BROOKFIELDS / KENSINGTON SWANLevel 979 Boulcott StreetPO Box 25-306Featherston StreetWellingtonPh +64 4 499 9824Fax +64 4 499 9822

Solicitors acting: A F D Cameron /F R Wedde / M K Ward

Contact: F R WeddeDDI: +64 4 498 0847Email: frances.wedde@kensingtonswan.com

Before a Board of Inquiry

Basin Bridge Proposal

Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act)

In the matter of a Board of Inquiry appointed under section 149J of the Act to

consider the New Zealand Transport Agency's notice of

requirement and five resource consent applications for the

Basin Bridge Proposal.

Fourth Statement of Supplementary Evidence of David JamesDunlop for the New Zealand Transport Agency (Transportation)

22 May 2014

1

1 Introduction

1.1 My full name is David James Dunlop.

1.2 This supplementary statement is in response to two requests by the Board during

the course of my evidence regarding:

a design and layout refinements that were made to Option X prior to its

evaluation in February 2013;1

and

b the process of how BCRs are arrived at.2

1.3 I have the qualifications and experience set out at paragraph 1.4 of my statement

of evidence in chief (EIC), dated 25 October 2013.

1.4 I repeat the confirmation given in my EIC that I have read the ‘Code of Conduct’

for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2011 and

that my evidence has been prepared in compliance with that Code.

2 Option X Design and Layout Refinements

2.1 As set out in the Option X Transportation Assessment dated 15 February 2013,3

a number of refinements were made to the Option X design as provided by the

Architectural Centre prior to the February 2013 assessment. The aim of these

refinements was threefold:

a to address transportation operational and safety issues associated with

Option X as far as possible;

b to develop Option X to a level of detail that could be accurately modelled in

SATURN; and

c to develop the design to a level of detail where it could be more accurately

assessed, which also included a comparative assessment against Option A.

2.2 For ease of reference, the relevant plans are attached:

a Annexure A shows Option X as assessed in September 2011;

b Annexure B shows the Opus interpretation of Option X, which was provided

to the Architectural Centre for comment in January 2013;

1 See Transcript Day 10 page 1278.2 See Transcript Day 54 page 62713 Document 8/40 in the bundle of documents, page 2.

2

c Annexures C and D show a further refined version of Option X, which took

into consideration comments we had received from the Architectural Centre

on the Option X layout set out in Annexure B. This version of Option X was

used in the assessment completed in February 2013. Annexure C is a

general plan and Annexure D is an annotated plan with text boxes explaining

the refinements made to the design.

2.3 On 12 February 2013 Opus and the Transport Agency met with the Architectural

Centre to discuss the interpretation of Option X, which is presented in Annexures

C and D. Following that meeting, the plans in Annexures C and D were provided

to the Architectural Centre on 28 February 2013. No further comments or

feedback was received from the Architectural Centre on the plans.

2.4 Below is a summary of the design and layout refinements that were made to

Option X as assessed in the February 2013 assessment:

a The bus stops on Cambridge and Kent Terraces were relocated as a result

of the proposed new alignment.

b The pedestrian crossings on Cambridge Terrace and Kent Terrace were

retained but relocated as a result of the proposed new alignment.

c The southbound bus lane on Sussex Street was relocated to the outside

lane to improve efficiency for buses and general traffic.

d Access between Ellice Street and Hania Street was retained and access to

the Basin Reserve was restricted to SH1 eastbound only as a result of the

alignment.

e A raised pedestrian crossing was provided across Hania Street to provide

access to pedestrians moving east-west through this area. At this time,

Option A also included a raised crossing treatment at this location, although

it has since been removed from the Project due to safety audit concerns.

f An access lane was provided into St Mark’s School, Wellington College,

Government House and adjoining properties on Dufferin/Rugby Streets.

More legibility was provided to better enable safe and legible movement for

vehicles and pedestrians that would move through this area, including for

buses who access the schools.

g A pedestrian crossing was provided across the access lane into the St

Mark’s School area to assist school children crossing in this area.

3

h A roundabout was provided within the access lane in front of St Mark’s

School to allow buses to negotiate through the area. The roundabout allows

buses and private vehicles to access Rugby Street west or Adelaide Road

south from this location.

i Zebra crossings were provided across Rugby Street and Adelaide Road

south and at the Rugby/Adelaide intersection to assist with pedestrian

movements.

j The Adelaide/Rugby intersection was reconfigured and included three signal

phases.

k Southbound vehicles travelling on Sussex Street were restricted from turning

right into Rugby Street due to safety. Vehicles wishing to access the

supermarket from this lane would be required to use the roundabout in front

of St Marks School to access Rugby Street west.

l A recessed school drop off area was provided on the northern side of Rugby

Street to the east of Adelaide Road. This removed buses from the traffic

lane. The conversion of the car yard into bus and school parking was not

included due to the then known development plans for apartments for this

site (the Nuovo Apartments on Rugby Street, which are now nearing

completion).

m Stair access was provided to Kent Terrace from Memorial Park and from the

Green Bridge into the Basin Reserve.

n A shared path bridge was provided across Paterson Street to allow access

between Mt Victoria and the south eastern quadrant of the Basin Reserve.

o Car parking at the Basin Reserve was removed as a result of the green

bridge.

p Car parking was removed on the western side of Sussex Street to permit the

lane arrangements proposed.

3 The Transport Agency Benefit Cost Ratio

3.1 The NZ Transport Agency Economic Evaluation Manual (EEM) outlines the

procedures that must be used to calculate the BCR of a Project.

3.2 I note that the BCR is not the sole factor that the Transport Agency considers in

its decision-making on projects. Mr Blackmore in his evidence in chief outlines the

4

Agency’s overall decision making process for capital projects, which entails

consideration of matters under three headings, namely (1) strategic fit, (2)

effectiveness and (3) efficiency.4

The BCR informs the efficiency factor.

3.3 I set out below an explanation of how the Agency calculates the BCR for a project

in accordance with the EEM. I refer to the EEM that became effective January

2010 as it is this version of the EEM under which the BCR for the Project was

calculated.

3.4 Chapter 5 of the EEM outlines the full procedures that should be used to evaluate

the BCR of a Project. The full procedures consist of a series of worksheets that

are completed to arrive at a BCR.

How Transportation Modelling is used in completing the EEM Full Procedures

3.5 There are a number of different transportation benefits that are evaluated when

calculating a Project BCR. Not all of these benefits are calculated using SATURN

transportation modelling outputs. Table 1 summarises the different benefits and

whether or not these have been calculated using SATURN transportation

modelling.

Table 1: Benefits Calculated to Determine Economic Efficiency

Benefits calculatedusing outputsextracted fromSATURN

Benefits calculated byother means

Travel Time Benefits Congestion Relief Vehicle OperatingCosts

Co2 Benefits Trip Reliability PT Pedestrian and CycleBenefits

Safety Benefits

3.6 Benefits that are calculated by other means for this Project (that is, without using

SATURN outputs), are summarised as follows:

a PT benefits do not rely on SATURN outputs. Using SATURN outputs for this

purpose is not appropriate as SATURN does not model the bus network

operation in enough detail to extract such benefits (e.g. bus pre-signals and

other operational characteristics can’t be accurately modelled in SATURN).

4 Selwyn Blackmore, evidence in chief, from paragraph 2.11.

5

Paramics modelling results were therefore utilised as they better represent

north-south bus operation on the Kent/Cambridge Terrace and Adelaide

Road corridor. PT travel time saving benefits were the only benefits

calculated for PT. The EEM5

procedures were used to calculate these

benefits. No wider PT benefits were calculated (e.g. savings in time and

reliability on other parts of the PT network that may be improved by the

Project, for example, Taranaki Street).

b Pedestrian and cyclist benefits were calculated using the EEM6

procedures

and worksheets.

c Safety benefits were calculated using a project specific crash model7, which

relies on the use of crash statistics from the NZTA Crash Analysis System

and procedures within the EEM8. It should be noted that the crash model

also relies on the SATURN model outputs to represent changes in traffic

flows in the future both with and without the Project.

3.7 When calculating benefits such as travel time, congestion relief, vehicle operating

costs, trip reliability, and carbon dioxide costs, SATURN model outputs for

forecast years are extracted. In this case the forecast years were 2021 and 2031.

The benefits are then either interpolated or extrapolated as necessary to

calculate the benefits for intermediate years, and after 2031.

3.8 In terms of the SATURN modelling outputs themselves which are used to derive

the benefits, these are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: Benefits Calculated to Determine Economic Efficiency

Benefits SATURN outputs used to calculate benefitsTravel Time Benefits Travel time outputs (vehicle hours/hour) are

extracted from the model for all movements, andmultiplied by a value of time ($/hr) from the EEM. Adaily and then annual travel time cost, $/year, is thencalculated from this.

Congestion Relief Delay outputs (vehicle hours/hour) on all turningmovements and on links where the degree ofsaturation is greater than 70% are extracted fromthe model, and multiplied by a value of time ($/hr)from the EEM. A daily and then annual travel timecost, $/year, is then calculated from this.

Vehicle OperatingCosts

Total vehicle kilometres travelled (Vehicle-kilometres/hour) and network speed (kilometres /hour) areextracted from the model, and multiplied by

5 Volume 1, Section A46 Volume 1, Section A47 Refer to Section 6 of Appendix C of the Feasible Options Report for more details around the building of the Project Crash Model.8 Volume 1, Section A6

6

corresponding values (cents per kilometre, and $ perlitre) from the EEM. A daily and then annual traveltime cost, $/year, is then calculated from this

Co2 Benefits The Co2 benefits are calculated based on 4% of thecalculated vehicle operating costs

Trip Reliability Based on the transport model matrix, the benefitsare calculated using traffic volumes, V/C link ratios,intersection types, and use of the EEM

9defined

procedures. The outputs (vehicle hours/hour) aremultiplied by a value of time ($/hr) from the EEM. Adaily and then annual travel time cost, $/year, is thencalculated from this.

3.9 When calculating the benefits the latest version of EEM update factors were

used.

3.10 No wider economic benefits were calculated for the Project in isolation, however,

these benefits were assessed in the Wellington Northern Corridor RoNS

Business Case which increased the BCR from 1.6 to 1.8 for the total package.

4 BCR Calculations presented in my evidence to the Board10

4.1 I can confirm that all of the BCR calculations undertaken and presented in my

Evidence in Chief, Rebuttal Evidence and subsequent supplemental evidence are

based on bespoke network specific SATURN models prepared for the precise

scenario for which a BCR calculation was requested. In other words the SATURN

model network was changed to reflect precisely what improvements were to be

included or excluded (for example, Taranaki Street intersection improvements, 3-

laning of Buckle Street, or 3-laning of Vivian Street, etc).

4.2 In other words BCRs for the disaggregated Project were not calculated by means

of addition and/or subtraction. To do so would be misleading as each network will

behave differently when different elements are added or subtracted from the

model. Accordingly, in transportation economics terms it is entirely reasonable

and expected that the correlation benefits between separate components are

sometimes higher or lower than the combined benefits of those separate

components.

4.3 As has been documented in my EIC11

and Rebuttal12

, the transport models have

also been updated and refined to better reflect current and forecast land use and

associated transport patterns (e.g. 2011 SATURN model revalidation and the

creation of a weekend model). During this time other changes have also occurred

9 Volume 1, Section A4.510 Presented in David Dunlop’s Supplementary Evidence Dated 9 March 2014 and 29 March 201411 Paragraph 6.1712 Paragraph 4.2

7

such as shifts in the Wellington Northern Corridor RoNS programme and changes

to the EEM.

David James Dunlop22 May 2014

8

Annexure A: Option X as assessed in September 2011

Annexure B: Opus’s Interpretation of Option X for Architecture Centre Comment in January 2013

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Annexure C: Option X as assessed in February 2013

16

Annexure D: Plan showing refinements made to Option X in February 2013 assessment (annotated for modelling, cost estimate andassessment)