample Name:
Lab Number:
Puk-BH1-0.302-Apr-2015
Puk-BH1-0.602-Apr-2015
Puk-BH2-1.002-Apr-2015
Puk-BH3-1.002-Apr-2015
1408153.1 1408153.2 1408153.4 1408153.5 1408153.7
Puk-BH2-0.502-Apr-2015
Individual Tests
g/100g as rcvd 94 93 95 93 94Dry Matter
Heavy metal screen level As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn
mg/kg dry wt 8 < 2 10 - 3Total Recoverable Arsenicmg/kg dry wt 0.14 < 0.10 < 0.10 - 0.16Total Recoverable Cadmiummg/kg dry wt 21 64 21 - 49Total Recoverable Chromiummg/kg dry wt 29 50 24 - 50Total Recoverable Coppermg/kg dry wt 16.8 5.5 18.7 - 18.7Total Recoverable Leadmg/kg dry wt 41 144 24 - 116Total Recoverable Nickelmg/kg dry wt 78 80 82 - 86Total Recoverable Zinc
Haloethers in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methanemg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Bis(2-chloroethyl)ethermg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ethermg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.24-Bromophenyl phenyl ethermg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.24-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Nitrogen containing compounds in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt - < 6 - - < 63,3'-Dichlorobenzidinemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 32,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 32,6-Dinitrotoluenemg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Nitrobenzenemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3N-Nitrosodi-n-propylaminemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Organochlorine Pesticides in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Aldrinmg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2alpha-BHCmg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2beta-BHCmg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2delta-BHCmg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2gamma-BHC (Lindane)mg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.24,4'-DDDmg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.24,4'-DDEmg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 34,4'-DDTmg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Dieldrinmg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Endosulfan Img/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Endosulfan IImg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Endosulfan sulphatemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Endrinmg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Endrin ketone
Sample Type: SoilSample Name:
Lab Number:
Puk-BH1-0.302-Apr-2015
Puk-BH1-0.602-Apr-2015
Puk-BH2-1.002-Apr-2015
Puk-BH3-1.002-Apr-2015
1408153.1 1408153.2 1408153.4 1408153.5 1408153.7
Puk-BH2-0.502-Apr-2015
Organochlorine Pesticides in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Heptachlormg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Heptachlor epoxidemg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Hexachlorobenzene
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt - < 0.6 - - < 0.6Acenaphthenemg/kg dry wt - < 0.6 - - < 0.6Acenaphthylenemg/kg dry wt - < 0.6 - - < 0.6Anthracenemg/kg dry wt - < 0.6 - - < 0.6Benzo[a]anthracenemg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP)mg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j]
fluoranthenemg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Benzo[g,h,i]perylenemg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Benzo[k]fluoranthenemg/kg dry wt - < 0.6 - - < 0.62-Chloronaphthalenemg/kg dry wt - < 0.6 - - < 0.6Chrysenemg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Dibenzo[a,h]anthracenemg/kg dry wt - < 0.6 - - < 0.6Fluoranthenemg/kg dry wt - < 0.6 - - < 0.6Fluorenemg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrenemg/kg dry wt - < 0.6 - - < 0.62-Methylnaphthalenemg/kg dry wt - < 0.6 - - < 0.6Naphthalenemg/kg dry wt - < 0.6 - - < 0.6Phenanthrenemg/kg dry wt - < 0.6 - - < 0.6Pyrene
Phenols in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt - < 5 - - < 54-Chloro-3-methylphenolmg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.22-Chlorophenolmg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.22,4-Dichlorophenolmg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 32,4-Dimethylphenolmg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 33 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p-
cresol)mg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.22-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)mg/kg dry wt - < 5 - - < 52-Nitrophenolmg/kg dry wt - < 30 - - < 30Pentachlorophenol (PCP)mg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Phenolmg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 32,4,5-Trichlorophenolmg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 32,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Plasticisers in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt - < 5 - - < 5Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalatemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Butylbenzylphthalatemg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipatemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Diethylphthalatemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Dimethylphthalatemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Di-n-butylphthalatemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Di-n-octylphthalate
Other Halogenated compounds in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 31,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 31,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 31,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Hexachlorobutadienemg/kg dry wt - < 6 - - < 6Hexachlorocyclopentadienemg/kg dry wt - < 3 - - < 3Hexachloroethanemg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.21,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Other compounds in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt - < 12 - - < 12Benzyl alcoholmg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Carbazole
Lab No: 1408153 v 1 Hill Laboratories Page 2 of 7
Sample Type: SoilSample Name:
Lab Number:
Puk-BH1-0.302-Apr-2015
Puk-BH1-0.602-Apr-2015
Puk-BH2-1.002-Apr-2015
Puk-BH3-1.002-Apr-2015
1408153.1 1408153.2 1408153.4 1408153.5 1408153.7
Puk-BH2-0.502-Apr-2015
Other compounds in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Dibenzofuranmg/kg dry wt - < 1.2 - - < 1.2Isophorone
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil
mg/kg dry wt < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8C7 - C9mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20C10 - C14mg/kg dry wt < 40 1,890 < 40 < 40 93C15 - C36mg/kg dry wt < 70 1,890 < 70 < 70 93Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36)
Sample Name:
Lab Number:
Puk-BH3-QA0102-Apr-2015
Puk-BH3-1.202-Apr-2015
Puk-BH4-0.402-Apr-2015
Puk-BH4-1.002-Apr-2015
1408153.8 1408153.9 1408153.10 1408153.11 1408153.13
Puk-BH3-2.202-Apr-2015
Individual Tests
g/100g as rcvd 94 - - 94 71Dry Matter
Heavy metal screen level As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn
mg/kg dry wt 4 < 2 < 2 - 5Total Recoverable Arsenicmg/kg dry wt 0.12 < 0.10 < 0.10 - 0.15Total Recoverable Cadmiummg/kg dry wt 54 25 39 - 59Total Recoverable Chromiummg/kg dry wt 51 8 14 - 49Total Recoverable Coppermg/kg dry wt 16.1 8.4 11.6 - 84Total Recoverable Leadmg/kg dry wt 121 20 52 - 67Total Recoverable Nickelmg/kg dry wt 92 11 16 - 94Total Recoverable Zinc
Haloethers in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methanemg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Bis(2-chloroethyl)ethermg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ethermg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -4-Bromophenyl phenyl ethermg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Nitrogen containing compounds in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt < 6 - - - -3,3'-Dichlorobenzidinemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -2,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -2,6-Dinitrotoluenemg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Nitrobenzenemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -N-Nitrosodi-n-propylaminemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Organochlorine Pesticides in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Aldrinmg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -alpha-BHCmg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -beta-BHCmg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -delta-BHCmg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -gamma-BHC (Lindane)mg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -4,4'-DDDmg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -4,4'-DDEmg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -4,4'-DDTmg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Dieldrinmg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Endosulfan Img/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Endosulfan IImg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Endosulfan sulphatemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Endrinmg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Endrin ketonemg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Heptachlormg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Heptachlor epoxidemg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Hexachlorobenzene
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt < 0.6 - - - -Acenaphthenemg/kg dry wt < 0.6 - - - -Acenaphthylene
Lab No: 1408153 v 1 Hill Laboratories Page 3 of 7
Sample Type: SoilSample Name:
Lab Number:
Puk-BH3-QA0102-Apr-2015
Puk-BH3-1.202-Apr-2015
Puk-BH4-0.402-Apr-2015
Puk-BH4-1.002-Apr-2015
1408153.8 1408153.9 1408153.10 1408153.11 1408153.13
Puk-BH3-2.202-Apr-2015
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt < 0.6 - - - -Anthracenemg/kg dry wt < 0.6 - - - -Benzo[a]anthracenemg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP)mg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j]
fluoranthenemg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Benzo[g,h,i]perylenemg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Benzo[k]fluoranthenemg/kg dry wt < 0.6 - - - -2-Chloronaphthalenemg/kg dry wt < 0.6 - - - -Chrysenemg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Dibenzo[a,h]anthracenemg/kg dry wt < 0.6 - - - -Fluoranthenemg/kg dry wt < 0.6 - - - -Fluorenemg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrenemg/kg dry wt < 0.6 - - - -2-Methylnaphthalenemg/kg dry wt < 0.6 - - - -Naphthalenemg/kg dry wt < 0.6 - - - -Phenanthrenemg/kg dry wt < 0.6 - - - -Pyrene
Phenols in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt < 5 - - - -4-Chloro-3-methylphenolmg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -2-Chlorophenolmg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -2,4-Dichlorophenolmg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -2,4-Dimethylphenolmg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p-
cresol)mg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)mg/kg dry wt < 5 - - - -2-Nitrophenolmg/kg dry wt < 30 - - - -Pentachlorophenol (PCP)mg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Phenolmg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -2,4,5-Trichlorophenolmg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Plasticisers in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt < 5 - - - -Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalatemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Butylbenzylphthalatemg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipatemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Diethylphthalatemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Dimethylphthalatemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Di-n-butylphthalatemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Di-n-octylphthalate
Other Halogenated compounds in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Hexachlorobutadienemg/kg dry wt < 6 - - - -Hexachlorocyclopentadienemg/kg dry wt < 3 - - - -Hexachloroethanemg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Other compounds in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
mg/kg dry wt < 12 - - - -Benzyl alcoholmg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Carbazolemg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Dibenzofuranmg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - - - -Isophorone
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil
mg/kg dry wt < 8 - - < 8 < 10C7 - C9mg/kg dry wt 79 - - < 20 < 20C10 - C14mg/kg dry wt 2,200 - - 170 81C15 - C36
Lab No: 1408153 v 1 Hill Laboratories Page 4 of 7
Sample Type: SoilSample Name:
Lab Number:
Puk-BH3-QA0102-Apr-2015
Puk-BH3-1.202-Apr-2015
Puk-BH4-0.402-Apr-2015
Puk-BH4-1.002-Apr-2015
1408153.8 1408153.9 1408153.10 1408153.11 1408153.13
Puk-BH3-2.202-Apr-2015
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil
mg/kg dry wt 2,300 - - 170 81Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36)
Lab No: 1408153 v 1 Hill Laboratories Page 5 of 7
1408153.2Puk-BH1-0.6 02-Apr-2015Client Chromatogram for TPH by FID
1408153.7Puk-BH3-1.0 02-Apr-2015Client Chromatogram for TPH by FID
1408153.8Puk-BH3-QA01 02-Apr-2015Client Chromatogram for TPH by FID
1408153.11Puk-BH4-0.4 02-Apr-2015Client Chromatogram for TPH by FID
1408153.13Puk-BH4-1.0 02-Apr-2015Client Chromatogram for TPH by FID
Lab No: 1408153 v 1 Hill Laboratories Page 6 of 7
Analyst's CommentsAppendix No.1 - Chain of Custody
Lab No: 1408153 v 1 Hill Laboratories Page 7 of 7
The following table(s) gives a brief description of the methods used to conduct the analyses for this job. The detection limits given below are those attainable in a relatively clean matrix.Detection limits may be higher for individual samples should insufficient sample be available, or if the matrix requires that dilutions be performed during analysis.
S U M M A R Y O F M E T H O D S
Sample Type: SoilTest Method Description Default Detection Limit Sample No
1-2, 4, 7-10,13
Environmental Solids SamplePreparation
Air dried at 35°C and sieved, <2mm fraction.Used for sample preparation.May contain a residual moisture content of 2-5%.
-
1-2, 4, 7-10,13
Heavy metal screen levelAs,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn
Dried sample, <2mm fraction. Nitric/Hydrochloric acid digestion,ICP-MS, screen level.
0.10 - 4 mg/kg dry wt
2, 7-8Semivolatile Organic CompoundsScreening in Soil by GC-MS
Sonication extraction, GPC cleanup (if required), GC-MS FSanalysis. Tested on as received sample
0.3 - 30 mg/kg dry wt
1-2, 4-5,7-8, 11, 13
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Sonication extraction in DCM, Silica cleanup, GC-FID analysisUS EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines. Tested onas received sample[KBIs:5786,2805,10734]
8 - 60 mg/kg dry wt
1-2, 4-5,7-8, 11, 13
Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103°C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than airdry) , gravimetry. US EPA 3550. (Free water removed beforeanalysis).
0.10 g/100g as rcvd
1-2, 4, 7-10,13
Total Recoverable digestion Nitric / hydrochloric acid digestion. US EPA 200.2. -
These samples were collected by yourselves (or your agent) and analysed as received at the laboratory.
Samples are held at the laboratory after reporting for a length of time depending on the preservation used and the stability ofthe analytes being tested. Once the storage period is completed the samples are discarded unless otherwise advised by theclient.
This report must not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of the signatory.
Ara Heron BSc (Tech)Client Services Manager - Environmental Division
Appendix No.1 - Chain of Custody - Page 1 of 5
Appendix No.1 - Chain of Custody - Page 2 of 5
Appendix No.1 - Chain of Custody - Page 3 of 5
Appendix No.1 - Chain of Custody - Page 4 of 5
Appendix No.1 - Chain of Custody - Page 5 of 5
42127173/01/A 72
APPENDIX C CONSULTATION
Item
27
Franklin Local Board
26 August 2014
Franklin Local Board Workshop Notes Page 5
Franklin Local Board Workshop Notes
File No.: CP2014/18614
Purpose 1. Providing visibility on issues considered at Franklin Local Board Workshops, which are not
open to the public.
Executive Summary 2. Workshop notes are attached for 15 July 2014, 22 July 2014, 29 July 2014, 5 August 2014
and 12 August 2014.
Recommendation/s That the Franklin Local Board Workshop notes for 15 July 2014, 22 July 2014, 29 July 2014, 5 August 2014 and 12 August 2014 be received.
Attachments
No. Title Page
A Franklin Local Board Workshop Notes : 15 July 2014 7
B Franklin Local Board Workshop Notes : 22 July 2014 11
C Franklin Local Board Workshop Notes : 29 July 2014 13
D Franklin Local Board Workshop Notes : 5 August 2014 17
E Franklin Local Board Workshop Notes : 12 August 2014 21
Signatories
Authors Gaylene Harvey - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager
Att
ac
hm
en
t A
It
em
27
Franklin Local Board
26 August 2014
Franklin Local Board Workshop Notes Page 7
Att
ac
hm
en
t A
It
em
27
Franklin Local Board
26 August 2014
Franklin Local Board Workshop Notes Page 8
Att
ac
hm
en
t A
It
em
27
Franklin Local Board
26 August 2014
Franklin Local Board Workshop Notes Page 9
1
Pukekohe Station Upgrade Platform Upgrade / Bus Interchange / Park n Ride
Concept, Options & Scope Update
Local Board Presentation - July 2014
2
Project Objectives
• Deliver a seamless bus-rail connection
• Provide bus stops as close to the station as possible
• Provide dedicated car parking spaces for park n ride users
• Minimise pedestrian, cyclist and bus movement conflict
• Improve station interchange and Town Centre connectivity
• Integrate with proposed walking and cycling infrastructure
3
4
Project Status Timeline
To June - development of three rail options
- investigation of bus interchange layout
- Scheme Assessment Report draft
- preferred option identified
- revision of scope requirements/phasing
From July - concept documentation review
- design tender preparation (phase 1)
- funding directive for construction
5
Rail Options Option 1:
- Off-line new platforms, new bus interchange and stabling yard
relocation
Option 2:
- Existing platform upgraded and second platform built as a second
stage, new bus interchange, stabling yard reconfigured
Option 3:
- Existing platform upgraded as a second stage, new second platform
built in first stage, retain existing stabling yard, new bus interchange
- f-line new platforms, new bus Interchange and the stabling yard
relocated
6
Bus Interchange Options
• Requirement for 6 bus stops
- Three local routes
Two Waiuku & Tuakau bus connections to Rail
Special services
• Manukau Road Intersection connections - Several options considered
7
Option Funding Estimates AT | Parnell Station
Option Funding Estimate ($M)
Total Option 1 $35.1
Total Option 2 $38.7
Total Option 3 $34.2
8
OPTION 3 considered best approach to progress
Key advantages:
- Provides the most efficient layout for conflict avoidance for freight
and passenger operations
- More efficient 2 stage delivery approach
- Allows future proofing for station expansion opportunities
- All platforms are in close proximity for cross connections
- Cost effective option
Option Consideration
9
Delivery Approach – Option 3
• Phase 1 Construction
- Bus Interchange
- Park n Ride for approx. 80 vehicles
- New platform
- Over-bridge and stairs
• Phase 2 Construction
- Track and signal works
- Upgrade of the existing platform
- Potential expansion to Park n Ride facility
10
11
Risks
- Funding provision for Construction phase
- Other project links (Manukau Road / Customs Street intersection upgrade)
- Land lease / land acquisition arrangements
- Heritage assessment
- Integration into City Transformation Street-works and initiatives
12
13
14
15
• Consultation with Iwi and Community Groups
• Concept Open Day
• KiwiRail negotiations and (subject to Detailed Design) access agreement
with Land Owners
• Design Tender and Design Period
• Construction (subject to funding)
- Phase 1 - Bus Interchange, new platform, over-bridge and stairs
- Phase 2 – Track and signal works, upgrade of the existing platform
Next Steps
16
AGENDA Meeting: Auckland Council and CCO projects in Pukekohe – 2014/15FY
Location: Pukeko Room, Level 1, Manukau Civic Building, 31‐33 Manukau Station Road, Manukau
Date/ Time: 1pm‐ 4:30pm, Tuesday 2 December 2014
Council (including CCO) presenters:
Anna Wallace – Project Leader – South, City Transformation, Auckland Council Anne Cheng – Manager Planning South, Auckland Council Trevor Watson – Team Leader Planning South, Auckland Council Craig Cairncross – Principal Planner, Planning South, Auckland Council Cindy Yin – Planner, Planning South, Auckland Council. Alina Wimmer – Principal Planner, Housing Project Office Cara Francesco – Principal Built Heritage, Auckland Council Keita Kohere – Principal Heritage Advisor South Shelley Wharton – Growth & Renewals Projects Team Manager (Stormwater), Auckland Council Richard Challis – Senior Stormwater Specialist Dave Hilson –PT Planner (Services), Auckland Transport Richard Firth – Infrastructure Development Leader, Auckland Transport Other presenters: Orson Warlock – OPUS Consultants Ted Ngataki – Ngati Tamaoho
Iwi attendees: Lucille Rutherford (LR), Ngati Tamaoho Bob Clark (BC), Te Akitai Karl Flavell (KF), Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Nigel Denny (ND), Te Akitai Waiohua Hero Potini (HP), Ngati Tamaoho Dennis Kirkwood (DK), Ngati Tamaoho
Discussion:
Discussion Action Lead
Hui open
Karakia/ Mihi
Hui opened by Dennis Kirkwood
Welcome and Introduction
Welcome and introduction by Anna Wallace City Transformation, Auckland Council
Planning and Heritage
1. Pukekohe Area Plan Presented by: Craig Cairncross, Planning South, Auckland Council Refer to presentation (Part 1) slides Page 2‐9
KF – To note that historically the area has been known for flooding.
Discussion Action Lead
LR – Noted Belmont has historically had SW problems
HP – Key move 7 (Protect and enjoy Pukekohe Hill, Tuhimata Bluff and Pukekohe East Crater) – this is just the beginning.
KF – There are two major streams/ catchments in Pukekohe. Iwi trying to focus restoration efforts around these catchments.
LR – Iwi want involvement at the project level. ACTION 1: A hui required to monitor and be involved in the implementation of the Pukekohe Area Plan.
Planning South/ City Transformation
2. Southern Corridor Plan Presented by: : Craig Cairncross, Planning South, Auckland Council Refer to presentation (Part 1) slides Page 10‐13
KF – MBAs for Southern corridor
LR – Important to improve pedestrian and cycle over bridge/ connections.
LR – Important to consider opportunities to improve water quality as part of stormwater initiatives.
KF – questioned the removal of the causeway.
3. Special Housing Areas Presented by: Alina Wimmer, Housing Project Office, Auckland Council Refer to presentation (Part 1) slides Page 13‐18 Wesley SHA
KF – Wesley has the potential to be the size of a new town
LR – Bigger than Waiuku
KF – Noted Wesley used to be located at Three Kings
Alina Wimmer – Applicant has engaged a consultant consortium to prepare Structure Plan for the area. Consultants have included Boffa, Beca, Mathews and Mathews. An Iwi CIA has been engaged. Several additional trees are to be scheduled and the Chapel.
Alina Wimmer – Applicant has surveyed all streams on site. No in‐stream throttles are proposed, the only culverts are those that exist under SH22. Auckland Council Stormwater Unit are happy with the proposed stormwater solution.
KF – KF and LR have been working with the applicant to identify an agreed stormwater solution. The development will use water sensitive design to achieve stream restoration and on‐site stormwater management.
Alina Wimmer – The site is in a strategically important location, being bounded by SH22 and the rail corridor. AT have not confirmed a new rail station at present as patronage numbers do not trigger AT’s threshold for a new station. Applicant is keen to progress a station, as is FLB.
Discussion Action Lead
LR – Iwi are disappointed that that the opportunity for a new railway station to service this proposed development is not supported by AT.
Belmont SHA
Application currently being lodged.
Applicant has procured a cultural report on stormwater which is being prepared by Karl Flavell. There has been a lot of cultural heritage work been completed already.
The applicant has a requirement to address stormwater as part of Structure Plan.
KF – Happy with the approach to stormwater to date.
4. Pukekohe Heritage Study Presented by: Cara Francesco – Principal Built Heritage, Auckland Council
Refer to presentation (Part 1) slides Page 19‐23
KF – Iwi put forward a number of sites for protection as part of the wider public call for nominations of significant heritage places by the Franklin district Council in 2009/2010. Have these been incorporated?
Cara Francesco – Franklin District Council Plan Change 27 (prior to amalgamation) did incorporate a few of these nominations. (Refer attachment to Minutes)
LR – Has the the Spring (Bledisloe Park) been incorporated?
Cara Francesco – Keita Kohere is doing some work on sites of cultural significance.
KF – A lot of Maori‐Indian and Maori‐Chinese families in Pukekohe with connection for Pukekohe’s heritage also should be recognised.
KF – Puni used to be a quarry. KF and Andrew Moore identified Puni as a site of significance. The site has now been cleaned up, is used and maintained. This is the benefit of being identified as a scheduled site.
LR – A lot of additional information was also collected through the Area Plan process. Where did this information go?
ACTION 2: Planning South to email through information collected through the Area Plan process to Cara Francesco and Anna Wallace
Cara Francesco – it is the intention that a Maori Heritage study be prepared, led by Keita Kohere.
General support for a study with a focus on Maori Heritage.
Anne Cheng/ Craig Cairncross, Auckland Council
Public Transport and stormwater
5. Pukekohe Station, Bus Interchange and Car Park & Ride Project contact: Stewart Thomson, Auckland Transport
Refer to presentation(Part 2) slides Page 1‐2
Iwi disappointed at the down‐sizing of proposals for the Pukekohe Station/ Bus Interchange/ Car Park and Ride.
Iwi want to be engaged from an early stage through any future design or visioning process for the future Pukekohe Station/ Bus Interchange/ Car Park and ride.
ACTION 3: AT to engage with interested Iwi Groups at an early stage in the design of the Pukekohe Station/ Bus Interchange/ Car Park and ride.
Stewart Thomson, Auckland Transport
6. Southern Bus Network Review Presented by: Dave Hilson, Principal PT Network Planner, Auckland Transport
Refer to presentation(Part 2) slides Page 3‐8
KF – What are the patronage numbers on the Pukekohe Waiuku service?
Dave Hilson – Not sure of numbers, but low.
KF – Tuakau always wanted a rail connection into Auckland.
Dave Hilson – Auckland Transport has a joint agreement with Waikato Regional Council in respect to service provision that spans the two regions. Public Transport provision to Tuakau is being looked at as part of the Waikato Regional Council public transport review.
LR – Questioned as to whether there would be any improvements to the Car Park & Ride at Pukekohe Station.
Dave Hilson – An upgrade to the Pukekohe Car Park & Ride facility is being looked at as part of the Pukekohe Station/ Bus Interchange/ Car Park & Ride upgrade project (Refer section 5 of these Minutes). A ‘feeder’ bus network collecting future train passengers from residential areas is to be provided as part of implementing the improvements resulting from the bus network review. The ‘feeder’ service will provide an alternative to driving to the Station.
KF – Has there been any demographics collected regarding users of the bus service?
Dave Hilson – Not that he’s aware.
7. Stormwater Presented by: Shelley Wharton – Growth & Renewals Projects Team Manager (Stormwater), Auckland Council Richard Challis – Senior Stormwater Specialist
Refer to presentation(Part 2) slides Page 9‐11 7.1 Pukekohe Station
LR – Disappointing that works did not seek to incorporate any new technology to improve water quality. All projects whether renewals or new should seek to improve Water Quality.
7.2 202 Manukau Road
All Iwi expressed an interest in this positive project. Suggested an on‐site Hui to discuss the project further.
ACTION 4: SW to work with Iwi to arrange a site visit to discuss the project further.
General support for the use of the muri‐o‐meter on projects. A tool that’s supported by Iwi.
Shelley Warburton, Auckland Council
Break – afternoon tea
Pukekohe Town Centre Revitalisation Projects
8. Stadium Drive Streetscape Upgrade Presented by: Anna Wallace, Project Leader City Transformation, Auckland Council Richard Firth, Auckland Transport Orson Warlock, OPUS Refer to presentation(Part 2) slides Page 12‐17
LR – Supports the inclusion of indigenous vegetation in streetscapes. Less supportive of the inclusion of exotics, particularly deciduous. Deciduous also cause issues with stormwater/ drains.
General support for the development of a Plaza outside of the Stadium.
LR – Supports the investigation into a swale/ rain garden on corner of Franklin Road.
General support for the change of cross section of Franklin Road where it intersects with Stadium Drive.
Support the inclusion of further pedestrian crossing facilities.
9. Manukau Road Streetscape Upgrade Presented by: Anna Wallace, Project Leader City Transformation, Auckland Council Richard Firth, Auckland Transport Refer to presentation(Part 2) slides Page 18‐22 ACTION 5: Iwi to be engaged during the design process once funding has been confirmed.
Anna Wallace, City Transformation
10. Pukekohe Hill Reserve Art Project Presented by: Ted Ngataki – Ngati Tamaoho Refer to presentation(Part 2) slides Page 18‐22
General support for the project.
General interest in any future stages of the project
Discussion regarding the significance of Pukekohe Hill and interpretive signage.
Hui close
Bob Clark
42127173/01/A 73
APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED OPTION DRAWING
Revision
Status
Drawing Number
DateCheckedDrawn Approved
Sheet
Scales
Original Size
Revision Description
Rev
U:\Jobs\42126463\DWG-Current\42126463-C-1000.dwg Printed by: Jordan Moore 23-Jul-15
Th
is d
esig
n is b
ase
d o
n g
en
era
lly a
cce
pte
d p
ra
ctice
s a
nd
sta
nd
ard
s a
t th
e tim
e it w
as p
re
pa
re
d. N
o o
th
er w
arra
nty, e
xp
re
sse
d o
r im
plie
d, is m
ad
e. It is p
re
pa
re
d in
a
cco
rd
an
ce
w
ith
th
e sco
pe
o
f w
ork a
nd
fo
r th
e p
urp
ose
o
utlin
ed
in
th
e co
ntra
ct d
ate
d:
Designed
No
re
sp
on
sib
ility is a
cce
pte
d fo
r u
se
o
f a
ny p
art o
f th
is d
esig
n in
a
ny o
th
er co
nte
xt o
r fo
r a
ny o
th
er p
urp
ose
. T
his d
ra
win
g is su
bje
ct to
co
pyrig
ht.
14
-F
EB
-2
01
4
PUKEKOHE RAIL STATION
C-1000
CONCEPT
A
BUS INTERCHANGE
AND PARK AND RIDE
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN
OR
INSERT LOGO HERE
URS New Zealand Limited
Level 4, URS Centre, 13-15 College Hill, Auckland 1011
Tel: +64 9 355 1300 Fax: +64 9 355 1333
1
1:500 (A1)
1:1000 (A2)
A1
A DRAFT SRD JKM SRD BR 22/07/15
42127173/01/A 74
APPENDIX E LAND
1
De'ath, Simeon
From: Stewart Thomson (AT) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 8:57 a.m.
To: De'ath, Simeon
Cc: Natalie Steegstra (AT)
Subject: FW: Pukekohe
Simeon,
Below is an email confirming that the AT board has approved the lease of the Pukekohe bus interchange land for
reference.
Regards
Stewart Thomson | Project Manager
PT Capital Improvements Level 10 - HSBC House, 1 Queen Street, Auckland 1010 Private Bag 92250, Auckland 1142
P 09 447 5063 XT 48 5063 | M 021458396 F 09 355 3550 |
www.at.govt.nz [email protected]
From: Lyann Grace Serrano (AT)
Sent: Friday, 17 July 2015 4:16 p.m. To: Stewart Thomson (AT)
Subject: RE: Pukekohe
Hi Stewart. You’re welcome.
And yes you are right, the lease has already been approved by the AT Board and we are now just finalising the
details.
Regarding rent increases, please see below:
2
Kind regards,
Lyann
From: Stewart Thomson (AT)
Sent: Friday, 17 July 2015 3:58 p.m.
To: Lyann Grace Serrano (AT)
Subject: RE: Pukekohe
Thanks Lyann,
This lease is approved by the AT board though but we are finalising details.
Could you confirm how much the rent will increase each year please?
Regards
Stewart Thomson | Project Manager
PT Capital Improvements Level 10 - HSBC House, 1 Queen Street, Auckland 1010 Private Bag 92250, Auckland 1142
P 09 447 5063 XT 48 5063 | M 021458396 F 09 355 3550 |
www.at.govt.nz [email protected]
From: Lyann Grace Serrano (AT)
Sent: Friday, 17 July 2015 1:48 p.m.
3
To: Stewart Thomson (AT)
Subject: RE: Pukekohe
Hi Stewart.
The lease was drafted but not signed as AT is disputing the clauses around inclusion of 50% turn-over rent for a
sublease and reinstatement provisions. AT has since been awaiting a response from KiwiRail.
Please see below excerpt of the lease terms. If you require any futher info, do let me know.
Kind regards,
Lyann
4
Lyann Grace Serrano | Property Manager
Level 6, HSBC Bldg 1 Queen Street, Auckland Central 1010 Private Bag 92250, Auckland 1142 DDI 09 4474611 | F 09 355 3550 M 027 220 2981 www.at.govt.nz | [email protected]
From: Stewart Thomson (AT)
Sent: Friday, 17 July 2015 1:40 p.m.
To: Lyann Grace Serrano (AT)
Subject: Pukekohe
Hi Lyann,
Could you please provide with the details for the lease of KR land at Pukekohe for the interchange. Could you please
confirm that we have an agreement in principle to lease this land.
Thanks
Stewart Thomson | Project Manager
PT Capital Improvements Level 10 - HSBC House, 1 Queen Street, Auckland 1010 Private Bag 92250, Auckland 1142
P 09 447 5063 XT 48 5063 | M 021458396 F 09 355 3550 |
www.at.govt.nz [email protected]
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented
auto matic download of this pictu re from the In ternet.Logo
WARNING This email may contain information which is CONFIDENTIAL and may be subject to LEGAL
PRIVILEGE. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy
this email or attachments. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email,
facsimile or telephone (call us collect) and delete this email. Thank you. Phone: +64 9 355 3553 or Fax: +64
9 355 3550. AUCKLAND TRANSPORT ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHANGES MADE TO
THIS EMAIL OR TO ANY ATTACHMENTS AFTER TRANSMISSION FROM AUCKLAND
TRANSPORT. Nothing in this email designates an information system for the purposes of section 11(a) of
the New Zealand Electronic Transaction Act 2002, unless expressly stated otherwise.
42127173/01/A 75
APPENDIX F RECOMMENDED OPTION COST ESTIMATE
42127173/01/A 76
APPENDIX G RISK
Risk Review Cycle (days): 30 13 August 2015
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
RID Title Description/Cause/ConsequenceRisk
OwnerRisk Org
Date
Raised
Threat/
Opportunity Risk Status
Ph
ase
Existing Controls
Cu
rren
t
Co
nseq
uen
ce
Cu
rren
t
Pro
bab
ilit
y
Cu
rren
t
Ris
k S
co
re
Treatment Action Status
1.00Change in project
Delivery Staff
Description: There is a threat that background knowledge is lost
when staff change.
Cause: The cause of the threat is staff leaving / changing at AT
and a change in design consultant through the procurement
process.
Consequence: Delay and increased cost. Missed opportunities.
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport15/07/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD AT to advise Low High 12
Robust handover process; AT to
consider procurement processLive
2.00
Site Investigation /
surveys at Manukau
Road intersection
Description: Investigation and design of the Manukau Road /
Custom Street intersection delays implementation of the bus
interchange and implementation of the revised bus timetables
Cause: Lack of data delays design start
Consequence: Consenting delayed and therefore construction
starting
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport15/07/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD AT to advise Very High Very High 25
Recommend investigations /
design started now. Live
3.00Design at Manukau
Road intersection
Description: The lack of investigation and design of the Manukau
Road / Custom Street intersection causes a cost ‘blow out’
Cause: No design carried out. Traffic signal intersection assumed
in SAR as per AT instruction. A roundabout would increase the
cost both of design and construction.
Consequence: Significant cost increase.
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport15/07/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD AT to advise Very High Very High 25
Recommend investigations /
design started now. Live
4.00
Site Investigation /
surveys and design for
bus interchange
Description: Lack of data to start design
Cause: The design work completed to date is based on limited
investigations and data availability (e.g. 2 D geometric design,
retaining wall design, footbridge design, stormwater design, utility
relocations etc)
Consequence: Cost increase through delay and additional work
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport15/07/15 Threat live - Treat D&PD AT to advise Very High Very High 25
Recommend investigations /
design started now. Live
5.00 Land acquisition
Description: Land required from private landowners (No. 4 and 50
Manukau Road) and potentially for Manukau Road intersection
Cause: Requirements unknown as design work has not been
done and topographic survey is not available.
Consequence: Cost increase through delay and additional work
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport15/07/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD AT to advise High Very High 22
Recommend survey / design
started now. Live
Delete or insert full rows only.
After inserting rows, Select row immediately above the new row, Select Copy =>Select new row => Paste Special => Formulas.
There are formula's and conditional formats throughout the worksheet.
Pukekohe Rail Station - Bus Interchange Park & Ride -
Contract / Project:
Treatment
Warning! - Delete or insert full rows only.
After inserting rows, Select row immediately above the new
row, Select Copy =>Select New Row => Paste Special =>
Formulas. There are formula's and conditional formats throughout the worksheet.
Auckland
Document Date:
Semi-Quantitative
Auckland Transport Manager:
Stewart Thomson
Auckland Transport Office:
Current Exposure
Page 1 of 4
Risk Review Cycle (days): 30 13 August 2015
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
RID Title Description/Cause/ConsequenceRisk
OwnerRisk Org
Date
Raised
Threat/
Opportunity Risk Status
Ph
ase
Existing Controls
Cu
rren
t
Co
nseq
uen
ce
Cu
rren
t
Pro
bab
ilit
y
Cu
rren
t
Ris
k S
co
re
Treatment Action Status
Delete or insert full rows only.
After inserting rows, Select row immediately above the new row, Select Copy =>Select new row => Paste Special => Formulas.
There are formula's and conditional formats throughout the worksheet.
Pukekohe Rail Station - Bus Interchange Park & Ride -
Contract / Project:
Treatment
Warning! - Delete or insert full rows only.
After inserting rows, Select row immediately above the new
row, Select Copy =>Select New Row => Paste Special =>
Formulas. There are formula's and conditional formats throughout the worksheet.
Auckland
Document Date:
Semi-Quantitative
Auckland Transport Manager:
Stewart Thomson
Auckland Transport Office:
Current Exposure
6.00 Adjacent land
Description: Council office land is sold and developer seeks
vehicular access onto Custom Street
Cause: Agreed with Council Property Team that existing accesses
will be closed on safety and operational grounds, but developer
later challenges this and submits a consent application that shows
access as this will enhance the commercial value of the property.
Consequence: The safety and efficiency of the interchange and
Manukau interchange are affected.
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport11/08/15 Threat Live - Treat Operation
AT aware and have agreed no
accesses with AC property
team
Medium High 17
AT to monitor and confirm in all
discussions with proposed
developers.
Proposed
7.00 Transdev requirements
Description: Transdev demand improved facilities( i.e. the
compound cannot be relocated on a ‘like for like’ basis)
Cause: Negotiations are underway but the full requirements are
not known.
Consequence: Cost increase through delay and additional work
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport15/07/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD Negotiations started Medium High 17 Finalise agreement asap Live
8.00 KiwiRail land
Description: Proposed relocated Transdev Depot is on KiwiRail
land. Relocation will require their agreement.
Cause: Detailed negotiations are to be started.
Consequence: Cost increase through delay (ref works and also
consenting) and additional work
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport11/08/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD None Medium High 17 Finalise agreement asap Live
9.00 Consenting
Description: Objections during the statutory approval process
(e.g. to the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection and other
access arrangements or loss of parking)
Cause: Only limited (non SAR specific) stakeholder undertaken
Consequence: Cost increase through delay and additional work
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport15/07/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD
Some stakeholder
engagement undertakenHigh High 21 On going engagement Live
10.00 Consenting
Description: Impact on Pohutawawa trees near the intersection
Cause: A roundabout intersection may require removal
Consequence: Delay and additional work to mitigate or adverse
PR
TBCDesign
Consultant11/08/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD None Low Medium 10
Consider in option assessment for
the intersection.Live
11.00 Design
Description: Uncertainty regarding the rail station upgrade option
to be implemented
Cause: The rail station upgrade option and programme has yet to
be agreed
Consequence: Cost increase through delay and additional work
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport15/07/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD
Maintain engagement with
KiwiRailHigh Medium 19
On going engagement.
Confirmation with KR on option in
SAR is still OK
Live
Page 2 of 4
Risk Review Cycle (days): 30 13 August 2015
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
RID Title Description/Cause/ConsequenceRisk
OwnerRisk Org
Date
Raised
Threat/
Opportunity Risk Status
Ph
ase
Existing Controls
Cu
rren
t
Co
nseq
uen
ce
Cu
rren
t
Pro
bab
ilit
y
Cu
rren
t
Ris
k S
co
re
Treatment Action Status
Delete or insert full rows only.
After inserting rows, Select row immediately above the new row, Select Copy =>Select new row => Paste Special => Formulas.
There are formula's and conditional formats throughout the worksheet.
Pukekohe Rail Station - Bus Interchange Park & Ride -
Contract / Project:
Treatment
Warning! - Delete or insert full rows only.
After inserting rows, Select row immediately above the new
row, Select Copy =>Select New Row => Paste Special =>
Formulas. There are formula's and conditional formats throughout the worksheet.
Auckland
Document Date:
Semi-Quantitative
Auckland Transport Manager:
Stewart Thomson
Auckland Transport Office:
Current Exposure
12.00Stakeholder
Engagement
Description: Stakeholder Engagement on the proposals
Cause: Only limited (non SAR specific) stakeholder undertaken;
No public consultation; No consultation with affected parties
including utilities and land owners
Consequence: Cost increase through delay and additional work
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport15/07/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD
Some stakeholder
engagement undertakenHigh Very High 22 On going engagement Live
13.00 Funding
Description: Availability of construction funding set against other
AT and NZTA priorities
Cause: Construction funding is retricted by AT's other priorities
(i.e. CRL and AMETI) or NZTA not agreeing to funding from the
Land Transport Programme
Consequence: Project does not proceed or AT has to fund 100%
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport15/07/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD AT to advise Low Very High 14 AT to advise Live
14.00 Stormwater
Description: Stormwater treatment and attenuation. Due to limited
space for parking and bus movement, a treatment device such as
swale and raingarden will be difficult to accommodate. It is
possible to construct underground detention tank with treatment
filters to retain the pre-construction flow rates, however, this will
incur a significant cost. For such significant infrastructure, this will
affect both the project cost but also potentially the amount of land
available for parking etc.
Cause: No contact with Auckland Council ref SW requirements or
design carried out. Iwi have high expectations with regard to SW
design
Consequence: Cost increase through delay and additional work
TBCDesign
Consultant15/07/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD AT to advise High High 21
Increased contingency included in
expected estimateLive
15.00 Construcatbility
Description: Constructability of works within the rail corridor (e.g.
establishment of a piling rig or other equipment on the platform
and gaining access)
Cause: Design undeveloped, therefore no assessment possible or
discussions held with KiwiRail
Consequence: Cost increase through delay and additional work
TBCDesign
Consultant15/07/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD AT to advise High High 21 To be considered at design stage Live
16.00
Construction -
unforseen utililities or
ground conditions
Description: Extent of utility relocations unknown and unforeseen
utilities on site; Only limited geotechical data available
Cause: No stakeholder engagement undertaken with utilities; form
of Manuaku Road intersection still unknown; only limited site
investigations undertaken
Consequence: Cost increase through delay and additional work
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport15/07/15 Threat Live - Treat D&PD AT to advise High High 21 To be considered at design stage Live
Page 3 of 4
Risk Review Cycle (days): 30 13 August 2015
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
RID Title Description/Cause/ConsequenceRisk
OwnerRisk Org
Date
Raised
Threat/
Opportunity Risk Status
Ph
ase
Existing Controls
Cu
rren
t
Co
nseq
uen
ce
Cu
rren
t
Pro
bab
ilit
y
Cu
rren
t
Ris
k S
co
re
Treatment Action Status
Delete or insert full rows only.
After inserting rows, Select row immediately above the new row, Select Copy =>Select new row => Paste Special => Formulas.
There are formula's and conditional formats throughout the worksheet.
Pukekohe Rail Station - Bus Interchange Park & Ride -
Contract / Project:
Treatment
Warning! - Delete or insert full rows only.
After inserting rows, Select row immediately above the new
row, Select Copy =>Select New Row => Paste Special =>
Formulas. There are formula's and conditional formats throughout the worksheet.
Auckland
Document Date:
Semi-Quantitative
Auckland Transport Manager:
Stewart Thomson
Auckland Transport Office:
Current Exposure
17.00 Utility connections
Description: Connections required for relocated Transdev depot
require additional consenting requirements (ref SW) or are greater
than expected
Cause: Only limited engagement undertaken with Transdev and
KiwiRail; no investigations or design undertaken into connections
Consequence: Cost increase through delay and additional work
TBCDesign
Consultant11/08/15 Threat Emerging D&PD None Medium Medium 15 To be considered at design stage Live
18.00 Adjacent works
Description: Combine the interchange project with other works
proposed by AT or AC
Cause: The Auckland Council City Transformation Team is
proposing a streetworks upgrade
Consequence: Mininimsed community impact (i.e. one disruptive
project rather than two) and potential cost savings
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport11/08/15 Threat Emerging D&PD
Liaison underway on
interchange projectHigh High 21 AT to liaise with AC Live
19.00Community
connectivity
Description: Further enhance community connectivity by adding
paths to the Mall and Town Centre from Station Road
Cause: Third party land ownership and funding available prevent
consideration of these i.e. they are outside scope
Consequence: An even more integrated project that should be
considered i.e. desirable but not essential to sucessfully achieving
the project goals
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport11/08/15 Opportunity Live - Parked D&PD None Low Medium 10
AT to consider if budget available;
liaise with other teams in ATProposed
20.00 Developer contribution
Description: If a developer does submit a consent application for
an access onto Custom Street from a development on the Council
office site a developer contribution should be requested towards
the proposed Manukau Road intersection
Cause: The interchange will enhance the value of the Council
office site. An access onto Custom Street will enhance this further
and if granted the developer should pay towards this.
Consequence: An alternative source of funding and a developer
pays approach.
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport11/08/15 Opportunity Emerging D&PD None Low Low 6
AT to consider if budget available;
liaise weith other teams in ATProposed
21.00 Extension of the P&R
Description: Investigate extending the proposed P&R facilility
onto the KiwiRail land adjacent to the proposed interchange
Cause: Past experience in Auckland indictes that P&R facilities
frequently reach capacity from opening and extensions are
implemented, sometimes immediately, post construction.
Consequence: Investigation now will future proof the facility and
mitigte the risk of re-work later.
Stewart
Thomson
Auckland
Transport11/08/15 Opportunity Emerging D&PD None High High 21
AT to consider if budget available;
liaise weith other teams in ATProposed
Page 4 of 4
42127173/01/A 77
APPENDIX H ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
John Bolland Consulting ltd
1
Pukekohe Station Upgrade Business Case update, August 2015 Introduction This note has been prepared by John Bolland Consulting (JBC) for Auckland Transport (AT). It presents the business case for an upgrade of the rail station at Pukekohe in south Auckland. In terms of the NZTA assessment framework, only the benefit and cost appraisal is addressed. The note has been updated in the light of peer review comments by Ben Lewis, Senior Investment Analyst at Auckland Transport. The proposed upgrade of Pukekohe station will create a transport hub with a new bus /rail interchange that will have the local bus routes all calling at the station, as well as a park and ride facility. The key components of the preferred scheme are as follows:
o Six bus stops with shelters along Custom Street o An enlarged Park & Ride area, separated from bus operation, and spaces for
Kiss and Ride o An improved, covered bridge providing access to the rail platforms o Lighting o Improved CCTV and security o Cycle storage o Toilets o Improvements to the Custom St /Manukau Rd junction to facilitate access and
egress. The current electrification programme stops at Papakura and now that EMUs are fully operational on the electrified network, diesel shuttles operate between Papakura and Pukekohe. Shuttles run 3 trains per hour in the peak, compared with 6 tph on the electrified network. The analysis has assumed that electrification through to Pukekohe, replacing the shuttles but remaining at 3 tph, will be completed at the end of FY 2025/26, which is consistent with current projections. The business case focused on Auckland Transport’s preferred option for the upgrade but it has also looked incrementally at:
o A basic short-term improvement o A wider ranging scheme which would additionally move rail passenger
services off the main line so that they do not delay freight services.
John Bolland Consulting ltd
2
Introduction to the Economics The August 2015 update of the business case supersedes all earlier versions and reflects the latest thinking on the nature of the scheme, its timing and costs, and future patronage. Actual patronage data for the year to May 2015 has also been used. The analysis has made use of the most recent available forecasts, namely June 2015 runs of the Auckland Passenger Transport (APT) model for the AM peak in 2026, 2036 and 2046. Limited use has also been made of the analysis behind the business case for electrification to Pukekohe, although it should be stressed that the electrification business case uses completely separate costs and benefits. The business case is fully consistent with the latest (November 2013) issue of EEM, including benefit values for new passengers from SP10 with suitable factors. These have been adjusted to allow for the distance between Pukekohe and Britomart and the use of intermediate stations such as Middlemore. The methodology used for this adjustment is identical to that used by JBC in the AT Ferry Strategy Business Case, following discussions with that peer reviewer. The Do Minimum for the economics is to take no action and continue with the existing station. Year zero has been taken as 2015 /16. Costs and Timing The preferred scheme has an expected cost of $14.7m, of which $13m will be spent in the 2016 /17 financial year and the remainder in the current (15 /16) year. It has been assumed that the scheme would open, and benefits begin, on July 1st 2017. The additional operating cost is expected to be $24,000 p.a. There will also be a lease cost for the use of KiwiRail land and this increases through time as shown in Table 1 below. Because the lease is for 35 years a sensitivity test has been carried out using a 35 year, rather than 40 year, evaluation period. Start date, January 1st Rent p.a. excl GST
Current $66,510 2019 $73,161 2024 $80,477 2029 $86,513 2034 $93,001 2039 $97,651 2044 $102,534
Table 1 Any change in bus operating costs has been excluded as it would be part of the case for the New Network.
John Bolland Consulting ltd
3
Passenger Benefits 1) Patronage The annual patronage at Pukekohe was recorded as 312,000 in the year to May 2015 and from HOP data there are about 450 users in each peak period. Both these have been factored into the patronage streams used to calculate benefits. The daily figure in 2004 was 203 so clearly growth has been considerable. June 2014 patronage at Pukekohe was 15% higher than June 2013 and over the rail network generally, patronage has increased by 10% or more in nine of the last ten years. Considerable population growth in the catchment of Pukekohe station is expected in the longer term as a result of a number of new developments that are in the Auckland Plan. This also points to a high level of future growth in patronage. On the other hand, the introduction of shuttles may result in a drop in patronage in the short term although it is too early to tell. Table 2 shows the APT forecasts of AM peak patronage at Pukekohe in the three modelled years of 2026, 2036 and 2046. These forecasts, combined with the current patronage, form the basis of the benefit calculation described below. Model Year AM peak patronage at Pukekohe
Diesel shuttle, 3 tph
EMU, 3 tph
2026 555 695 2036 688 854 2046 798 994
Table 2 2026 was taken as the first year of electrification. It was assumed that there would be no patronage growth after 2046. 2) Benefits to Existing Passengers All existing passengers at Pukekohe will benefit from both:
o Faster, more convenient access from the new bridge; and o The new facilities at the station.
The first of these can be represented directly in terms of a saving in in-vehicle time (IVT). The second can be converted to IVT using Table A18.5 in EEM. Between them the benefit sources have been taken to give a benefit equivalent to 3 minutes of IVT per passenger for the preferred scheme. This is consistent with the business cases for similar improvements at other stations and with EEM, which suggests benefits of “up to 3 minutes” for station features such as those proposed here. 3) New passengers New rail passengers will result from two aspects of the scheme: from the provision of feeder buses and an interchange at the station and also from the provision of dedicated Park and Ride. Each new passenger will receive a benefit and, in addition,
John Bolland Consulting ltd
4
new passengers result in decongestion benefits on the road network generally. Unit values for both these have been taken from SP10 in EEM. In the absence of more detailed modelling, the business case has assumed there will be no new bus passengers per se but that any new bus passengers will be connecting to rail. Benefits from such passengers will therefore be included in the analysis since they will count as new rail patronage. The number of new passengers resulting from the improvements has been taken to be 3% of patronage for the preferred scheme. This is based on the usually accepted elasticity of between -1 and -1.5 with respect to generalised cost (GC), which means that a 1% drop in GC will lead to a rise in patronage of up to 1.5%. (The GC of a trip includes all aspects: access time, wait time, in-vehicle time and the fare converted to minutes using the value of time.) Following electrification the growth has been taken as 4% to reflect the synergistic effects of all the benefits, including much improved ride and vehicle quality and the removal of the interchange at Papakura. Additionally, on average each new passenger will receive half of the benefits accruing to existing passengers, since their benefit will range from zero to the full amount (the “Rule of a Half”, RoH). 4) Passenger Benefit Calculation Table 3 shows how patronage, which forms the basis of the benefit calculation, has been calculated for the year 2026. Table 4 shows how the benefits in the same year are derived from those patronage forecasts. Item Value Comment AM peak passengers, 2026 695 APT forecast Total annual peak passengers '000 340.55 Assuming 490 peaks p.a. Total annual off-peak passengers ‘000 141.65 Using observed peak: off-peak ratio New peak passengers '000 13.62 At 4% of existing New off-peak passengers '000 5.67 At 4% of existing
Table 3 Benefit Source Passengers
(‘000) Unit Benefit Total Benefit,
$k Facilities, existing peak passengers 340.55 $0.53 $178.92 Facilities, existing off-peak passengers 141.65 $0.48 $67.38 Facilities, new peak passengers (RoH) 6.81 $0.53 $3.58 Facilities, new off-peak passengers (RoH) 2.84 $0.48 $1.35 New peak passengers 13.62 $74.12 $1009.68 New off-peak passengers 5.67 $30.03 $170.13 All $1,431.04
Table 4 5) Traffic The junction of Custom St and Manukau Rd will be improved as part of the station upgrade and allowance for this has been included in the costs. This will reduce the
John Bolland Consulting ltd
5
time taken to exit Custom St, particularly for buses, but may result in some delays for traffic on the main road. At this stage the exact form of the junction has not been determined so it is not possible to model what the impacts might be. It has therefore been assumed that the net effect on person-delay for all users of the junction (car and bus passengers and pedestrians) will be neutral. Outcome The economic results for the preferred scheme are shown in Table 5 below. To one decimal place, the BCR is either 1.2 or 1.3 depending on whether the revenue from new passengers is deducted from the costs. Both these are low in the NZTA assessment of economic efficiency. New users account for just over 80% of total benefits. Present Value of Costs, $m $15.67
Present Value of Benefits, $m $19.54
Present Value of Revenue, $m $0.69
National BCR (no account of additional revenue) 1.25
Government BCR (additional revenue deducted from costs) 1.30
Table 5 Sensitivity Tests An upside test has been undertaken in which the resulting extra patronage was taken as 1% higher than the central case; the resulting BCRs are 1.5 and 1.6. If the frequency to Pukekohe was assumed to increase to 6 tph in later years this would also have a positive effect on patronage; however modelling shows that the impact of this would be offset by the proposed new station at Paerata taking some traffic from Pukekohe. Hence this effect has not been taken into account in the upside test. The downside test assumed patronage growth 1% lower than the central case and electrification in 2030. In this case both BCRs were 0.9. Additionally:
o A 35-year evaluation period results in both BCRs being 1.2 o Using the 95 %ile capital cost gives BCRs of 1.1 (National) and 1.2
(Government) Incremental Analysis Two additional options, having respectively a lower and a higher spec than the preferred option, have been analysed incrementally. The first of these would provide a “building block” bus interchange at Pukekohe to provide basic interchange facilities for the introduction of the New Network and would have a capital cost of $1m.
John Bolland Consulting ltd
6
The high spec option comprises the preferred option with the addition of a third rail line through the station. This would move rail passenger services off the main line so that they do not delay freight services and both signalling and track layout upgrades and changes would be undertaken to achieve the proposed layout. The capital cost would be $33.9m. While the preferred scheme will bring no freight benefits, the high spec scheme would and these have been quantified. In terms of the benefits to freight, the section of track through Pukekohe has considerable importance for the rail freight network in NZ as it carries virtually all the traffic into and out of Auckland, to destinations such as Tauranga (Metroport), Hamilton, Wellington and Christchurch. Based on available data it has been assumed that freight traffic at Pukekohe is around 5 million tonnes annually. The cost of delays to freight (per hour per tonne) has been taken from EEM using the values for HCVs combined with typical payloads. It has been assumed that 50% of freight traffic would be delayed by 5 minutes in the absence of the third line. Table 6 summarises the economic results for the three options, in increasing order of cost. As the BCR for the lowest cost option is between 1 and 3, the target IBC for the next highest cost option is 1 (refer EEM A12.4). Case Ben
/pax Growth
pre-elec
Growth post-elec
PVC, $m
PVB, $m
Revenue $m
BCR (N)
BCR (G)
Base 1 1% 1% $3.02 $5.50 $0.19 1.82 1.94
Central 3 3% 4% $15.67 $19.54 $0.69 1.25 1.30
High (incl 3rd line) 3 3% 4% $33.11 $35.18 $0.69 1.06 1.09
Table 6 Table 7 shows the incremental analysis. It can be seen that the extra costs of the central (preferred) option can be justified since both IBCs exceed the target of 1. However the additional costs of the High spec option cannot be justified since the IBC is less than 1. Case Incremental Comment
PVC PVB Revenue BCR(N) BCR(G)
Central relative to Base $12.65 $14.04 $0.50 1.11 1.16 Accept
High relative to Central $17.44 $15.64 $0.00 0.90 0.90 Reject
Table 7 Overall the incremental analysis shows that the preferred option is the appropriate choice economically.
John Bolland Consulting ltd
7
Summary and Conclusions The business case for the proposed upgrade of Pukekohe station has been undertaken using appropriate values and procedures from EEM. The August 2015 update supersedes the earlier versions and reflects the latest thinking on the nature of the scheme, its timing and costs, as well as patronage both now and in the future. It was found that the AT preferred option has a BCR of 1.3, falling to 1.2 if the additional revenue from new passengers is not taken into account; both are in the “low” range (between 1 and 3) for NZTA purposes. Sensitivity testing gives BCRs in the range 0.9 to 1.6 while incremental analysis shows that the preferred option is the appropriate choice economically. John Bolland August 25th 2015
42127173/01/A 78
APPENDIX I SAFETY AUDIT
Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3
Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
Prepared for
Traffic and Transportation Engineers Ltd
‘T2 provides professional transportation engineering services that
enables clients to achieve their aims and advance our communities.’
Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3
Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
Prepared for
Revision History and Document Approval
Date Issue Author Description 30 July 2014 1 Andrew Hunter Draft
6 August 2014 2 Andrew Hunter Custom/Manukau intersection added
Name Signature Date
Prepared by:
Author Andrew Hunter
1 August 2014
Reviewed by:
(Reviewer) Pravin Dayaram
1 August 2014
Approved for
Issue:
(Director)
Pravin Dayaram
5 August 2014
Prepared for: Traffic & Transportation Engineers Ltd
PO Box 68871
Newton
AUCKLAND 1145
T: +64 9 921 4190
F: +64 9 921 4191
Frances Bates
PT Capital Improvements
Auckland Transport
PO Box 92-250
Auckland 1142
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
1.1 Safety Audit ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Audit Team ................................................................................... 2
1.3 The Audit Procedure ............................................................................ 2
1.4 Presentation of Audit Results .............................................................. 2
1.5 Disclaimer ........................................................................................... 3
2.0 THE PROJECT ....................................................................................... 4
2.1 Locality Plan ........................................................................................ 5
2.2 Previous Audits ................................................................................... 5
2.3 Briefing Notes ..................................................................................... 5
2.4 Reference Material .............................................................................. 5
3.0 SAFETY AUDIT FINDINGS .................................................................... 7
3.1 Significant Concern – Bus Tracking into Northern Entrance. ............... 7
3.2 Significant Concern – Conflicting Movements at Roundabout ............ 9
3.3 Moderate Concern – Operation of the intersection at Custom Street. .. 9
3.4 Minor Concern – Width of Footpaths /Shared paths .......................... 11
3.5 Minor Concern – Manoeuvrability in Car Park .................................... 12
3.6 Comment – Constructability .............................................................. 13
4.0 AUDIT STATEMENT ............................................................................ 14
Appendix A Schedule of Plans
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 1 of 14
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Traffic and Transportation Engineers Ltd (T2) has been appointed by Auckland
Transport (AT) to undertake a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit for the proposed
Pukekohe Rail Station upgrade project. A description of the project is included in
Section 2.0.
1.1 Safety Audit
Safety Audit is an internationally used term to describe an independent peer
review of the safety features of an existing or new road project. The safety audit
team considers the safety of all road users and qualitatively reports on road
safety issues and opportunities to improve safety.
The primary objective of a road safety audit is to help ensure a project achieves
and outcome consistent with Safer Journeys and the Safe System Approach –
that is minimisations of death and serious injury. The road safety audit identifies
all areas of a project that are inconsistent with a safe system and brings those
concerns to the attention of the client, so the client can choose appropriate
actions based on the risk guidance provided by the safety audit team.
The key objective of a road safety audit is to deliver completed projects that
contribute towards a safe roading system that is increasingly free of death and
serious injury by identifying and ranking potential safety concerns for all road
users and others affected by a road project.
Safety Audits are generally carried out at the following stages of a project:
Feasibility / Concept Stage
Scheme / Preliminary Design Stage
Detailed Design Stage
Pre-opening or Post construction Stage
This is a Stage 2 Preliminary Design Road Safety Audit.
The benefits of Road Safety Audits, undertaken at the appropriate stage, can:
� Help achieve the objectives of a safe system by providing a safer road
network with self-explaining roads.
� Minimise the risk of high severity crashes that may result from design
deficiencies in a proposed road project.
� Minimise the need for rework and physical remedial works caused by road
safety deficiencies at various stages of project development, including
construction.
� Reduce the whole of life costs of a project.
� Improve the awareness of, and contribute to, improvements in safe design
practises.
A Safety Audit is not a technical or financial audit. Engineering standards and
guidelines provide a sound starting point from which a good design can evolve.
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 2 of 14
However, their application alone does not necessarily result in the safest road
environment.
1.2 The Audit Team
The safety audit was carried out by:
Andrew Hunter (Team Leader)
Principal Transportation Consultant
Traffic and Transportation Engineers Ltd
Iris Chen
Graduate Engineer
Traffic and Transportation Engineers Ltd
1.3 The Audit Procedure
The procedure set down for road safety audits in ‘Road Safety Audit Procedures
for Projects’ – guidelines (interim release May 2013) is that this is a report to the
client who then refers the report to the designer and/or contractor. The designer
should consider the report and provide comments to the client on each of the
concerns raised, including their cost implications where appropriate, and make a
recommendation to either amend the design or reject the audit report
recommendation. The client then makes the final decision on each issue raised
and informs the designer. Copies of both the designer’s report to the client and
the client’s response should be given to the audit team leader (for information
only).
1.4 Presentation of Audit Results
Although all safety issues identified are considered of sufficient importance to
require action, a ranking system has been adopted to assist the designer and
customer understand the relative importance of the issues.
The potential safety problems from this audit have been ranked as follows:
� Serious Concern – Major safety concern that must be addressed and
requires changes to avoid serious safety consequences.
� Significant Concern – A significant safety concern that should be
addressed and requires changes to avoid serious safety consequences.
� Moderate Concern - A moderate concern is one that should be addressed
to improve overall safety.
� Minor – A minor concern is one that should be addressed where practical
to improve safety.
� Comment – A comment may include items where the safety implications
are not yet clear due to insufficient detail for the stage of the project,
provided where there is an opportunity to improve safety that is not
necessarily linked to the project or drawing or signage issues that should
be addressed but are not necessarily safety related.
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 3 of 14
To assist in quantifying the identified problem a Severity and Frequency matrix
has been developed to supplement the concern. This table is replicated below.
Severity
(likelihood of
death or
serious injury)
Frequency (probability of a crash occurring)
Frequent Common Occasional Infrequent
Very Likely Serious Serious Significant Moderate
Likely Serious Significant Moderate Moderate
Unlikely Significant Moderate Minor Minor
Very Unlikely Moderate Minor Minor Minor
Table 1 Concern Assessment Rating Matrix
1.5 Disclaimer
The findings, opinions and recommendations in the report are based on an
examination of available relevant plans and the specified road and environment
and might not address all issues existing at the time of the audit. The report
also deals with technical matters. Readers are urged to seek specific advice on
particular matters and not to rely solely on the report.
While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the report, it is
made available strictly on the basis that anyone relying on it does so at their
own risk without any liability to members of the audit team or their
organisations.
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 4 of 14
2.0 THE PROJECT
The aspect of the overall project that is the subject of this Road Safety Audit
relates to the general interchange area associated with the upgrading of the
Pukekohe Rail Station. The interchange area includes the following facilities:
� Bus parking;
� Park and ride;
� Kiss and ride
The Pukekohe Rail Station is undergoing a major transformation consisting of the
upgrade of the existing platform and the installation of a new platform to cater
for anticipated future demand.
The existing footbridges will be replaced by a single footbridge that connects to
the east and west of the station. On the eastern side, the footbridge will be
connected to Station Road via a pedestrian ramp. On the western side the
footbridge will be connected to Custom Street by a stairway and a passenger lift.
The increase in residential development in the wider Pukekohe area has led to
the rationalisation of the bus network to provide a direct connection to the rail
station. The interchange area will cater for up to six buses, two kiss and ride car
parks and 86 car parking spaces to be used for patrons to park and ride.
Additional parking might be provided to the southern end of the site adjacent to
the Council service centre but there is little detail about if and how this is to be
provided.
The bus parking area will operate as a one way system with buses entering from
Manukau Road via a new entrance (approximately 160m to the north of Custom
Street) between the retail shop and the service station. Buses will exit through
Custom Street onto Manukau Road. Custom Street is a two lane two way road
that services a commercial hardware supplier and the Auckland Council service
centre. All vehicles using the kiss and ride facilities and the park and ride car
parks will gain access through Custom Street.
Pedestrian amenity is paramount and links are provided between the facilities
and to the local road network.
The plans are still at a very conceptual stage and hence there is little detail of
many aspects of the work. This audit is really at stage 1 given the level of detail
supplied.
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 5 of 14
2.1 Locality Plan
Figure 1 below shows the road within the surrounding road network.
Figure 1 - Local Road network
2.2 Previous Audits
No previous road safety audits have been carried out on this project.
2.3 Briefing Notes
A formal briefing was not held due to tight time constraints for delivery of the
report. A general discussion was held between the AT project manager and T2’s
Pravin Dayaram. Pravin discussed the project with the team leader for the RSA.
2.4 Reference Material
Typical guidelines and standards referenced for this audit include:
� Road Safety Audit Procedures for Projects Guidelines Interim Release May
2013 (Safer Journeys)
� Manual of Traffic Signs & Markings Part 1 Signs (MOTSAM Part 1), NZTA,
2010
� Manual of Traffic Signs & Markings Part 2 Markings (MOTSAM Part 2),
NZTA, 2010
� Traffic Control Devices Manual (TCD manual), NZTA, 2010
Site
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 6 of 14
� Guide to Road Design Part 4a: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections,
Part 4b: Roundabouts, Part 6a Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths Austroads,
2009
� Broken Yellow Lines in Kerbside Cycle Lanes, Axel Wilke, 2009
� Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14: Bicycles, Austroads, 1999
� New Zealand Supplement to the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering
Practice Part 14: Bicycles, Transit New Zealand, 2008
� Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design, Austroads 2009
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 7 of 14
3.0 SAFETY AUDIT FINDINGS
3.1 Significant Concern – Bus Tracking into Northern Entrance.
Plan C002 demonstrates the vehicle tracking for a bus as it enters the northern
access. The radius of the proposed kerb is very tight and a bus would require
the full boundary-to-kerb width to make the manoeuvre.
There is a note on the plan indicating that land is required to be purchased.
Unless land can be purchased there is no room for pedestrians to access the site
through this entrance and all pedestrians in the vicinity of the entrance are at
risk.
It is also noted that the tracking of the bus implies that a wider footpath crossing
would be required. This needs to be carefully assessed because pedestrian
safety would be adversely impacted with a wider vehicle crossing. This situation
is exacerbated because only buses would be using the access.
There are therefore a number of conflicting activities occurring around the
entrance that will require careful consideration to provide acceptable solutions
for all the affected parties.
Figure 2 below shows a pedestrian crossing with side and median refuge islands
within 15 metres of the entrance.
Figure 2 - Northern Entrance to Interchange
Service station Entrance
Car park Entrance
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 8 of 14
This crossing does not comply with current standards and should be modified in
conjunction with the project. The entrance to the car park servicing the shops
will need to be modified as a bus will track over the entrance. The street light
pole in the middle of the footpath and the fence will need to be relocated.
The high entry angle vehicle crossing serving the service station is located within
10m of the of the new entrance. Vehicles entering the service station will be at
higher speeds than a vehicle entering a standard shaped vehicle crossing. This
will put pedestrians at risk.
Pedestrian facilities will still be required along Manukau Road to service
pedestrians accessing businesses and the proposed changes will significantly
impact upon the operations. Limited detail is provided in the plans and the
design will need to consider the issues raised.
Recommendation
Provide a comprehensive design during the scheme and detailed design phases
to address the issues described.
Frequency Probability of a crash
occurring
Severity Likelihood of death or
serious injury
Rating The Safety Concern is
Common Likely Significant
Designer Response: Agree with the Safety Audit Team (SAT) comments. Note: The URS scope of works was for preparation of a concept design only and is based on aerial plans only. No topographical survey was available or part of the scope. The northern entrance has been utilised as it offers significant operational and safety benefits compared to the other options investigated that had the buses turning within the bus interchange area. It is understood that Auckland Council’s City Transformation Team are proposing a Streetscape project along this section of Manukau Road. Designer Recommendation:
1. A topographical survey and detailed design are carried out and land requirement plans prepared for land owner negotiation.
2. Consider issues at the entrance as part of the detailed design.
3. Discuss SAT comments with City Transformation Team.
Safety Engineer
Comment:
n/a
Client Decision: Comments to taken forward during detailed design.
Action Taken: Incorporate into detailed design.
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 9 of 14
3.2 Significant Concern – Conflicting Movements at Roundabout
The roundabout at the pedestrian access to the rail station is a tear drop design.
The audit team assume that this design was chosen to discourage drivers from
turning right out of the car park to access Custom Street and conflicting with
buses and kiss and ride vehicles exiting the site.
The width of the carriageway opposite the car park entrance is estimated at 10m
(as scaled off the plan). This is very wide and cars would have no difficulty
turning right out of the car park. In addition, the design of the south eastern
corner of the car park entrance has a square end that will encourage drivers to
turn right as the left turn manoeuvre will be more difficult.
A no right turn sign opposite the entrance and/or directional guidance road
marking would be appropriate in this instance to reinforce the concept.
Recommendation
That the design be modified to encourage drivers to turn left out of the car park
and a ‘No Right Turn’ sign and/or directional guidance road marking be installed
on the roundabout opposite the entrance.
Frequency Probability of a crash
occurring
Severity Likelihood of death or
serious injury
Rating The Safety Concern is
Common Likely Significant
Designer Response: Agree with the Safety Audit Team (SAT) comments. The ‘tear drop’ design is being used to discourage drivers turning right out of the car park as assumed by the SAT. The size of the ‘tear drop’ can be increased, subject to vehicular tracking, to further discourage the right turn manoeuvre. The radii at the exit of the car park can be amended to encourage left turning, subject to the zebra crossing not being affected. Signs and road marking can be added to support the physical measures. Designer Recommendation: Review at the detailed design stage.
Safety Engineer
Comment:
n/a
Client Decision: Comments to taken forward during detailed design.
Action Taken: Incorporate into detailed design.
3.3 Moderate Concern – Operation of the intersection at
Custom Street.
The intersection of Manukau Road and Custom Street was not originally included
in the proposed works for the park and ride facilities and bus interchange. The
project manager has requested that the audit team consider the ramifications of
increased traffic movements at the intersection.
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 10 of 14
Under normal circumstances the intersection would have been modelled using
the micro-simulation software package Sidra (or other similar package) to
determine the most appropriate treatment to manage the increased traffic and
expected change in turning movements. The design would then be given to the
RSA team to assess.
Manukau Road currently has an AADT volume of 16,000 vehicles per day and 6%
of these vehicles are trucks. The 85 percentile speed is approximately 47kph in
a posted environment of 50kph.
The current road layout consists of one lane in each direction, a flush median
with a dedicated right turn facility into Custom Street and edges lines marked on
both sides of the road. In the northbound direction there is also a 70m long left-
turn slip lane into Harris Street
There are ‘No Stopping At All Times’ restrictions on the eastern side of
Manukau Road extending approximately 20m to the north of Custom Street and
over a great distance to the south. Visibility is acceptable in both directions for
the speed environment.
The Harris Street intersection lies approximately 40m north of the Custom Street
intersection. It is also a busy intersection and is part of the over dimension
route that includes Manukau Road.
The volume of vehicles using Manukau Road is relatively high and although there
are gaps in the traffic at peak times it may be difficult for vehicles to exit
Custom Street. In particular, this may disadvantage the slower buses.
If it is assumed that there will be a bus departing the interchange every ten
minutes there will be six buses per hour. If half the vehicles exit the car park
during the same peak hour, say 45 vehicles per hour, this will generate an
additional 50-odd movements per hour. Normally the addition of 50 movements
per hour onto an arterial road does not give rise for concern.
As Custom Street is the feeder for a passenger transport interchange, the
dynamics will be slightly different and when passengers alight from the train
they will all try to exit the car park at the same time. So instead of having a
steady flow there will be concentrated demands that will be similar to a much
higher intensity of traffic movements.
It is also noted that if a bus crosses the southbound lane and has to wait to
enter the northbound traffic lane, there is insufficient room within the flush
median. The waiting bus is likely to extend into the southbound traffic lane and
block southbound traffic. This issue would be further exacerbated if the bus has
to cross two northbound lanes to access Harris Street.
If other areas behind the service centre are developed in the future to provide
additional parking the demand will be increased further.
To adequately address the possible congestion issue, traffic surveys should be
undertaken to determine the existing situation and then the intersection should
be modelled using Sidra using the forecast trips generated by the interchange.
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 11 of 14
This model will give a good indication to the most appropriate treatment and
when upgrades may be required at the intersection.
The identified safety issue is a potential increase in crashes due to frustration at
delays and queue lengths on Custom Street. The relatively low 85 percentile
speed means that the severity of any crash would be reduced but not eliminated.
Recommendation
Carry out traffic surveys and model the existing situation and then model the
intersection with the anticipated increased in movements during the scheme
design stage.
Frequency Probability of a crash
occurring
Severity Likelihood of death or
serious injury
Rating The Safety Concern is
Occasionally Likely Moderate
Designer Response: Agree with the Safety Audit Team (SAT) comments. Detailed consideration of the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection was not included as part of the project scope for preparation of the Pre-feasibility Report for the Pukekohe Station Bus Interchange and Park and Ride. It is understood that an investigation into improvements at the intersection is being managed by Auckland Transport’s Project Delivery Team. Improving the intersection will improve the efficiency of the bus interchange and pedestrian and cycling links across Manukau Road. Designer Recommendation: Auckland Transport commission an investigation into the improvement of the Manukau Road / Custom Street intersection.
Safety Engineer
Comment:
n/a
Client Decision: Comments to taken forward during detailed design.
Action Taken: Incorporate into detailed design.
3.4 Minor Concern – Width of Footpaths /Shared paths
The plans are still in the early stages and no differentiation is indicated between
shared paths and footpaths. The widths of the paths vary considerably and it
would be desirable to verify the requirements for each portion of the works.
Figure 3 below highlights in red some areas where the width of the paths are
inconsistent or will require modifications.
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 12 of 14
Figure 3 Inconsistent path widths
Recommendation
Ensure that the path widths are suitable for the intended uses. .
Frequency Probability of a crash
occurring
Severity Likelihood of death or
serious injury
Rating The Safety Concern is
Occasional Very Unlikely Minor
Designer Response: Agree with the Safety Audit Team (SAT) comments. These are minor issues and can be addressed as part of the detailed design. Designer Recommendation: Review at the detailed design stage.
Safety Engineer Comment:
n/a
Client Decision: Comments to taken forward during detailed design.
Action Taken: Incorporate into detailed design.
3.5 Minor Concern – Manoeuvrability in Car Park
The car parking area is 130 metres long and contains 86 car parks. The width of
the car park at the northern end narrows. Consequently the parking at the
northern end is on one side only. In the event that the car park is full, a driver
will drive to the end of the car park and try to turn around. If all the car parks
are utilised this manoeuvre will be quite difficult and the majority of drivers will
have to reverse out of the car park.
An area could be marked at the end of the parking on the eastern side to provide
a turnaround area for vehicles. The last car park on the western side at the
northern end of the car park is shown up against the boundary. The end parking
space needs to be wider than the other car parks or have a turning area to allow
the vehicle to turn around to exit the car park in a forward direction.
The dimensions of the parking and manoeuvring spaces should comply with the
dimensional requirements of the Auckland Council District Plan. If this is
achieved, the manoeuvring requirements will be acceptable.
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 13 of 14
Recommendation
Ensure that provision is made for vehicles to turn around in the car park.
Frequency Probability of a crash
occurring
Severity Likelihood of death or
serious injury
Rating The Safety Concern is
Occasional Very Unlikely Minor
Designer Response: Agree with the Safety Audit Team (SAT) comments. The SAT comments are noted. It is considered these issues can be addressed as part of the detailed design. Designer Recommendation: Review at the detailed design stage.
Safety Engineer Comment:
n/a
Client Decision: Comments to taken forward during detailed design.
Action Taken: Incorporate into detailed design.
3.6 Comment – Constructability
The audit team appreciates that the design is at concept stage and there is little
information about many aspects of the projects. There are virtually no
dimensions on the plans and some aspects of the works are yet to be agreed.
Some aspects of the work that will have an impact upon safety are street
lighting, signage, road marking, drainage and access to the southern car parking
area. The details of these aspects of the design will need to be verified during
the scheme and detailed design phases.
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 Road Safety Audit
\4401020\140806 Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 Stage 2 RSA (Clients Response).docx
Page 14 of 14
4.0 AUDIT STATEMENT
We certify that we have carried out inspections of the sites and the problems and
comments made in this report are an independent review of the completed work.
We have endeavoured to identify the features of the proposed improvements
that should be considered for modification in order to improve safety.
Signed Date 1 August 2014
Andrew Hunter
Principal Transportation Consultant
Traffic and Transportation Engineers Ltd
Signed Date 1 August 2014
Iris Chen
Graduate Engineer
Traffic and Transportation Engineers Ltd
Designer:
Name Simeon De’ath Position Principal Civil Engineer
Signature
Date 11 August 2014
Safety
Engineer:
Name Position
Signature
Date
Project
Manager:
Name Position
Signature
Date
Action
Completed:
Name Position
Signature
Date
Project Manager to distribute audit report incorporating decision to designer,
Safety Audit Team Leader, Safety Engineer and project file.
Date ____/____/____
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 – Road Safety Audit
4401020\Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3\
Page (A)1
Appendix A
Schedule of Plans
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 – Road Safety Audit
4401020\Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3\
Page (A)2
Auckland Transport Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3 PT Capital Improvements Stage 2 – Road Safety Audit
4401020\Pukekohe Rail Station Option 3\
Page (A)3