appendix b: wind farm access point, over-dimension and over-weight
Post on 03-Feb-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Appendix B: Wind Farm Access Point, Over-dimension and Over-weight Transportation Route Summary
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
1. Wind Farm Access Points, Over-dimension and Over-weight Transportation Route Summary
A route assessment has been undertaken for the Site access route from the Port of Napier to Pahiatua on SH2 and then along local public roads through to the Wind Farm Access Points.
1.1 Route Assessment Parameters
The parameters that have been adopted as a basis for governing the route assessment are as follows:
� Pavement design;
� Bridge design;
� Bridge dimension;
� Road geometry;
� Road gradient;
� Current condition;
� Serviceability; and
� Property boundaries.
The strength of route components is assessed through pavement design, bridge design, current condition and serviceability. These parameters have influenced the ability to transport heavy loads, such as, the turbine nacelle and tower sections as well as the CHWF transformers. The New Zealand Transport Agency and District Councils concerned have identified structures on the proposed route. Where the parameters have indicated issues additional strengthening may be required and possible solutions have been developed.
Dimensional constraints of the proposed route have been assessed by considering bridge dimension, road gradient, road geometry, current condition and property boundaries. Transportation of long Over-dimension loads, such as the turbine blades and tower sections, has required considerable space on route to allow passage. Tight bends, steep gradients, crests, underpasses, and constricting road widths may prevent passage of long and wide loads, such as those needed for the CHWF components, and road reconfiguration work may be required to remedy.
Dimensions of bridges and culverts on proposed routes within the Tararua and Masterton District are outlined in Appendix H. The scope of potential work required on the Local Road bridge structures is summarised on Figure 28 (Appendix A).
1.2 Assessment Methodology Assessment of the proposed route from the Port of Napier to the CHWF has been a complex process. Understanding the loads being carried was the first consideration. Followed by considering what sort of transportation was needed and how manoeuvrable it was. A selected route was then driven from the Port of Napier to Castle Hill to assess a first-hand perspective of possible routes to Site. The preferred Over-dimension route from the Port of Napier to CHWF is from Napier to Hamua along SH2. Then from Hamua to Alfredton via Rongomai and along
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Mangaone Valley Road. From Alfredton, Over-dimension transport is proposed to take the desired route to Site along Route 52, Castle Hill Road and/or Daggs Road.
The preferred route was chosen by selecting the most direct route from Napier to CHWF that utilised main roads through townships and state highways that appeared to have to the least geometric constraints. A more detailed analysis of the proposed route has been done by consulting the District Councils of Tararua and Masterton and local branches of NZTA. Outcomes of this consultation yielded strength and dimensional parameters of concern and indicated where the route had to be refined. For example, just north of Eketahuna there is a rail over bridge crossing SH2. The CHWF Over-dimension loads could not pass underneath due to a height restriction of 4.39m beneath this over bridge. A rail over-pass is available at this location. This has however been assessed as inappropriate due to the nature of the approach grades. The route has been refined so that turbine component transport turns off SH2 at Hamua instead of travelling down to Eketahuna. The Councils have provided information on existing structures along the route. Structures of concern have been identified and solutions to remedy issues, such as strength and dimensions constraints, have been compiled.
The Local Road options for the approach of Over-weight and Over-dimension transport from SH2 to the CHWF Site have been concluded as:
� Pahiatua to Rongomai;
� Hamua to Rongomai; and
� Rongomai to Alfredton via Mangaone Valley Road.
From Alfredton there are three routes to the Site:
� Route 52 onto Waitawhiti Road, Waihoki Valley Road and Rimu Road;
� Castle Hill Road; and
� Daggs Road onto Maringi Road.
Other haulage, such as aggregate transport, can also approach from Eketahuna to Alfredton. When approaching from the south, Masterton for example, other haulage can go onto Daggs Road along Whangaehu Valley Road and onto Maringi Road along Manawa Road.
In general, the route between the Port of Napier and Alfredton requires minimal earthworks. Between Alfredton and the Site, the narrow and winding sections of the road are expected to require varying degrees of enhancement. In steep and winding terrain narrower sections of the road are expected to require some significant earthworks and construction. The principal route on the state highway sections of the road follow the defined NZTA Over-dimension vehicle routes, including local bypasses. A separate and detailed Over-dimension vehicle route application will be made as part of the building consent process.
Suitability of bends and intersections are broadly based on the parameters supplied by Siemens for their 2.3MW VS turbines. Overviews and impressions formed On-Site and from the desktop investigations have been used as part of the determination of preferred routes. Detailed analyses and design of necessary improvements for particular intersections or alignments are proposed to be undertaken at detailed design stage. For the purposes of quantification however, bends have been classified and some detailed design has been completed.
A swept path analysis has been performed on parts of the route proposed from the Port of Napier to the CHWF Site. Use of tracking curves relating to various radii of curvature for different bends overlaid on aerial photographs of critical alignments. This data has been corrected with the curve
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
categories. Additional Site surveys have been undertaken at a representative sample of curves in order to identify the potential and expected extent of earthworks. The analysis has identified locations where geometric upgrades, transposing of services and vegetation trimming are likely to be required. Areas of the route requiring geometric upgrades are focused around the turning capabilities of transporters that are to deliver turbine components to turbine Sites. The turbine blade is the component imposing the greatest geometrical constraint as it requires the largest radius for turning and has swing areas to consider due to the overhanging load. Structural and geometrical upgrades are expected along the proposed transportation route from the Port of Napier to CHWF.
The District Councils and NZTA have identified structures requiring further investigation due to strength and/or dimensional constraints. They have also assisted with identifying structures on the proposed route that will require upgrading to provide the dimension and/or strength to support the transported turbine components. Such improvements involve bridge strengthening by fitting additional steel work, deck thickening or replacement, additional beams and pier, or abutment strengthening. Dimensional upgrades range from removing handrails to reconstructing the bridge by widening the piers, abutment and carriage way to provide the required width necessary.
NZTA and District Councils have considered pavement parameters and have advised areas of concern. A process of observing quality will be implemented and where damage is seen rectification work will be done by the Consent Holder through the CTMP. It is planned that as part of the comprehensive and detailed planning for access to the Site, a trial drive over using a representative telescopic trailer will be undertaken to inform and confirm actual Site design requirements. The individual component parts of the routes are assessed in following sections.
1.3 State Highway Network Constraints SH2 from Napier to Eketahuna is generally seen as a viable route for the largest and heaviest turbine components. There are some 43 bridge or significant culvert structures in this length ranging from 2m culverts to 300m long river crossings. Height constraints exist under a road bridge near Norsewood with a 4.8m clearance (to be confirmed) and a rail overbridge just north of Eketahuna (4.39m). The Norsewood Bridge has an adjacent bypass route which is relatively short whilst the Eketahuna bypass is lengthy and difficult. There is however a more local at grade rail bypass adjacent to the rail structure that could be investigated in the event it were to emerge as a primary Port delivery route. Such a provision would require consultation with On-Track and some upgrading of the access and crossing provisioning. Notwithstanding this potential facility, there remain some additional network constraints east of Eketahuna to be considered. Based on the route being proposed, traffic would turn off before Eketahuna and this diversion would not be required. The route passes through various townships and there are several intersections within them that will require careful negotiation with the largest transporters. Areas of particular note are Eketahuna (for smaller vehicles where bypass route not required) Woodville, Dannevirke, Waipukurau, Hastings and Napier. Assessments indicate that all the intersections can be negotiated by either minor modification works, temporary removal of street furniture and or coupled with appropriate traffic management measures. Other bends on the route have generally relatively large (traversable) radii and can be negotiated without recourse to physical upgrade works.
Pahiatua, Hamua and Eketahuna have been identified as localities where exits from SH2 onto rural routes have been identified. The most favourable, Hamua, presents a simplified route when considering structures and geometric constraints. Eketahuna would produce a more direct route
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
after exiting SH2 but due to transport not being able to pass a rail over bridge the turn off at Eketahuna will not be utilised for turbine transportation. Pahiatua provides the earliest turn off from SH2 but the road network from Pahiatua Rongomai involves more constraints than that from Hamua and Eketahuna.
1.4 SH2: Napier to Eketahuna
The distance by road from Eketahuna to Napier is approximately 190km. The Over-dimension/Over-weight vehicle route travels through Pahiatua, Woodville, Dannevirke, Waipukurau, and Waipawa into Hastings and Napier. The NZTA route generally follows SH2 with some local bypass options in some townships.
At Pakipaki the designated heavy vehicle route switches to SH50A which travels around the northern fringe of Hastings, connecting to SH50 in Napier and travelling to the Port Napier through Ahuriri. Examples of the route, viewed from Eketahuna travelling towards Napier are shown below.
Photograph 1: SH2, Eketahuna
Photograph 2: Nireaha Road, Eketahuna (local heavy bypass)
Photograph 3: Height Restriction, SH2 north of Eketahuna. Note: an Over-dimension bypass may be available at this location subject to approval by On-Track.
Photograph 4: SH2, Pahiatua
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Photograph 5: SH2 entering Woodville
Photograph 6: SH3 and SH2 Woodville
Photograph 7: SH2 Dannevirke
Photograph 8: Rawhiti Street Dannevirke (local heavy bypass)
Photograph 9: SH2, South of SH50 Intersection
Photograph 10: SH2 Waipukurau
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Photograph 11: Railway Esplanade, Waipukurau (local heavy bypass)
Photograph 12: SH2 south of Waipawa
Photograph 13: SH2 Waipawa
Photograph 14: SH2/SH50A Intersection
Photograph 15: SH50A, Pakipaki
Photograph 16: SH50, Pakowhai
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Photograph 17: Prebensen Drive, Napier
Photograph 18: SH2/SH50 Pandora, Napier
Photograph 19: SAH50 Ahuriri
Photograph 20: Port of Napier Gate, SH50
The photographs illustrate that the route between Eketahuna and Napier is generally flat with a gentle horizontal alignment.
SH2 from Napier to Pahiatua/Hamua has been identified as the most likely route for transporting the largest and heaviest turbine components at this stage of the planning. This is however not intended to rule out the possible use of alternate port access where such a need or opportunity becomes evident in future.
From the Port of Napier, turbine components can be transported on SH2 continuing on SH50 / SH50A and reconnecting at SH2 intersection south of Hastings. This would enable vehicles to bypass and/or exit highly populated areas. The alternative would be to travel on SH2 from the Port bypassing Hastings on St. Georges Road and Te Aute Road and continue on SH2 to Pahiatua and Hamua. An option for exit from the state highway route is proposed at these two locations.
An application for an Over-dimension permit has been submitted to NZTA, and is intended to be submitted to the local authorities also. These applications present the worst case loads to be transported. Dimensionally they are a combination of the extreme measures of turbine components taken by combining multiple manufacturers’ measurements and using the maximum dimensions across the lot. The same approach has been used for weight. Therefore it is important to note that the dimension and weight combinations are not necessarily the true representation of any one component made by a current manufacturer but rather a representation
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
of the full spectrum of manufacturers’ considered for turbine supply. This approach has provided to define an envelope for the transportation of Over-dimensioned components.
Having done this, NZTA replied bringing to light a number of constraints that they have identified requiring further investigation for the transport of turbine components to be possible. Proposals to overcome these constraints have been submitted to the branches of NZTA and will be developed to a final solution for approval prior to the commencement of the activity.
1.5 Pahiatua to Alfredton Road
This route follows Mangaone Valley Road, turns off SH2 onto Tiraumea Road and Kaitawa Road passing through the settlement of Rongomai to connect with Alfredton Road east of Eketahuna. The road crosses five significant culvert structures and six bridges. Most of the bridges have relatively short spans with the exception of a 48m long concrete arch structure over a tributary of the Tiraumea River. There may be a need for some minor intersection improvements off SH2 and at Alfredton Road although there have been some significant upgrades to this intersection recently.
1.6 Hamua Rongomai Road
Hamua Rongomai Road is approximately 14km south of Pahiatua and is an alternative route to Alfredton via Mangaone Valley Road. The road has three bridge structures two relatively short and a longer 60m crossing of the Makakahi River. Two (including the latter) are single-lane bridges. Access to the road off SH2 is via a wide sweeping turn through the intersection. These structures warrant further investigation.
1.7 Eketahuna to Alfredton
Alfredton is an 18km trip from Eketahuna along Alfredton Road. Alfredton Road has a sealed carriageway of between 6.0m and 6.5m and follows an alignment that is gently undulating with some horizontal curves. Some examples of the route are shown in the photographs below.
Photograph 21: Alfredton Road, Example 1
Photograph 22: Alfredton Road, Stock Moving
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Photograph 23: Alfredton Road, entering Eketahuna
Photograph 24: Railway Crossing, Alfredton Road / Herbert Street, Eketahuna
Photograph 25: Herbert / Jones/Main Flush Roundabout, Eketahuna
Photograph 26: SH2/Main Street Eketahuna, looking north
As Alfredton Road enters Eketahuna it travels through a residential area, crosses a railway and connects to Herbert Road then Main Street to intersect with SH2.
The low height rail over bridge at Newman (north of Eketahuna) excludes the SH2 route between Hamua and Eketahuna as a haulage route for Over-dimension vehicles. As such, Alfredton Road between Eketahuna and Mangaone Valley Road is not intended to be used for the haulage of turbine components. It is however proposed to be used for typical construction vehicle movements and material supply where the occasional need arises.
Alfredton Road from Mangaone Valley Road to Alfredton is the most likely connection route through to Route 52 rather than Pa Valley Road as there is a challenging alignment mid way along Pa Valley Road. Three culverts and three bridges of varying width have been identified as requiring more particular assessments. One of the bridges approaching the Route 52 intersection has a single carriageway. The intersection with Mangaone Valley Road is currently a relatively wide sweeping bend. Alfredton Road connects to Route 52 at a tee-intersection. The intersection is relatively spacious however some minor seal widening may be necessary to accommodate Over-dimension vehicle tracking.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
1.8 Route 52: North of Alfredton
From its intersection with Castle Hill Road in Alfredton, Route 52 has a sealed carriageway between 5.7 and 6.1m wide with some painted centreline and edge lines. Its alignment is generally flat with some undulations. East of Waitawhiti Road and Waihoki Valley Road the carriageway narrows to 4.8m wide in some sections and the horizontal and vertical curvature increases.
Of particular note is the predominant use of Route 52 by tourists. This includes foreign tourists and the relatively frequent use of the route by campervans. Additionally, the route is recognised as a popular motorcycle tourist route, such as typically can involve groups of motorcyclists travelling through the area on weekends in particular. These characteristics are matters that will warrant particular recognition as part of the development of the Construction Traffic Management planning and briefing of local drivers.
Waitawhiti Road and Waihoki Valley Road both intersect with Route 52 at uncontrolled tee-intersections. At the Waitawhiti Road intersection visibility is limited when looking from Waitawhiti Road to the west around a bend in Route 52. Both roads are sealed at their intersections with Route 52 and then unsealed as they travel up into the Site. Some examples of Route 52, Waitawhiti Road and Waihoki Road are shown in the photographs below.
Photograph 27: Route 52, east of Saunders Road
Photograph 28: Route 52, One-LaneBridge approximately 3km west of Saunders Road
Photograph 29: Route 52, east of Waitawhiti Road
Photograph 4: Route 30, east of Waihoki Valley Road
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Photograph 31: Waitawhiti Road
Photograph 32: Waihoki Valley Road
There are a number of single and two-lane bridges, communities and schools along this route. Information provided by TDC shows a total of seven bridges and four significant culvert structures on this route. Route 52provides access to the northern turbine Clusters and the Waihoki Road and Waitawhiti Road Wind Farm Access Points.
There are four significant two-lane bridges some of which have multiple spans on Route 52 from Alfredton. The Route 52/Alfredton Road intersection is relatively spacious. This portion of the route has a relatively good alignment with only one or two bends identified where widening may be required. Some sections have been identified where upgrading will be required if they are to accommodate over-length vehicles, for example the 1km section located about 2.5km east of Waihoki Valley Road.
The northern most turbine Cluster A is proposed to be accessed from Rakaunui Road (a private access road off Route 52) subject to landowner agreement. Rakaunui Road is a metalled farm road with links to the proposed internal access roads. The straight sections of Rakaunui Road are 5m wide. Localised widening on corners and trimming of the crests are likely to be required to meet operable geometric parameters specified for the transport of turbine components. A reasonably steep section of the proposed alignment to the north of the farmyards will require further investigation at the detailed design phase. Some significant earthworks may be required to provide a suitable grade for transportation requirements. This section of the road leads to an elevated plateau. It is anticipated that some internal earthworks will be required for access, particularly in the areas of sloping terrain. Localised widening and re-grading of the existing farm tracks will also be needed along undulating ridgelines.
1.9 Waitawhiti and Waihoki Valley Roads
Waitawhiti Road accommodates two concrete bridges of 4.4m and 6.5m width. Extending south from Route 52, Waitawhiti Road provides for access to turbine Clusters B and C. Studies indicate that the road requires some minor upgrades at a few selected corners to achieve this. The main access to Clusters B will be from Waihoki Valley Road. A single-lane bridge and a large culvert are located on Waihoki Valley Road. A few bends have been identified that will require moderate widening and realignment work.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
1.10 Route 52: Alfredton to Daggs Road
This is one proposed route from Alfredton to the Daggs Road Wind Farm Access Point. On this route are two culverts and a short bridge. The road alignment is considered to be generally adequate requiring minimal, if any widening. Access from Alfredton Road onto Route 52 is via a generous turn but some seal widening at this location would be beneficial given the potential high usage proposed for this route. The intersection with Daggs Road is relatively spacious but minor intersection improvements may be necessary to safely accommodate increased construction traffic flows.
1.11 Castle Hill Road, Alfredton Tinui Road and Manawa Road
Manawa Road, Alfredton-Tinui Road and Castle Hill Road form a route across the Site from Tinui in the south to Alfredton in the north. Several accesses to the CHWF are proposed along this route. Examples of the route viewed travelling from Tinui to Alfredton are shown in the following photographs.
As it leaves Tinui, Manawa Road has a sealed carriageway with a width of 6m and is generally straight and flat in alignment. East of Springhill Road there is a single lane bridge with a speed restriction of 10km/h for heavy vehicles. Beyond this point the carriageway narrows to between 5.0 and 5.7m and there are some tighter horizontal curves.
Approximately 2km south of the Alfredton-Tinui Road intersection, the carriageway changes to an unsealed formation and is about 5.7m wide.
Alfredton-Tinui Road rises up from Manawa Road and has a 5m wide unsealed carriageway which narrows to 4.7m by Woodstave Road. There are signs on Alfredton-Tinui Road warning of the presence of logging trucks and there are several forestry accesses along its length. Most of these accesses are signed as being for entry by permit only.
There are some low radius geometric alignments along Alfredton -Tinui Road which present some engineering challenges where these may warrant improvements.
West of the Tararua/Masterton District boundary, Castle Hill Road generally has an unsealed carriageway of 5.0m which widens to 6.5m near the Ngarata Road intersection. Approximately 3km east of this intersection Castle Hill Road becomes a sealed carriageway between 6.0m and 6.5m wide through to where it meets Route 52. The following photographs show examples of these roads viewed travelling from Tinui to Alfredton.
Photograph 33: Charles Street, Tinui
Photograph 34: Manawa Road, North of Tinui, one-lane
bridge
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Photograph 35: Manawa Road, sealed carriageway
Photograph 36: Manawa Road, unsealed carriageway
Photograph 37: Alfredton-Tinui Road, at Manawa RoadIntersection
Photograph 38: Alfredton-Tinui Road, Example 1
Photograph 39: Alfredton-Tinui Road, Example 2 including one-lane bridge and private access
Photograph 40: Alfredton-Tinui Road, Example 3
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Photograph 41: Castle Hill Road, Example 1
Photograph 42: Castle Hill Road / Ngarata Road Intersection
Photograph 43: Castle Hill Road, one-lane bridge
Photograph 44: Castle Hill Road
Route 52 at Alfredton connects to Castle Hill Road at a wide tee-intersection. As a principal construction traffic intersection it may warrant some enhancement. There appears to be sufficient space to make such improvements without the need for land take. Information supplied by the Tararua District Council indicates six bridges and a large culvert located on this road. One of the bridges is a reasonably significant two-lane structure 7.4m wide. The other five are smaller single-lane bridges 4.5m wide.
Castle Hill Road is to provide the primary route for access to turbine Clusters D, E, F and G as well as carry quarry traffic transporting aggregates to form the Internal Roading and other pavement construction elements. The numerous low radius bends and difficult vertical topography on the eastern side of the range in particular, make the task of upgrading the central portion of this road (to a standard suitable for large turbine components) challenging when compared with some of the other alternatives. Notwithstanding, it has been determined that Castle Hill Road is the preferred Over-weight and Over-dimension route for access to Clusters D, E, F, and G.
1.12 Daggs Road
Daggs Road is intended to be accessed from Route 52 via a relatively spacious intersection. There are no bridges or large culverts on this road. Daggs Road may provide access to turbine Clusters E and G. The first 2km of Daggs Road is reasonably straight after which the road
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
becomes increasingly steep and with low radius curves. This has been considered, however is not proposed as a turbine delivery route due to the significant earthworks quantities necessary to bring it up to a safe and useable standard. Some standard and legal truck movements may infrequent the road for local materials access to the southern part of Cluster G.
1.13 Masterton to Daggs Road
The route from Masterton to Daggs Road is proposed to be via Te Ore Ore Road, Te-Ore Ore Bideford Road and Whangaehu Valley Road. This route may be used to transport construction material and consumables from Masterton to Site lay down areas. At this stage of the planning it is not expected or currently planned to accommodate Over-weight or Over-dimension vehicle movements on this section of the network. Investigations indicate that this route can satisfactorily accommodate the expected and temporary increase in construction traffic movements without the need for significant alignment changes. Some minor and localised improvements may however be necessary.
1.14 Masterton to Manawa Road via Masterton-Castlepoint Road
This route is an alternative route which connects to Manawa Road providing access to southern Clusters E and F. Travel to this access on Masterton-Castlepoint Road is a 44km trip from Masterton to Tinui, then a further 10km along Manawa Road. On this route is a steel girder/ timber deck bridge with a posted load restriction, located 7km north of Tinui. This bridge in its current condition would not be suitable for regular heavy construction traffic. From Tinui north, the road has some low radius bends. If this route is to be used for regular access both the bridge and some bends are likely to require replacement or upgrade.
A review of the road safety history of Masterton-Castlepoint Road indicates that it has some potential safety issues, particularly on the eastern side of the range. This road has also been assessed as unsuitable (in its current form) for transport of turbine components due to the significant additional travel distances and the additional community exposure it would generate. It may however be used as an alternative route for construction traffic carting material and consumables to and from Masterton, and is currently used by logging trucks at times.
1.15 Eketahuna to the South
The distance by road between Eketahuna and Wellington central is approximately 140km. Over-dimension vehicles could travel along the posted New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Over-dimension/Over-weight vehicle route following SH2 from Wellington, through Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt and over the Rimutaka Range, although there are some notable physical restrictions and constraints that may warrant significant mitigation contributions. Not to preclude the potential future use of the route for some Port based movements, the route is not currently a primary consideration. Examples of the route, viewed from Wellington travelling towards Eketahuna are shown below.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Photograph 45: Aotea Quay, Wellington
Photograph 46: SH2, Hutt Road
Photograph 47: SH2, TotaraPark
Photograph 48: SH2, Rimutaka Range Example 1
Photograph 49: SH2, Rimutaka Range Example 2
Photograph 50: SH2, Rimutaka Range Example 3
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Photograph 51: SH2 Entering Featherston
Photograph 52: SH2, Featherston Central
Photograph 53: SH2 in Greytown (south)
Photograph 54: SH2 in Greytown (central)
Photograph 55: SH2 in Carterton (south)
Photograph 56: SH2 in Carterton (central)
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Photograph 57: SH2 between Carterton and Masterton
Photograph 58: SH2/Ngaumutawa Road, Masterton
Photograph 59: Ngaumutawa Road, Masterton (local heavy bypass)
Photograph 60: Paierau Road, Masterton (local heavy bypass)
Photograph 61: SH2 Approach to Eketahuna (looking south)
Photograph 62: SH2 Approach to Eketahuna (looking north)
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Appendix C: Port Options for Turbine Delivery
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
1. Port Options for Turbine Delivery
The majority of wind turbine components are manufactured overseas and will be transported by ship to New Zealand. The components are then typically transported by road to the Site. The following sections consider the options for transport of materials between the Ports and the Site. The Ports that have been considered for delivery of large turbine components are:
� Port of Napier;
� CentrePort (Wellington) via Rimutaka;
� CentrePort (Wellington) via Palmerston North; and
� Port Taranaki;
Road transport route selection can be based on the following parameters:
� Distances from Ports to the CHWF Site;
� The terrain;
� Typical road and weather conditions;
� Traffic volumes and composition;
� The capacity of infrastructure components e.g. bridges and culverts, to accommodate the expected loads;
� The clearance between the loads and obstructions e.g. power lines, narrow bridges and tunnels;
� Clearance for turning manoeuvres particularly at intersections; and
� Potential to impact on communities not on the defined Over-dimension vehicle routes.
The Port of Napier, Port Taranaki and CentrePort Wellington are all potential landing points for the imported turbine components. Investigations have been undertaken for each of these Ports to determine the most likely route warranting further detailed assessment. This assessment is however not intended to preclude any of the Port options.
Table 1 below shows the results of a qualitative assessment matrix of each Port option against the primary transport decision influencing criteria. Each criteria is ranked as either the first preference (green), second preference (orange) or third preference (red).
CRITERIA CENTREPORT WELLINGTONVia Rimutaka
CENTREPORT WELLINGTON
Via Palmerston
North
PORT TARANAKI
PORT OF NAPIER
Travel Distance
Terrain
Complexity (intersections, clearances)
Typical Road and Weather Conditions
Infrastructure
Traffic Volumes
Table 1: Port Access Options Comparative Assessment Matrix
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
It can quite readily be seen from the summary that the Port of Napier indicates some advantages over the other options. The particular considerations relating to each of the options assessed are however further considered in the following sections.
1.1 Port of Napier Route
The Port of Napier is an advantageous Port option in terms of route assessment. Overall, this delivery route via SH2 is relatively simple and has been used previously for other CHWF Sites. Some areas may require minor upgrade work to fully accommodate Over-dimension vehicles. An application has been prepared by Aurecon to clearly identify the Over-dimension and Over-weight requirements for permit to transport on this route.
To allow for some flexibility in route choice, further investigation has been undertaken for state highway routes within the Hawke's Bay region. SH50A is the favoured route as it enables vehicles to bypass and/or exit highly populated areas sooner. The principal geometric constraint to travel along this section of roadway is due to the presence of roundabouts. A vehicle tracking assessment of the capability of the Over-dimension (long) loads to traverse the roundabouts has been made. The roundabout at the intersection of Taradale Road and SH2 has been taken as a representative example. The tracking requirements are shown on Figure 12 (Appendix A). The following key observations can be made:
� The vehicle tracking is able to traverse the roundabout with front and rear wheel combinations wholly within the formed carriageway surfaces;
� It may be necessary for the longest of the loads to engage manual steering for the rear bogies to ensure tracking remains wholly within the carriageway and this will require pausing in advance of the roundabout, in a lane to achieve this. The necessary traffic management control will however need to temporarily halt all entering traffic movements with the potential to conflict with the load, as it traverses the roundabout, as both entry, circulating and departure lanes will be required for the movement;
� The rear overhang and the centre of the long load (the blade) are expected to encroach in areas of the verge and centre roundabout island. This will necessitate the temporary removal of signage where it extends above the lowest point of the load.
Notwithstanding these encroachments above the road surface, it is evident that the movement is able to occur wholly within the road reserve and tracking within the carriageway space.
Consultation with NZTA has identified a section of the highway that is winding and of particular interest in terms of vehicle tracking. The Site is on SH2 between Tataramoa Road and School Road, about 8km north of Dannevirke. It involves a winding section of road dropping down to a bridge and rising up to Tataramoa Road as the vehicle travels to the south. A tracking assessment for the longest of the Over-dimension loads has been undertaken on this section of road. The set of plans are attached as Figures 13to 16(Appendix A) inclusive. They show the following:
� The carriageway is adequate in width to readily accommodate the moving vehicle;
� The approach alignments to the bridge are long enough to enable the vehicle to pass across the bridge within the bridge and barrier physical dimensions;
� The dimensions of tracking width that have been included on the figures show that on some of the curves up to 5.2m total tracking envelope is expected.
This assessment reinforces the level of moving traffic management that will be required as part of the Permit provisions for the loads. The envelope of travel is able to be maintained wholly within
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
the 7.0m main carriageway. There are additionally formed and sealed shoulders outside of this. Notably the bridge approach guard railing on one side minimises the available carriageway width, although at this location the vehicle is travelling relatively straight and minimal additional road width is required. It will therefore be necessary to put in place temporary opposing vehicle warning and in some restricted locations short term stops to avoid the potential for a collision between the load and opposing vehicles.
The geometry of the remainder of the state highway is generally able to accommodate the length and width of the Over-dimension loads using existing by-passes where necessary. There are however a number of constraints that exist along the route and which will be assessed as part of the Over-dimension and Over-weight vehicle permit requirements.
An analysis of bridge structures is underway to establish bridge loading capacities. Further analysis is also being progressed to determine particular operating conditions to enable the loads to be carried, and/or establish the need to develop temporary strengthening measures and possibly bring forward the planned replacement by NZTA and or the local authorities. This is predominantly a structural assessment that is being progressed with NZTA and Council engineering input.
Port of Napier has confirmed that it is able to provide for the berthing and unloading requirements for turbine components. Temporary laydown areas can also be provided within the Port boundary to store the turbine components until they are transported to Site. The Port has confirmed that laydown areas of 20,000 m2 can be provided within the Port boundary. This area is able to be secured by Port security. Should additional area be required, the Port of Napier has identified an external undeveloped site that can also be used, close to the Port.
1.2 CentrePort (Wellington) Route
Two options have been assessed in relation to the CentrePort option. Site access via the Rimutaka Hill route is relatively direct, however the Palmerston North option is about 60km longer. The Palmerston North route option has some similar traits to the Port of Taranaki option, and these issues put it in a slightly less favourable light.
CentrePort is the closest Port to the Site, as the crow flies. The most direct route is via SH2. Access from this Port to the Site would either be completely by road (several routes) or on rail and then by road. Routes from Wellington using SH1 include sections with very high traffic flows and several tight radius curves, steep grades, and other geometric considerations on the Rimutaka Hill Road from Upper Hutt to Featherston.
Upgrades to a section of the SH1 route are planned and in some cases already underway by NZTA, however the route is not expected to be suitable to accommodate the Over-dimension or Over-weight loads. The potential suitability remains an option for the purposes of this assessment however. The movement of Over-dimension / Over-weight vehicles will require a separate permit application process where it emerges as necessary.
Transhipment by rail to avoid the hill road has been assessed. Rail as a transport option is assessed in more detail later in this assessment.
1.3 Port Taranaki Route
Port Taranaki could be a suitable Port for turbine components delivery. This Port is furthest from the CHWF Site. This route is however complex with steep hills and it also presents a less direct
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
route. It is the most intricate, as the route passes through two major centres (Wanganui and Palmerston North). There is also an Over-weight restriction in place between Ashhurst and Woodville townships which means a diversion is required through road segments with constrained horizontal alignment. There are alternative routes which could be used as a by-pass however, these will take much longer to travel through. While this is an unlikely option, it is intended to remain as an alternative in the event of any future opportunities that may arise.
1.4 Alternative Transport Mode Options
Neither rail, barge or air transport usefully or practically assist with turbine component delivery in relation to this project. Infrastructure constraints and logistical complexities make these options impractical. Appendix C assesses the alternative transport mode options considered for the project. Notwithstanding this, the Genesis Energy intends to retain an open mind about future possibilities. Helicopter transport is possible in relation to the movement of smaller and lighter elements such as the transmission tower components. This assessment does not rely on alternate transport options.
Some principal alternative to road transport options have been assessed to determine the initial feasibility and potential for their adoption. The provisioning in relation to the alternatives are all based on different parameters. The physical component dimensions however are common to all options. These have been described in the preceding sections, and the principal alternate option assessments are set out as follows. Rail
An assessment of turbine components against the Kiwi Rail Freight Handling Code (September 2009) guidelines classifies the components as oversize (Over-dimension) and/or Over-weight. Over-dimension and Over-weight loads can be transported by rail however only with a permit that specifies conditions under which they may be carried. The following diagram taken from the code indicates the typical cross sectional envelope characteristics that are permitted.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Diagram 1: Standard Loading Rail Gauge
The gauge dimensions are reasonably limiting on rail at cross sectional maximums of 2.8m wide and 2.9m high). The diameter of the tower sections and the height and width dimensions of the nacelle (at 5.1m high and 4.97m wide) are significantly greater than the gauge envelope.
The maximum axel load limits for the relevant line lengths are shown in the following diagram:
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Diagram 2: Rail Axel Load Limits
The capability for loaded rail transport to the Site is limited by the capacity of the section of the line generally between Masterton and about Palmerston North. The carrying capacity here is about 64 tonne, whereas the nacelle is likely to be in the range of 70 tonne and the transformer units are likely to be up to 200 tonne. The code also indicates that there is a maximum speed of 25km/h for loads over 40,000kg (40 tonne).
Freight movements are relatively restricted and freight runs, particularly within the Wairarapa region, are irregular due to low demand. At present the freight service that runs through Eketahuna is not in operation and the freight service currently runs Napier - Palmerston North - Wellington - Masterton. Discussions with Kiwi Rail have identified a constraining tunnel at the Manawatu Gorge near Woodville that currently causes ‘bottle-necking’ in the rail network. The tunnel is large enough for standard size container loads only and therefore limits transport through it to freight of a standard loading gauge. The Standard Loading Gauge from Section 22 of the Kiwi Rail Freight Handling Code, “Oversize and Overweight Loads”, specifies a maximum width of 2.8m and maximum height of 2.9m for 750mm out from the centre-line. Further departure from the centre-line results in a decrease in the permissible height. Such limitations in
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
infrastructure prevent transit of turbine components from practically being achieved from Woodville to Eketahuna.
There may be some capacity for transport of smaller components by rail, however much of this may also be transportable on loads that will be travelling by road. Some of the smaller materials may well be available locally, and the rail is not closely located to the Site. It is therefore evident that there is little potential advantage in pursuing the opportunity of transport by rail for this project.
Barge
Barging has been considered. The coast closest to the CHWF is managed by the Greater Wellington Regional Council Harbour Master. The area managed by the Harbour Master extends from the Otaki River to the Mataikona River north of Castlepoint. The Castlepoint foreshore is shown in the following diagram both within the small enclosed harbour area south of the peninsular and on the more open foreshore beach on the north side of the peninsular. Castlepoint Road departs from the northwest end of the foreshore, westbound and inland:
Diagram 3:Castlepoint Foreshore
In undertaking this assessment, the Wellington Harbour Masters office (Grant Nelder), and the barging services supplier (Chris Douglas at Seaworks) have been consulted. In broad terms the observations, advice and operating conditions they describe can be summarised as follows:
� The sand area on the beach is relatively hard packed and suitable for light vehicle travel;
� The tidal movement is between about 20m and 70m longitudinally, which has the potential to affect the length of any potential structure to be developed;
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
� The whole coast is quite an exposed coast presenting a risk of delay to delivery of materials from the sea;
� The maximum wave height typically suitable for barging access to the foreshore is about 0.5m, based on previous experience of Seaworks. There is no current wave data at this location to compare it against, however the experience of the operators indicates it may be frequently greater than this;
� Both CentrePort and Napier are about 110 Nautical miles from Castlepoint. At an operating speed of 9 knots per hour, a barge would take about 12 hours to make the journey;
� It is highly likely that a structure would be needed, including cranes to move goods from the barge to loading and transport equipment on the foreshore, and significant works would be likely there to receive the loads;
� The foreshore and further inland area adjoining is not readily accessible for development of a receiving area. New roading would have to be established and this is close to the established housing. Due to the inland topography beyond the sand dune line, it is possible that any access roading would need to be across the foreshore. This has the potential to significantly impact upon the current recreational use of the beach for swimming and also for local boat launching activities;
� Previous experience has indicated that CentrePort is limited in its receiving and lay down space, and hence other proposals have utilised the PictonPort for this reason;
� In addition to the seaward development needs and the climate constraints, works would be required on the inland road between Castlepoint and the Wind Farm Access Points. This is likely to involve improvements to about 21km of road between Castlepoint and Tinui. Additional works would be required on the Castle Hill Road between Tinui and the Wind Farm Access Points, and also for access to the Daggs Road and Route 52 Wind Farm Access Points. This work would likely be in addition to works required west of the ranges to source in other materials that are available locally, such as from Masterton.
Barging would require setting up a temporary wharf (or finger structures) to facilitate docking and loading/unloading. This would involve Regional Council consent. The relatively exposed east coast has been assessed. It does not appear on the surface of the assessment that barging is a suitable or practically feasible option. There is an increased project risk associated with barging in exposed waters and additional transhipment costs are expected to make this option unfavourable. Another difficulty involved with barging is inadequate road access in terms of formation and connectivity from the coast to the Site. Barging would require double handling of heavy CHWF components and upgrading of Castle Hill Road east of the Site. This work would be additional to the structural rehabilitation and cross-section upgrades that will remain necessary west of the Site. Barging is therefore a not considered as a favoured alternative at this time and will therefore not form part of the approvals sought for the purposes of this consent.
Air
An assessment has also been undertaken of the potential to transport turbine components by helicopter, especially over narrow winding sections of road. A Chinook twin-propeller helicopter or a Sikorsky Tarhe “Skycrane” have a maximum lifting capacity of around 9-10 tonnes (t). This is insufficient for even the turbine blades, at up to about 13.5t blade weight. Such heavy lift helicopters are not routinely available in New Zealand, with the best available capacity more typically being around 3.5t. The windy characteristic of this Site that makes it desirable from a CHWF perspective is also an environmental counter-restraint on the practicality of adopting an air
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
transport for the largest components. Smaller and lighter elements like the transmission towers may however be constructed using the assistance of helicopters.
1.5 Summary
Given the particular size and weight characteristics of the loads, travel via the Port of Napier appears to be the most straightforward and carry with it the least travel risk. In this case, it is proposed that the Over-dimension loads exit SH2 at Pahiatua and/or Hamua and then travel onto Tiraumea Road which connects to Kaitawa Road. From Kaitawa Road to Mangaone Valley Road, Alfredton Road and then distributed to the various Wind Farm Access Points. From Alfredton, the turbine components are to be transported to the various Wind Farm Access Points via Route 52, Castle Hill Road or Daggs Road.
Figures 17 to 22 (Appendix A) show Over-dimension and Over-weight vehicle routes between Napier and Wellington. Figure 22 (Appendix A) shows possible locations to exit SH2 at Pahiatua.
The Port of Napier exhibits the most favourable outcomes in the areas of terrain, complexity of the route, potential for weather conditions to affect travel along the route and in the state of transport structure and its suitability to accommodate the weights and lengths of loads to be expected.
Port of Napier is in the mid-range of assessment in so far as travel distance and traffic volumes are concerned. Port of Taranaki is furthest from the Site by about 100km. There are notable traffic volumes on the state highway near Napier and some highly utilised sections of road that are likely to warrant a managed travel response. The route is also subject to some identifiable peaking over holiday periods, and a similar trend is notable in relation to travel out of Wellington. Overall however, port of Napier appears to be the most advantageous on the basis of the criteria summary assessed.
An alternative local Site access route has also been considered from Alfredton. It involves remaining on the state highway, south to Masterton and uses the Te Ore Ore Bideford Road. This option has arisen in relation to the extent of upgrading that is likely to be required on Daggs Road, Wairiri Road and Mairingi Road. The route does require some significant additional travel, and also significant upgrading would still be required to Mairingi Road in particular.
The alternative route does present some significant construction challenges both for the Over-dimension and Over-weight transport requirements. To this end, further alternatives have been investigated. It has been determined that Castle Hill Road is the preferred route to provide access to Clusters E and F, and Daggs Road for the provision of access to Cluster G only.
Alternative modes of transport have been considered. These options are not ruled out at this stage however, they are not included in the assessment.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Appendix D: Road Safety Assessment
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
1. Road Safety Assessment
The following sub-sections assess the relevant national, regional and Local Road safety trends.
1.1 National Road Safety
At a national level, the government’s National Road Safety Strategy produced by the Ministry of Transport sets out the objectives for road safety outcomes. The current guiding document is Safer Journeys, the strategy for the next 10 years to 2020. The principal strategic road safety focus areas are built on four identified pillars as follows:
� Safer roads and roadsides;
� Safer speeds;
� Safer vehicles; and
� Safer road use.
Many actions specific to each area, and primary responsibility for implementation of these actions sits with NZTA and the regional and territorial authorities. Of course, there is a high level obligation on the road user also to adjust their ways.
1.2 Regional Road Safety
NZTA publishes briefing notes on road safety issues for each district in New Zealand. The most recently available notes at the time of preparing this assessment relate to the period 2004-2008. The districts of Tararua and Masterton have been considered as being most relevant to the CHWF Site. The graphs below sourced from NZTA briefing notes, compare the percentages of the major crash types at the national level against those within the Tararua and Masterton Districts and other similar authorities.
Graph 1: Percentage of Crashes 2004 to 2008 - Tararua District
As can be seen in Graph 1, failure to give way/stop crashes within Tararua are higher than other similar authorities but about half the national rate. Alcohol related crashes in Tararua are notably
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
higher than both the national statistic and that of similar authorities. Speed related crashes in Tararua are slightly higher than the national rate but some 5% lower than similar authorities.
The related Masterton data is shown in the following graph.
Graph 2: Percentage of Crashes 2004 to 2008 – Masterton District
Graph 2 shows that failure to give way/stop crashes in the Masterton District are close to but slightly lower than the national rate comprising almost 25% of crashes. When compared to the national rate and other similar authorities, Masterton has a significantly better record of alcohol related crashes. Like Tararua, speed related crashes in Masterton are slightly higher than the national rate but some 5% lower than other similar authorities.
Further regional road safety characteristics are set out and assessed in the following sections.
In the Tararua District the major issues are loss of control at bends, intersections, vulnerable road users (motorcyclists) and alcohol. High motorcycle accident location or routes are SH2 between Woodville and Dannevirke and in the Pahiatua area, SH2 through Tutaekara Road to Makomako Road.
The main issues in the Masterton District are rear-end/obstruction, loss of control, vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists) and alcohol. Areas with high numbers of pedestrian crashes in Masterton are SH2, Queen Street, Dixon Street, Lincoln Road / Queen Street and Renall Street / Pownall Street. Generally these streets will have little to do with traffic activity generated by the proposal.
1.3 Tararua District
During the most recent five year crash review period, 60% of crashes within the Tararua District occurred due to loss of control, 26% of crashes occurred at intersections, 15% of injury crashes involved vulnerable road users and 18% were alcohol related.
Over the five year period, these crashes resulted in 15 deaths, 82 serious injuries and 228 minor injuries. There were a further 356 non-injury crashes reported.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
The graph below shows the trend in fatal and serious injury crashes within the Tararua District from 1999 to 2008.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
No.
of C
rash
es
Serious
Fatal
Graph 3: Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Trends – Tararua District
From Graph 3 it can be seen that the total number of fatal and serious injury crashes has remained steady for the last four years. However, it also shows a general increasing trend over the last five year period.
NZTA recommends a number of particular road improvement programs be developed across the district. Some of the key programs that have a potential relevance to construction traffic associated with the development proposal include:
Establish programme to review, upgrade and maintain warning signs, markings and delineation;
Maintain roadsides clear of hazards and provide side protection where appropriate;
Widen carriageways and seal shoulders to provide additional vehicle wander; and
Monitor and maintain pavement surfaces to provide good standards for skid resistance.
These district recommendations warrant consideration in the development of mitigation measures relating to the construction and operating vehicle movement effects.
1.4 Masterton District
During the five year crash review period, rear-end or obstruction on the roadway type crashes were the most common crash type in the Masterton District representing 35% of all crashes. Some 47% of all injury crashes occurred due to loss of control, 39% involved vulnerable road users and 11% were alcohol related.
Over the five year period, these crashes resulted in 15 deaths, 82 serious injuries and 228 minor injuries. There were a further 356 non-injury crashes reported. The graph below shows the trend in fatal and serious injury crashes within the Masterton District from 1999 to 2008.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
No.
of C
rash
es
Serious
Fatal
Graph 4: Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Trends – Masterton District
Graph 4 shows that the number of fatal crashes has been gradually decreasing over the last three years. However, the latest five year trends show both the number of serious injury crashes and the total serious and fatal crashes combined to be increasing. No fatalities occurred in the Masterton District in the years from 2002 and 2005.
1.5 Local Road Safety
The NZTA Crash Analysis System (CAS) has been used to extract information about the road safety history of the local area and the likely transport routes to the Site. Figure 9 shows the distribution of crash Clusters along the expected transport route from the Port of Napier to the Wairarapa, and including the route over the Rimutaka Hill to Upper Hutt. The crash search covered the five year period from 2005 to 2009 inclusive. Most of the Clusters of five crashes or more occur in the urban areas of Napier, Hastings, Masterton and Upper Hutt.
Figure 10 (Appendix A) shows intersection and mid-block injury crash locations between Pahiatua and Masterton. Injury crashes on the proposed transport routes are shown in the following Table 1.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Table 1: Injury Crashes on Potential Site Access Routes
Table 1 shows that Masterton-Castlepoint Road in the Masterton District has had the highest number of crashes in the past five years. Other roads with comparatively notable crash records are Whangaehu Valley Road and Alfredton Road.
As can also be seen from Table 1, except for a single crash, all injury crashes occurred on road mid-block sections. Locations on the proposed transport routes where injury crashes were recorded are described in more detail below. The notable Masterton-Castlepoint Road and Whangaehu Valley Road include graphs to compare observed crash rates with national averages for their mid-block sections. Alfredton Road
Four injury crashes were recorded on Alfredton Road between SH2 and Route 52. No crash Clustering (within a 50m radius) was observed along this road. Crashes comprised two serious and three minor injury crashes. The predominant crash type on this road is loss of control whilst turning. Road condition was reported as a contributing factor to two of these crashes. All crashes were single vehicle crashes related to the road environment. There is no section of the road with Clustering that may highlight a particular localised road safety of concern.
DISTRICT INTERSECTION OR MID-BLOCK LOCATION
CRASH SEVERITY TOTAL INJURY
CRASHES Minor Serious Fatal
Tararua
Alfredton Road 2 2 0 4
Castle Hill Road 0 0 0 0
Daggs Road 0 0 0 0
Hamua Rongomai Road 0 0 0 0
Kaitawa Road 1 0 0 1
Mangaone Valley Road 1 0 0 1
Maringi Road 1 0 0 1
Route 52 2 0 0 2
Waihoki Valley Road 0 0 0 0
Wairiri Road 0 0 0 0
Waitawhiti Road 0 0 0 0
Masterton
Alfredton-Tinui Road 0 0 0 0
Manawa Road 2 0 0 2
Masterton-Castlepoint Road 17 6 1 24
Te Ore Ore Bideford Road 2 0 0 2
Te Ore Ore Bideford Road/Black Road 1 0 0 1
Te Ore Ore Road 3 0 0 3
Whangaehu Valley Road 4 1 0 5
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Kaitawa Road
One minor injury crash was recorded on Kaitawa Road. It occurred on the mid-block section between Mangaramarama Road and Mangaone Valley Road. The crash type was attributed to road conditions. The observed injury crash rate is lower than the national average for the road type.
Mangaone Valley Road
One minor injury crash occurred on Mangaone Valley Road some 2km south of Hamua Rongomai Road. The crash rate is typical for the road type.
Maringi Road
A single minor injury crash occurred on Maringi Road 2.5km north of the Wairiri Road intersection. The crash involved a head on collision by two vehicles. Contributing crash factors were limited visibility around a curve and loss of control on the unsealed road.
Route 52
Two minor injury crashes occurred on Route 52 between Alfredton Road and Huia Road. Both were single vehicle crashes attributed to loss of control whilst turning.
When analysed, the crash rate for both sections of Route 52 where the crashes occurred were higher than the national average for typical roads. This is because of relatively low traffic flows over short mid-block sections. Analysis of Route 52 as a single mid-block shows an expected road safety performance when compared to national average rates. With only two minor injury crashes, the result is within a reasonable expectation for variability in the theoretical assessment methodology.
Manawa Road
Two minor injury crashes occurred on Manawa Road between Alfredton-Tinui Road and Tinui Township. One involved a vehicle which lost control whilst cornering and the other collided with traffic in the opposite direction as it crossed into the wrong lane whilst cutting a corner on a bend. The observed crash rate is higher than typical on this road although due to the low total number of crashes little can be derived from this.
Masterton-Castlepoint Road
Masterton-Castlepoint Road displayed the highest number of crashes with 24 recorded. All crashes occurred on mid-block sections with no intersection crashes recorded and all occurred on mid-block sections between Te Ore Ore Road and Manawa Road. There was one fatal, six serious and 18 minor injury crashes recorded. The recurring crash type was loss of control while turning. The principal contributing factor for this crash type was high speeds. Alcohol was also reported as a contributing factor to three crashes. Road surface condition was cited as the factor for a high proportion of crashes also. A number of these crashes occurred on the unsealed sections of the road where the transition from sealed to unsealed occurred.
A safety analysis of each section has been carried out to determine the performance of the section against national average rates for similar road types. The road has been broken down into segments based on the daily traffic volume and other road characteristics such as terrain and road width.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Graph 5 below shows a comparison of expected crash rates for this road environment against the observed crash rates. As can be seen, most sections of Masterton-Castlepoint road had no crashes recorded or less than typical crash rates. Road sections that indicated higher injury crash rates than the national average for the road type are as follows:
� Section 4: Maungahina Road to Letts Road
� Section 10: Te Parae Road to Te Kanuka Road
� Section 12: Blairlogie-Langdale to Adams Peak Road
� Section 16: Langdale Road to Peaks Road
� Section 20: Tinui Valley Road to McLaughlin Drive
� Section 21: McLaughlin Drive to Mataikonia Road
� Section 22: Mataikonia Road to Guthrie Crescent
Masterton-Castlepoint Road Mid-block Injury Crash Rates
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Road Section
Inju
ry C
rash
Rat
e/10
0mvk
t
Expected ICRObserved ICRFull ExpectedFull Observed
Observed Injury Crash Rate - Full Length
Expected Injury Crash Rate - Full Length
Graph 5: Observed and Expected Injury Crash Rates on Masterton-Castlepoint Road
Crash clustering is observed in Sections 12, 16 and 20. Section 4 from Maungahina Road to Letts Road also showed some clustering with three injury crashes occurring over its 2km length. Section 12 between Blairlogie-Langdale Road and Adams Peak Road had six injury crashes occur over 3.3km length of road. Similarly, Sections 10, 16, 20 and 21 had crash Clusters which occurred within a relatively short mid-block section of Masterton-Castlepoint Road. This explains why the graph shows these sections (with relatively low traffic flows) as having crash rates much higher than the national average for similar road types. The analysis is based on 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled (100MVKT). The locality and incidence is noteworthy, however the relatively low number of crashes in each section of road is susceptible to significant variation in the theoretical evaluations. The section of road likely to be used for access in relation to the Site is between Section 1 which begins near Masterton and Section 17 which ends at Tinui Township.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Analysing the entire length of Masterton-Castlepoint as a single mid-block indicates the road to perform better than the national average. The observed crash rate is 20.9 crashes per 100MVKT compared to a national average of 24.2 per 100MVKT for the road type.
Of the injury crashes which occurred on Masterton-Castlepoint Road, 88% were single vehicle crashes related to the road environment. Overall it is concluded that this road generally has a reasonable road safety record however, sections of road highlighted above may warrant further investigation and possibly some improvement work. However, at this stage, the road is not included in the proposed construction and haulage routes. Traffic generated by the CHWF is not expected on this on this section of road and will not impact on the safety of this road.
Te Ore Ore Bideford Road
Two minor injury crashes were recorded on Te Ore Ore Bideford Road between Masterton-Castlepoint Road and Whangaehu Valley Road. One crash occurred at the Black Rock Road intersection. This resulted from a vehicle attempting to overtake whilst the one in front turned into the side road. A faulty indicator was cited as the crash factor. The fatal injury crash occurred 850m north of Stoddarts Road. It is cited as occurring when a strong gust of wind blew a person on the back of a ute onto the road and they received fatal injuries as a result of this fall. .
Te Ore Ore Road
Three minor injury crashes occurred on Te Ore Ore Road between SH2 and Masterton-Castlepoint Road. Crash types and factors are varied with no particular type showing prominence. There is no crash Clustering observed and overall Te Ore Ore Road has a fairly typical road accident record for the road type albeit, there is always scope for improvement.
Whangaehu Valley Road
All crashes on Whangaehu Valley Road occurred on mid-block sections. No intersection crashes were recorded over the search period. Crashes included one serious injury and four non-injury crashes. The recurring crash type is loss of control associated with turning manoeuvres which comprises some 80% of crashes or four out of the five crashes. Driver inexperience was cited as being a contributing factor to two of these crashes. Again road surface condition was a reoccurring contributing factor. One of the five crashes involved collision with an animal.
Whangaehu Valley Road was divided into four sections for analysis purposes as follows:
� Section 1: Te Ore Ore Bideford Road to Ditton Road
� Section 2: Ditton Road to Grahams Road
� Section 3: Grahams Road to Clelands Road
� Section 4: Clelands Road to District Boundary
Graph 6 below shows a comparison of expected crash rates for this road environment against the observed crash rates.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Whangaehu Valley Road (Mid-block) Injury Crash Rates
0
50
100
150
200
250
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4Road Section
Rep
orte
d In
jury
Cra
shes
/100
mvk
t
Expected Crash Rate
Observed Crash Rate
Graph 6: Observed and Expected Injury Crash Rates, Whangaehu Valley Road
Crash clustering is observed in Section 1 of Whangaehu Valley Road some 4km north of Te Ore Ore Bideford Road. No other clusters are observed. Sections 3 and 4 each have had a single crash recorded in the five year study period. They both have relatively low traffic flows of about 100vpd and therefore display higher crash rates than the national average. Section 4 is prominent because of low traffic flow coupled with a short mid-block length. When analysed as a single mid-block, Whangaehu Valley Road has an injury crash rate of 90.8 injury crashes per 100MVKT compared to a national average of 27.6 crashes per 100MVKT. This indicates that there may be areas of concern along this route in terms of road safety particularly on Section 1 between Te Ore Ore Bideford Road and Ditton Road where crash Clustering is observed. It is concluded that sections of this road may warrant further investigation to identify particular road safety issues and possibly some improvement work.
Local Road Safety Summary
The Accident Prediction Model from the EEM was used to determine the typical rate for injury crashes at intersection and mid-block locations within the Tararua and Masterton Districts. Results are shown in the following Table 2.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
ROAD NAME LOCATION
TYPICAL INJURY CRASH RATE / ANNUM
OBSERVED INJURY
CRASH RATE / ANNUM
Alfredton Road SH2 to Route 52 0.25 0.2
Mangaone Valley Road Mangaramaram Road to Mangaone Valley Road 0.1 0.2
Route 52
Flat Bush Road to Settlement Road 0.1 0.2
Bartons Line to Daggs Road 0.0 0.2
Pa Valley Road to Saunders Road 0.1 0.2
Wallace to Waitawhiti Road 0.1 0.2
Masterton-Castle Hill Road
Te Ore Ore Road to Te Weraiti Road 0.2 0.2
Te Weraiti Road to Letts Road 0.9 0.8
Letts Road to Te Parae Road 0.2 0.2
Te Parae Road to Te Kanuka Road 0.3 0.2
Te Kanuka Road to Blairlogie-Langdale Road 0.4 0.6
Blairlogie-Langdale Road to Adams Peak Road 0.1 1.0
Adams Peak Road to Langdale Road 0.3 0.2
Langdale Road to Peaks Road 0.2 0.4
Peaks Road to Blackhill Road (Tinui) 0.1 0.0
Te Ore Ore Bideford Road TeOreOre to Te Ore Ore Settlement Road 0.1 0.2
Black Rock Road to Caves Road 0.1 0.4
Whangaehu Valley Road
Te Ore Ore Bideford Road to Ditton Road 0.1 0.8
Grahams Road to Clelands Road 0.1 0.2
Cleland Road to District Boundary 0.0 0.2
Table 2: Injury Crash Rates
As described in preceding sections, there are sections on the road network that have been analysed to have injury crash rates that are higher than the national average for the road type. However analysing the full lengths of the roads as single mid-blocks does indicate lower rates than national average rates. Very few mid-block sections have crash Clustering within 50m and the only road section area that may need some attention based on the recent road accident history is Masterton-Castlepoint Road between Blairlogie-Langdale and Adams Peak Road. A number of the rates above indicate rates above the national average. Regard is warranted in relation to this trend collectively across all sites as a cumulative observation. Caution is however necessary in analysing individual sections of road where the total number of crashes is low and a single incident over a five year period can significantly alter the comparative result.
Overall, it can be concluded that there are some patterns of individual driver behavior and contributing road environments that appear to be prevalent in the statistics. Consideration of these effects will be important in assessing the need for any mitigation on roads where Site generated traffic is to be added.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Appendix E: Indicat ive Construct ion Programmes:
� High Intensity Construction Programme
� Medium Intensity Construction Programme
� Low Intensity Construction Programme
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
High Intensity – 1 crane 2 team - 159 weeks (3 years)
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Medium Intensity – 1 crane 1 team - 247 weeks (4.7 years)
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Low Intensity – 1 crane 1 team - 354 weeks (6.8 years)
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Appendix F: Trip Generation & Distribution Analysis:
� High Intensity Construction Programme
� Medium Intensity Construction Programme
� Low Intensity Construction Programme
� Graph showing Active Clusters
� Calculation of Total Trips per Cluster
Trip
Dis
trib
utio
n A
naly
sis
- Hig
h In
tens
ity 2
Tea
ms
Mat
eria
ls in
put b
oxes
10t T
ruck
to 3
0t T
ruck
and
Tra
iler
Sect
ion
1 R
oute
52
Wes
t20
%80
%M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
TRU
CK
MO
VEM
ENTS
(2-w
ay)
(80:
20)
(30t
:10t
) tru
ck ra
tio fo
r gra
vel,
cem
ent &
san
dD
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
275
2566
751
333
Sect
ion
Gra
vel
Stee
lC
emen
tW
ater
Sand
Con
cret
e C
able
sTr
ans
Line
Dru
ms
Alfr
edto
n Q
uarr
yO
H li
nes
Pole
sTo
tal
EBoP
TO
TAL
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck4
1820
3640
151
333
3640
1437
066
270
3258
1866
755
8184
917
9083
640
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
1171
914
372
3696
026
8714
3734
333
5301
1988
017
2685
3325
1092
0117
9011
0990
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
03
1689
612
2865
715
695
2423
9088
1726
8533
2554
590
054
590
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r50
3313
6627
420
064
1458
780
1863
828
7810
792
00
00
5461
10
5461
0C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
00
05
1437
395
30
013
250
1631
1013
330
2686
30
2686
0To
tal
31,5
1963
,037
615
680
6500
2744
6900
012
061
1249
684
105
010
011
8769
3477
1222
507
027
7311
7616
333
5169
7100
4545
043
3268
40
3268
08
7280
1473
653
026
5171
0032
240
2319
236
019
240
Sect
ion
2R
oute
52
Cen
tral
90
2340
915
035
780
3537
035
6941
069
40M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
1027
253
00
013
30
00
00
2738
60
2739
0D
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
198
1848
036
960
110
016
667
00
00
00
1666
70
1667
0St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
313
4326
87`
120
2340
915
035
780
3537
035
6940
069
40C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r11
719
1437
1366
640
1248
052
270
2239
80
00
00
1067
450
1067
40W
ater
16
tw
ater
truc
k10
317
167
3433
3D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
4026
5153
01C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
5099
4019
880
Tota
l50
,299
100,
599
100L
Tur
bine
layo
ut
Sect
ion
3R
oute
52
East
of W
aiho
ki V
alle
y R
dA
32M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
B38
Tota
l tru
ck v
olum
e on
eac
h se
ctio
nD
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
9184
4816
896
C19
12
34
56
78
910
1112
13St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
161
412
28D
54R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Wai
hoki
Val
ley
Wai
taw
hiti
Cas
tle H
illAl
fred
ton
Tinu
iTi
nui
Dag
gsM
arin
giTa
naw
aR
oute
52(
Sth)
Alfr
edto
nC
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r5
329
657
E25
83,6
4011
0,99
054
,590
54,6
1026
,860
122,
250
32,6
8019
,240
6,94
027
,390
29,1
706,
940
106,
740
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
4778
4815
695
F29
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r18
1212
2423
G45
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k23
4544
9088
Tota
l24
2To
tal
22,9
9445
,988
Roa
d Se
ctio
ns U
sed
(1 =
on
rout
e, 0
= n
ot)
Sect
ion
4W
aiho
ki V
alle
y R
dC
lust
erSt
age
12
34
56
78
910
1112
13M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2W
aiho
ki V
alle
y W
aita
whi
tiC
astle
Hill
Alfr
edto
n Ti
nui
Tinu
iD
aggs
Mar
ingi
Tana
wa
Rou
te 5
2(St
h)Al
fred
ton
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r10
710
032
2006
4A
41
11
1St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
272
914
58B
31
11
11
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
639
078
0C
21
1W
ater
16
tw
ater
truc
k56
9319
1863
8D
11
1D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
2214
3928
78E
71
11
1C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
2753
9610
792
F6
11
11
1To
tal
27,3
0554
,611
G5
11
1EB
oP1
11
Sect
ion
5W
aita
whi
ti R
d%
Roa
d U
sage
Mat
eria
lW
eigh
t/m3
(t)Pa
yloa
d/m
vmt
Uni
tTr
ansp
ort C
ombo
Volu
me
(x10
00m
3)O
ne-w
ayTw
o-w
ayC
lust
erSt
age
12
34
56
78
910
1112
13D
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
7771
8714
373
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2W
aiho
ki V
alle
y W
aita
whi
tiC
astle
Hill
Alfr
edto
n Ti
nui
Tinu
iD
aggs
Mar
ingi
Tana
wa
Rou
te 5
2(St
h)Al
fred
ton
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck1
477
953
A 4
36%
49%
100%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%13
%C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
B3
62%
49%
0%10
0%10
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
16%
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
0C
20%
0%0%
0%0%
20%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
8%D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
1066
313
25D
10%
0%0%
0%0%
19%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
22%
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k0
00
E7
0%0%
0%0%
0%48
%41
%0%
0%10
0%0%
0%10
%To
tal
8,32
616
,652
F6
0%0%
0%0%
0%10
%59
%10
0%0%
0%10
0%0%
12%
G5
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
100%
0%0%
100%
19%
EBoP
2%2%
0%0%
0%3%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%Se
ctio
n 6
Cas
tle H
ill R
d10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r84
7840
1568
0St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
832
5065
00To
tal n
o. o
f trip
s (F
igur
e 25
)C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r21
1372
2744
Clu
ster
Stag
e 1
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
207
3450
069
000
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2W
aiho
ki V
alle
y W
aita
whi
tiC
astle
Hill
Alfr
edto
n Ti
nui
Tinu
iD
aggs
Mar
ingi
Tana
wa
Rou
te 5
2(St
h)Al
fred
ton
Con
stru
ct d
urat
ion
(wks
)C
onst
ruct
dur
atio
n (d
ays)
Con
stru
ct d
urat
ion
(wor
king
day
s)D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
9160
3012
061
A 4
29,8
0754
,590
54,5
900
00
00
00
00
14,1
1450
.29
380
326
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k31
6248
1249
6B
352
,040
54,6
100
54,6
1026
,860
00
00
00
016
,761
48.0
036
431
2To
tal
59,2
4011
8,48
1C
20
00
00
24,9
000
00
00
08,
380
47.5
736
130
9D
10
00
00
23,5
430
00
00
023
,818
41.7
132
027
4E
70
00
00
58,3
7013
,447
00
27,3
900
011
,027
54.7
141
135
2Se
ctio
n 7
Alfre
dton
Tin
ui R
dF
60
00
00
11,9
6019
,233
19,2
400
029
,170
012
,791
74.7
155
147
2M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
G5
00
00
00
00
6,94
00
06,
940
19,8
4848
.43
367
315
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
EBoP
1,79
01,
790
00
03,
477
00
00
00
067
.43
473
405
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck3
1387
2773
Tota
l Tru
ck M
vmts
83,6
4011
0,99
054
,590
54,6
1026
,860
122,
250
32,6
8019
,240
6,94
027
,390
29,1
706,
940
106,
740
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
958
811
76C
heck
sum
83,6
4011
0,99
054
,590
54,6
1026
,860
122,
250
32,6
8019
,240
6,94
027
,390
29,1
706,
940
106,
740
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
4981
6716
333
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r39
2584
5169
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k18
3550
7100
Aver
age
Dai
ly T
rips
(Fig
ure
25)
Tota
l16
,276
32,5
51C
lust
erSt
age
12
34
56
78
910
1112
13R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Wai
hoki
Val
ley
Wai
taw
hiti
Cas
tle H
illAl
fred
ton
Tinu
iTi
nui
Dag
gsM
arin
giTa
naw
aR
oute
52(
Sth)
Alfr
edto
nM
axim
um p
er C
lust
erA
492
168
168
00
00
00
00
043
168
Sect
ion
8Ti
nui R
dB
316
717
50
175
860
00
00
00
5417
5M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
C2
00
00
080
00
00
00
2780
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r39
3640
7280
D1
00
00
086
00
00
00
8787
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck2
737
1473
E7
00
00
016
638
00
780
031
166
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
532
765
3F
60
00
00
2541
410
062
027
62W
ater
16
tw
ater
truc
k0
00
G5
00
00
00
00
220
022
6363
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r20
1325
2651
EBoP
44
00
09
00
00
00
0C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
1835
5071
00To
tal
9,57
919
,157
Sect
ion
9D
aggs
Rd
Mat
eria
lW
eigh
t/m3
(t)Pa
yloa
d/m
vmt
Uni
tTr
ansp
ort C
ombo
Volu
me
(x10
00m
3)O
ne-w
ayTw
o-w
ayD
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
00
0St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
311
7023
40C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r7
457
915
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
0D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
2717
8935
78C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
00
0To
tal
3,41
76,
833
Sect
ion
10M
airin
gi R
dM
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r14
613
627
2725
3St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
00
0C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
0D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
166
133
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k0
00
Tota
l13
,693
27,3
86
Sect
ion
11Ta
naw
a R
dM
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r67
6253
1250
7St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
00
0C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
5083
3316
667
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k0
00
Tota
l14
,587
29,1
73
Sect
ion
12R
oute
52
Sout
hM
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck3
1170
2340
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
745
791
5W
ater
16
tw
ater
truc
k54
9000
1800
0D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
2717
8935
78C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
00
0To
tal
12,4
1724
,833
Sect
ion
13Al
fredt
on R
dM
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r22
220
720
4144
0St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
1462
4012
480
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
4026
1352
27W
ater
16
tw
ater
truc
k0
00
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r16
911
199
2239
8C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
00
0To
tal
40,7
7281
,545
Clu
ster
Num
ber o
f Tu
rbin
es
Trip
Dis
trib
utio
n A
naly
sis
- Med
ium
Inte
nsity
1 T
eam
Mat
eria
ls in
put b
oxes
10t T
ruck
to 3
0t T
ruck
and
Tra
iler
Sect
ion
1 R
oute
52
Wes
t20
%80
%M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
TRU
CK
MO
VEM
ENTS
(2-w
ay)
(80:
20)
(30t
:10t
) tru
ck ra
tio fo
r gra
vel,
cem
ent &
san
dD
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
275
2566
751
333
Sect
ion
Gra
vel
Stee
lC
emen
tW
ater
Sand
Con
cret
e C
able
sTr
ans
Line
Dru
ms
Alfr
edto
n Q
uarr
yO
H li
nes
Pole
sTo
tal
EBoP
TO
TAL
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck4
1820
3640
151
333
3640
1437
066
270
3258
1866
755
8184
917
9083
640
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
1171
914
372
3696
026
8714
3734
333
5301
1988
017
2685
3325
1092
0117
9011
0990
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
03
1689
612
2865
715
695
2423
9088
1726
8533
2554
590
054
590
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r50
3313
6627
420
064
1458
780
1863
828
7810
792
00
00
5461
10
5461
0C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
00
05
1437
395
30
013
250
1631
1013
330
2686
30
2686
0To
tal
31,5
1963
,037
615
680
6500
2744
6900
012
061
1249
684
105
010
011
8769
3477
1222
507
027
7311
7616
333
5169
7100
4545
043
3268
40
3268
08
7280
1473
653
026
5171
0032
240
2319
236
019
240
Sect
ion
2R
oute
52
Cen
tral
90
2340
915
035
780
3537
035
6941
069
40M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
1027
253
00
013
30
00
00
2738
60
2739
0D
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
198
1848
036
960
1112
507
00
1666
70
00
00
029
173
029
170
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck3
1343
2687
`12
023
4091
50
3578
035
370
3569
400
6940
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
1171
914
3713
6664
012
480
5227
022
398
00
00
010
6745
010
6740
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
103
1716
734
333
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r40
2651
5301
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k50
9940
1988
0To
tal
50,2
9910
0,59
910
0L T
urbi
ne la
yout
Sect
ion
3R
oute
52
East
of W
aiho
ki V
alle
y R
dA
32M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
B38
Tota
l tru
ck v
olum
e on
eac
h se
ctio
nD
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
9184
4816
896
C19
12
34
56
78
910
1112
13St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
161
412
28D
54R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Wai
hoki
Val
ley
Wai
taw
hiti
Cas
tle H
illAl
fred
ton
Tinu
iTi
nui
Dag
gsM
arin
giTa
naw
aR
oute
52(
Sth)
Alfr
edto
nC
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r5
329
657
E25
83,6
4011
0,99
054
,590
54,6
1026
,860
122,
250
32,6
8019
,240
6,94
027
,390
29,1
706,
940
106,
740
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
4778
4815
695
F29
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r18
1212
2423
G45
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k23
4544
9088
Tota
l24
2To
tal
22,9
9445
,988
Roa
d Se
ctio
ns U
sed
(1 =
on
rout
e, 0
= n
ot)
Sect
ion
4W
aiho
ki V
alle
y R
dC
lust
erSt
age
12
34
56
78
910
1112
13M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2W
aiho
ki V
alle
y W
aita
whi
tiC
astle
Hill
Alfr
edto
n Ti
nui
Tinu
iD
aggs
Mar
ingi
Tana
wa
Rou
te 5
2(St
h)Al
fred
ton
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r10
710
032
2006
4A
61
11
1St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
272
914
58B
41
11
11
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
639
078
0C
31
1W
ater
16
tw
ater
truc
k56
9319
1863
8D
21
1D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
2214
3928
78E
51
11
1C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
2753
9610
792
F7
11
11
1To
tal
27,3
0554
,611
G1
11
1EB
oP1
11
Sect
ion
5W
aita
whi
ti R
d%
Roa
d U
sage
Mat
eria
lW
eigh
t/m3
(t)Pa
yloa
d/m
vmt
Uni
tTr
ansp
ort C
ombo
Volu
me
(x10
00m
3)O
ne-w
ayTw
o-w
ayC
lust
erSt
age
12
34
56
78
910
1112
13D
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
7771
8714
373
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2W
aiho
ki V
alle
y W
aita
whi
tiC
astle
Hill
Alfr
edto
n Ti
nui
Tinu
iD
aggs
Mar
ingi
Tana
wa
Rou
te 5
2(St
h)Al
fred
ton
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck1
477
953
A 6
36%
49%
100%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%13
%C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
B4
62%
49%
0%10
0%10
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
16%
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
0C
30%
0%0%
0%0%
20%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
8%D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
1066
313
25D
20%
0%0%
0%0%
19%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
22%
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k0
00
E5
0%0%
0%0%
0%48
%41
%0%
0%10
0%0%
0%10
%To
tal
8,32
616
,652
F7
0%0%
0%0%
0%10
%59
%10
0%0%
0%10
0%0%
12%
G1
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
100%
0%0%
100%
19%
EBoP
2%2%
0%0%
0%3%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%Se
ctio
n 6
Cas
tle H
ill R
d10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r84
7840
1568
0St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
832
5065
00To
tal n
o. o
f trip
s (F
igur
e 25
)C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r21
1372
2744
Clu
ster
Stag
e 1
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
207
3450
069
000
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2W
aiho
ki V
alle
y W
aita
whi
tiC
astle
Hill
Alfr
edto
n Ti
nui
Tinu
iD
aggs
Mar
ingi
Tana
wa
Rou
te 5
2(St
h)Al
fred
ton
Con
stru
ct d
urat
ion
(wks
)C
onst
ruct
dur
atio
n (d
ays)
Con
stru
ct d
urat
ion
(wor
king
day
s)D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
9160
3012
061
A 6
29,8
0754
,590
54,5
900
00
00
00
00
14,1
1452
.29
394
338
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k31
6248
1249
6B
452
,040
54,6
100
54,6
1026
,860
00
00
00
016
,761
65.2
948
541
6To
tal
59,2
4011
8,48
1C
30
00
00
24,9
000
00
00
08,
380
59.5
744
538
1D
20
00
00
23,5
430
00
00
023
,818
98.2
971
661
4E
50
00
00
58,3
7013
,447
00
27,3
900
011
,027
47.1
435
830
7Se
ctio
n 7
Alfre
dton
Tin
ui R
dF
70
00
00
11,9
6019
,233
19,2
400
029
,170
012
,791
48.4
336
731
5M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
G1
00
00
00
00
6,94
00
06,
940
19,8
4810
4.14
757
649
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
EBoP
1,79
01,
790
00
03,
477
00
00
00
010
8.14
785
673
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck3
1387
2773
Tota
l Tru
ck M
vmts
83,6
4011
0,99
054
,590
54,6
1026
,860
122,
250
32,6
8019
,240
6,94
027
,390
29,1
706,
940
106,
740
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
958
811
76C
heck
sum
83,6
4011
0,99
054
,590
54,6
1026
,860
122,
250
32,6
8019
,240
6,94
027
,390
29,1
706,
940
106,
740
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
4981
6716
333
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r39
2584
5169
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k18
3550
7100
Aver
age
Dai
ly T
rips
(Fig
ure
25)
Tota
l16
,276
32,5
51C
lust
erSt
age
12
34
56
78
910
1112
13R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Wai
hoki
Val
ley
Wai
taw
hiti
Cas
tle H
illAl
fred
ton
Tinu
iTi
nui
Dag
gsM
arin
giTa
naw
aR
oute
52(
Sth)
Alfr
edto
nM
axim
um p
er C
lust
erA
688
162
162
00
00
00
00
042
162
Sect
ion
8Ti
nui R
dB
412
513
10
131
650
00
00
00
4013
1M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
C3
00
00
065
00
00
00
2265
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r39
3640
7280
D2
00
00
038
00
00
00
3939
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck2
737
1473
E5
00
00
019
044
00
890
036
190
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
532
765
3F
70
00
00
3861
610
093
041
93W
ater
16
tw
ater
truc
k0
00
G1
00
00
00
00
110
011
3131
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r20
1325
2651
EBoP
33
00
05
00
00
00
0C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
1835
5071
00To
tal
9,57
919
,157
Sect
ion
9D
aggs
Rd
Mat
eria
lW
eigh
t/m3
(t)Pa
yloa
d/m
vmt
Uni
tTr
ansp
ort C
ombo
Volu
me
(x10
00m
3)O
ne-w
ayTw
o-w
ayD
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
00
0St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
311
7023
40C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r7
457
915
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
0D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
2717
8935
78C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
00
0To
tal
3,41
76,
833
Sect
ion
10M
airin
gi R
dM
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r14
613
627
2725
3St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
00
0C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
0D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
166
133
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k0
00
Tota
l13
,693
27,3
86
Sect
ion
11Ta
naw
a R
dM
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r67
6253
1250
7St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
00
0C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
5083
3316
667
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k0
00
Tota
l14
,587
29,1
73
Sect
ion
12R
oute
52
Sout
hM
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck3
1170
2340
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
745
791
5W
ater
16
tw
ater
truc
k54
9000
1800
0D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
2717
8935
78C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
00
0To
tal
12,4
1724
,833
Sect
ion
13Al
fredt
on R
dM
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r22
220
720
4144
0St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
1462
4012
480
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
4026
1352
27W
ater
16
tw
ater
truc
k0
00
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r16
911
199
2239
8C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
00
0To
tal
40,7
7281
,545
Clu
ster
Num
ber o
f Tu
rbin
es
Traf
ficG
ener
atio
n_v1
8sen
sitiv
ity12
0711
_a.x
lsm
Pag
e 1
Trip
Dis
trib
utio
n An
alys
is -
Low
Inte
nsity
1 T
eam
Mat
eria
ls in
put b
oxes
10t T
ruck
to 3
0t T
ruck
and
Tra
iler
Sect
ion
1 R
oute
52
Wes
t20
%80
%M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
TRU
CK
MO
VEM
ENTS
(2-w
ay)
(80:
20)
(30t
:10t
) tru
ck ra
tio fo
r gra
vel,
cem
ent &
san
dD
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
275
2566
751
333
Sect
ion
Gra
vel
Stee
lC
emen
tW
ater
Sand
Con
cret
e C
able
Dru
ms
Tran
s Li
ne D
rum
sAl
fred
ton
Qua
rry
OH
line
s Po
les
Tota
lEB
oP
TOTA
LSt
eel
7.8
18t
truck
4.2
1820
3640
151
333
3640
1437
066
270
3258
1866
755
8184
917
9083
640
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
1171
914
372
3696
026
8714
3734
333
5301
1988
017
2685
3325
1092
0117
9011
0990
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
03
1689
612
2865
715
695
2423
9088
1726
8533
2554
590
054
590
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r50
3313
6627
420
064
1458
780
1863
828
7810
792
00
00
5461
10
5461
0C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
00
05
1437
395
30
013
250
1631
1013
330
2686
30
2686
0To
tal
31,5
1963
,037
615
680
6500
2744
6900
012
061
1249
684
105
010
011
8769
3477
1222
507
027
7311
7616
333
5169
7100
4545
043
3268
40
3268
08
7280
1473
653
026
5171
0032
240
2319
236
019
240
Sect
ion
2R
oute
52
Cen
tral
90
2340
915
035
780
3537
035
6941
069
40M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
1027
253
00
013
30
00
00
2738
60
2739
0D
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
198
1848
036
960
1112
507
00
1666
70
00
00
029
173
029
170
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck3
1343
2687
`12
023
4091
50
3578
035
370
3569
400
6940
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
1171
914
3713
6664
012
480
5227
022
398
00
00
010
6745
010
6740
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
103
1716
734
333
1415
680
953
392
015
9062
3220
160
1524
898
024
900
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r40
2651
5301
1595
2027
7311
7653
3346
390
1945
043
2354
734
7727
020
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k50
9940
1988
0To
tal
50,2
9910
0,59
910
0L T
urbi
ne la
yout
Sect
ion
3R
oute
52
East
of W
aiho
ki V
alle
y R
dA
32M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
B38
Tota
l tru
ck v
olum
e on
eac
h se
ctio
nD
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
9184
4816
896
C19
12
34
56
78
910
1112
13St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
161
412
28D
54R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Wai
hoki
Val
ley
Wai
taw
hiti
Cas
tle H
illAl
fred
ton
Tinu
iTi
nui
Dag
gsM
arin
giTa
naw
aR
oute
52(
Sth)
Alfr
edto
nC
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r5
329
657
E25
83,6
4011
0,99
054
,590
54,6
1026
,860
122,
250
32,6
8019
,240
6,94
027
,390
29,1
706,
940
106,
740
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
4778
4815
695
F29
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r18
1212
2423
G45
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k23
4544
9088
Tota
l24
2To
tal
22,9
9445
,988
Roa
d Se
ctio
ns U
sed
(1 =
on
rout
e, 0
= n
ot)
Sect
ion
4W
aiho
ki V
alle
y R
dC
lust
erSt
age
12
34
56
78
910
1112
13M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2W
aiho
ki V
alle
y W
aita
whi
tiC
astle
Hill
Alfr
edto
n Ti
nui
Tinu
iD
aggs
Mar
ingi
Tana
wa
Rou
te 5
2(St
h)Al
fred
ton
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r10
710
032
2006
4A
61
11
1St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
272
914
58B
41
11
11
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
639
078
0C
31
1W
ater
16
tw
ater
truc
k56
9319
1863
8D
21
1D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
2214
3928
78E
51
11
1C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
2753
9610
792
F7
11
11
1To
tal
27,3
0554
,611
G1
11
1EB
oP1
11
Sect
ion
5W
aita
whi
ti R
d%
Roa
d U
sage
Mat
eria
lW
eigh
t/m3
(t)Pa
yloa
d/m
vmt
Uni
tTr
ansp
ort C
ombo
Volu
me
(x10
00m
3)O
ne-w
ayTw
o-w
ayC
lust
erSt
age
12
34
56
78
910
1112
13D
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
7771
8714
373
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2W
aiho
ki V
alle
y W
aita
whi
tiC
astle
Hill
Alfr
edto
n Ti
nui
Tinu
iD
aggs
Mar
ingi
Tana
wa
Rou
te 5
2(St
h)Al
fred
ton
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck1
477
953
A 6
36%
49%
100%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%13
%C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
B4
62%
49%
0%10
0%10
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
16%
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
0C
30%
0%0%
0%0%
20%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
8%D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
1066
313
25D
20%
0%0%
0%0%
19%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
22%
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k0
00
E5
0%0%
0%0%
0%48
%41
%0%
0%10
0%0%
0%10
%To
tal
8,32
616
,652
F7
0%0%
0%0%
0%10
%59
%10
0%0%
0%10
0%0%
12%
G1
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
100%
0%0%
100%
19%
EBoP
2%2%
0%0%
0%3%
0%0%
0%0%
0%0%
0%Se
ctio
n 6
Cas
tle H
ill R
d10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%10
0%M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r84
7840
1568
0St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
832
5065
00C
lust
erSt
age
Tota
l no.
of t
rips
(Fig
ure
25)
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
2113
7227
441
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
207
3450
069
000
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2W
aiho
ki V
alle
y W
aita
whi
tiC
astle
Hill
Alfr
edto
n Ti
nui
Tinu
iD
aggs
Mar
ingi
Tana
wa
Rou
te 5
2(St
h)Al
fred
ton
Con
stru
ct d
urat
ion
(wks
)C
onst
ruct
dur
atio
n (d
ays)
Con
stru
ct d
urat
ion
(wor
king
day
s)D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
9160
3012
061
A 6
29,8
0754
,590
54,5
900
00
00
00
00
14,1
1412
5.14
904
775
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k31
6248
1249
6B
452
,040
54,6
100
54,6
1026
,860
00
00
00
016
,761
117.
5785
172
9To
tal
59,2
4011
8,48
1C
30
00
00
24,9
000
00
00
08,
380
91.5
766
957
3D
20
00
00
23,5
430
00
00
023
,818
125.
5790
777
7E
50
00
00
58,3
7013
,447
00
27,3
900
011
,027
109.
8679
768
3Se
ctio
n 7
Alfre
dton
Tin
ui R
dF
70
00
00
11,9
6019
,233
19,2
400
029
,170
012
,791
126.
1491
178
1M
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
G1
00
00
00
00
6,94
00
06,
940
19,8
4810
4.14
757
649
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
EBoP
1,79
01,
790
00
03,
477
00
00
00
010
8.14
785
673
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck3
1387
2773
Tota
l Tru
ck M
vmts
83,6
4011
0,99
054
,590
54,6
1026
,860
122,
250
32,6
8019
,240
6,94
027
,390
29,1
706,
940
106,
740
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
958
811
76C
heck
sum
83,6
4011
0,99
054
,590
54,6
1026
,860
122,
250
32,6
8019
,240
6,94
027
,390
29,1
706,
940
106,
740
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
4981
6716
333
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r39
2584
5169
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k18
3550
7100
Aver
age
Dai
ly T
rips
(Fig
ure
25)
Tota
l16
,276
32,5
51C
lust
erSt
age
12
34
56
78
910
1112
13R
oute
52
Rou
te 5
2R
oute
52
Wai
hoki
Val
ley
Wai
taw
hiti
Cas
tle H
illAl
fred
ton
Tinu
iTi
nui
Dag
gsM
arin
giTa
naw
aR
oute
52(
Sth)
Alfr
edto
nM
axim
um p
er C
lust
erA
638
7070
00
00
00
00
018
70Se
ctio
n 8
Tinu
i Rd
B4
7175
075
370
00
00
00
2375
Mat
eria
lW
eigh
t/m3
(t)Pa
yloa
d/m
vmt
Uni
tTr
ansp
ort C
ombo
Volu
me
(x10
00m
3)O
ne-w
ayTw
o-w
ayC
30
00
00
430
00
00
015
43D
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
3936
4072
80D
20
00
00
300
00
00
031
31St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
273
714
73E
50
00
00
8520
00
400
016
85C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r5
327
653
F7
00
00
015
2525
00
370
1637
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
0G
10
00
00
00
011
00
1131
31D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
2013
2526
51EB
oP3
30
00
50
00
00
00
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k18
3550
7100
Tota
l9,
579
19,1
57
Sect
ion
9D
aggs
Rd
Mat
eria
lW
eigh
t/m3
(t)Pa
yloa
d/m
vmt
Uni
tTr
ansp
ort C
ombo
Volu
me
(x10
00m
3)O
ne-w
ayTw
o-w
ayD
ry G
rave
l2
30t
truck
+tra
iler
00
0St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
311
7023
40C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r7
457
915
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
0D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
2717
8935
78C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
00
0To
tal
3,41
76,
833
Sect
ion
10M
airin
gi R
dM
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r14
613
627
2725
3St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
00
0C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
00
0D
ry,lo
ose
sand
1.42
30t
truck
+tra
iler
166
133
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k0
00
Tota
l13
,693
27,3
86
Sect
ion
11Ta
naw
a R
dM
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r67
6253
1250
7St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
00
0C
emen
t1.
424
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
Wat
er1
6t
wat
er tr
uck
5083
3316
667
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k0
00
Tota
l14
,587
29,1
73
Sect
ion
12R
oute
52
Sout
hM
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r0
00
Stee
l7.
818
ttru
ck3
1170
2340
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
745
791
5W
ater
16
tw
ater
truc
k0
00
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r27
1789
3578
Con
cret
e5
m3
conc
rete
truc
k0
00
Tota
l3,
417
6,83
3
Sect
ion
13Al
fredt
on R
dM
ater
ial
Wei
ght/m
3 (t)
Payl
oad/
mvm
tU
nit
Tran
spor
t Com
boVo
lum
e (x
1000
m3)
One
-way
Two-
way
Dry
Gra
vel
230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r35
733
320
6664
0St
eel
7.8
18t
truck
1462
4012
480
Cem
ent
1.4
24t
truck
+tra
iler
4026
1352
27W
ater
16
tw
ater
truc
k0
00
Dry
,loos
e sa
nd1.
4230
ttru
ck+t
raile
r16
911
199
2239
8C
oncr
ete
5m
3co
ncre
te tr
uck
00
0To
tal
53,3
7210
6,74
5
Clu
ster
Num
ber o
f Tu
rbin
es
Traf
ficG
ener
atio
n_v1
8sen
sitiv
ity12
0711
_a.x
lsm
Page
1
012345
Oct-13Dec-13
Feb-14Apr-14Jun-14Aug-14Oct-14Dec-14
Feb-15Apr-15Jun-15Aug-15Oct-15Dec-15
Feb-16Apr-16Jun-16Aug-16Oct-16Dec-16
Feb-17Apr-17Jun-17Aug-17Oct-17Dec-17
Feb-18Apr-18Jun-18Aug-18Oct-18Dec-18
Feb-19Apr-19Jun-19Aug-19Oct-19Dec-19
Feb-20Apr-20Jun-20
No. of Clusters Active
Con
stru
ctio
n D
urat
ions
(dat
es in
dica
tive
only
)
Con
stru
ctio
n Pr
ogra
mm
e O
ptio
ns
Num
ber o
f Act
ive
Turb
ine
Clu
ster
s
Low
Inte
nsity
1 T
eam
Med
ium
Inte
nsity
1 T
eam
Hig
h In
tens
ity 2
Tea
ms
Assessment of potential over-dimension loads per cluster per day
Cluster Maximum Number of Turbines (From 80L, 90L, 100L Layouts)
No. blades No.Nacelles No. Tower Sections
No Hub and nose cones
Total movements
Construction working days
per Cluster
Average over-dimension
vehicle movements
per day
Peak over-dimension
vehicle movements per
dayA 33 99 33 132 33 594 326 2 4B 46 138 46 184 46 828 312 3 5C 24 72 24 96 24 432 309 1 3D 65 195 65 260 65 1170 274 4 9E 29 87 29 116 29 522 307 2 3F 37 111 37 148 37 666 315 2 4G 53 159 53 212 53 954 315 3 6
Total 2871234567
89
10
Assessment of Total Daily and Peak Hour Flows by ClusterHigh Intensity 2 Team
CLUSTER MAXIMUM AVERAGE DAILY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC (vpd two way)
PEAK TURBINE DELIVERY TRAFFIC
(vpd two way)
CONTRACTOR LIGHT VEHICLE
MOVEMENTS (vpd two way)
TOTAL MAXIMUM AVERAGE
DAILY VEHICLE MOVEMENTS (vpd two way)
TOTAL MAXIMUM AVERAGE PEAK HOUR VEHICLE
MOVEMENTS(vph two way)
TOTAL AVERAGE MID DAY HOURLY
VEHICLE MOVEMENTS(v
ph two way) A 92 4 185 280 107 10B 175 5 185 365 120 18C 80 3 185 268 105 8D 86 9 185 279 107 9E 78 3 185 266 105 8F 62 4 185 251 102 7G 22 6 185 213 97 3
Medium Intensity 1 TeamCLUSTER MAXIMUM AVERAGE PEAK TURBINE CONTRACTOR TOTAL TOTAL MAXIMUM TOTAL
A 88 4 185 277 106 9B 131 5 185 322 113 14C 65 3 185 253 103 7D 38 9 185 232 100 5E 78 3 185 266 105 8F 93 4 185 282 107 10G 11 6 185 202 95 2
Low Intensity 1 TeamCLUSTER MAXIMUM AVERAGE
DAILY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC (vpd two way)
PEAK TURBINE DELIVERY TRAFFIC
(vpd two way)
CONTRACTOR LIGHT VEHICLE
MOVEMENTS (vpd two way)
TOTAL MAXIMUM AVERAGE
DAILY VEHICLE MOVEMENTS (vpd two way)
TOTAL MAXIMUM AVERAGE PEAK HOUR VEHICLE
MOVEMENTS(vph two way)
TOTAL AVERAGE MID DAY HOURLY
VEHICLE MOVEMENTS(v
ph two way) A 38 4 185 227 99 4B 75 5 185 265 105 8C 43 3 185 231 99 5D 30 9 185 224 98 4E 40 3 185 228 99 4F 37 4 185 227 99 4G 11 6 185 202 95 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Movements equals twice the summed vehicle load based demandsConstruction period working days based on minimum construction period for each of the 3 construction programme optionsConstruction working days based on 6 working days per construction period week
Total maximum average daily vehicle movements based on sum of maximum average daily construction traffic, peak turbine delivery and contractor light vehicle movements
Key Assumptions:
Key Assumptions: Maximum average daily construction traffic based on maximum demand from materials distribution analysis for each construction programme on any road section
Expected turbine delivery based on peak demand assessment in the first table above (twice average demand)Contractor light vehicle movements based on contractor personnel at peak construction for high intensity programme and an average two person per vehicle occupancy
Average over-dimension vehicle movements based on total movements distributed across construction working daysPeak over-dimension vehicle movements based on twice the average demand
Maximum number of turbines for any layout produces the greatest total number of turbine component trips3 blades per turbine1 nacelle per turbineUp to 4 sections per tower1 trip per nose and hub cone for each turbine
Total maximum average peak hour vehicle movements based on half of the daily contractor light vehicle movements plus 15% of the sum of (maximum average daily construction traffic plus peak expected turbine delivery traffic)Total average mid day hourly vehicle movement based on 10% of the sum of (maximum average daily construction traffic plus peak expected turbine delivery traffic)
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Appendix G: Assessment of Activity Generated Need for General Road Upgrading
Asse
ssm
ent o
f Pot
entia
l Dem
and
for R
oad
Wid
enin
g G
ener
ated
by
the
Win
d Fa
rm
EXPE
CTE
D
MA
XIM
UM
A
DD
ITIO
NA
L H
EAVY
C
ON
STR
UC
TIO
N T
RA
FFIC
TOTA
L EX
PEC
TED
M
AXI
MU
M
AD
DIT
ION
AL
INC
LUD
ING
C
ON
TRA
CT
OR
LIG
HT
VEH
ICLE
M
OVE
MEN
TS
Low
est
Dai
lyH
ighe
st
Dai
lyLo
wes
t D
aily
Hig
hest
D
aily
Dai
ly
Estim
ates
Dai
ly
Estim
ates
Low
est
Dai
lyH
ighe
st
Dai
lyM
inim
umTy
pica
l M
axim
umM
ean
Typi
cal
Min
imum
Typi
cal
Max
imum
Mea
n Ty
pica
lM
inim
umTy
pica
l M
axim
umM
ean
Typi
cal
Min
imum
Typi
cal
Max
imum
Mea
n Ty
pica
lM
inim
umTy
pica
l M
axim
umM
ean
Typi
cal
Min
imum
Typi
cal
Max
imum
Typi
cal
Mea
n Ty
pica
l(v
pd)
(vpd
)(v
pd)
(vpd
)(v
pd)
(vpd
)(v
pd)
(vpd
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)(m
)
Rou
te 5
2Se
aled
4.2
6.6
5.7-
5.8
5.8
6430
020
1069
324
303
489
558
813
6-2
.8-0
.4-1
.2-1
.80.
6-0
.27
-3.8
-1.4
-2.2
-2.8
-0.4
-1.2
11
1
Cas
tle H
ill R
oad
Seal
ed /
Uns
eale
d3.
36
4.0
-5.0
4.5
4015
020
0746
171
265
451
497
622
6-2
.70
-1.5
-2.7
0-1
.56
-3.7
-1-2
.5-2
.70
-1.5
00
0
Dag
gs R
oad
Seal
ed /
Uns
eale
d4
4.4
4.0-
4.4
4.2
3040
2005
3547
1920
524
025
26
-2-1
.6-1
.8-2
-1.6
-1.8
6-2
-1.6
-1.8
-2-1
.6-1
.80
00
Alfre
dton
Roa
dSe
aled
3.9
7.4
6.1
6.1
4049
020
0944
539
196
382
426
921
6-3
.10.
4-0
.9-2
.11.
40.
17
-4.1
-0.6
-1.9
-3.1
0.4
-0.9
11
1
Wai
hoki
Val
ley
Roa
dSe
aled
/ U
nsea
led
3.2
5.4
3.2
3.2
13
2001
14
155
341
342
345
6-2
.8-0
.6-2
.8-2
.8-0
.6-2
.86
-2.8
-0.6
-2.8
-2.8
-0.6
-2.8
00
0
Kaita
wa
Roa
dSe
aled
5.1
6.6
5.7
5.7
320
550
2008
358
616
2521
156
982
76
-1.9
-0.4
-1.3
-0.9
0.6
-0.3
7-2
.9-1
.4-2
.3-1
.9-0
.4-1
.31
11
Man
gaon
e Va
lley
Roa
dSe
aled
57.
85.
5-6.
35.
950
200
2010
5421
625
211
265
427
6-1
1.8
-0.1
-11.
8-0
.16
-20.
8-1
.1-1
1.8
-0.1
00
0
Wai
riri R
oad
Seal
ed /
Uns
eale
d4
4.5
44
1550
2005
1859
2521
122
927
06
-2-1
.5-2
-2-1
.5-2
6-2
-1.5
-2-2
-1.5
-20
00
Mar
ingi
Roa
dU
nsea
led
3.6
4.3
3.6-
4.0
3.8
3030
2005
3535
8026
630
130
16
-2.4
-1.7
-2.2
-2.4
-1.7
-2.2
6-2
.4-1
.7-2
.2-2
.4-1
.7-2
.20
00
Wha
ngae
hu
Valle
y R
oad
Seal
ed5.
67.
15.
6-6.
05.
510
020
020
0412
024
019
205
325
445
6-0
.41.
1-0
.5-0
.41.
1-0
.56
-1.4
0.1
-1.5
-0.4
1.1
-0.5
00
0
Man
awa
Roa
dSe
aled
/ U
nsea
led
4.7
6.3
4.7-
5.3
560
120
2006
7013
925
211
281
350
6-1
.30.
3-1
-1.3
0.3
-16
-2.3
-0.7
-2-1
.30.
3-1
00
0
Mas
terto
n-C
astle
poin
t Roa
dSe
aled
4
7.3
6.5
6.5
130
2000
2007
148
2280
2521
135
924
918
-5-1
.7-2
.5-4
-0.7
-1.5
8-5
-1.7
-2.5
-4-0
.7-1
.50
00
Alfre
dton
-Tin
ui
Roa
dU
nsea
led
44.
84
420
2020
0524
2480
266
290
290
6-2
-1.2
-2-2
-1.2
-26
-2-1
.2-2
-2-1
.2-2
00
0
Te O
re O
re R
oad
Seal
ed7
1414
1412
075
0020
0613
987
0025
211
350
8911
8-2
55
-16
68
-25
5-1
66
00
0
Te O
re O
re
Bide
ford
Roa
dSe
aled
5.3
7.1
5.3-
6.3
5.8
3000
7600
2006
3480
8816
2521
136
9190
278
-3.7
-1.9
-3.2
-2.7
-0.9
-2.2
8-3
.7-1
.9-3
.2-2
.7-0
.9-2
.20
00
Belo
w S
tand
ard
Abov
e St
anda
rd
RO
AD
NA
ME
CA
RR
IAG
EW
AY
Cur
rent
Sea
l Wid
th V
aria
tion
from
NZS
4404
:201
0, In
clud
ing
1.0m
Sea
l Wid
th D
ispe
nsat
ion
Belo
w S
tand
ard
Addi
tiona
l roa
d w
idth
de
man
d ge
nera
ted
by
the
activ
ity
Theo
retic
al a
dditi
onal
road
w
idth
dem
and
gene
rate
d by
th
e ac
tivity
if it
was
a
perm
anen
t act
ivity
Abov
e St
anda
rd
NZS
4404
:200
4 D
esira
ble
Long
Te
rm S
eal W
idth
(R
ural
Roa
ds),
Incl
udin
g D
istr
ict
Plan
1.0
m S
eal
Wid
th
Dis
pens
atio
n - f
or
2014
Vol
umes
-
Dur
ing
Con
stru
ctio
n
Cur
rent
Sea
l Wid
th V
aria
tion
from
NZS
4404
:201
0N
ZS44
04:2
004
Des
irabl
e Lo
ng T
erm
Se
al W
idth
(R
ural
Roa
ds),
Incl
udin
g D
istr
ict P
lan
1.0m
Sea
l W
idth
D
ispe
nsat
ion
- fo
r 201
4 Vo
lum
es
Cur
rent
Sea
l Wid
th V
aria
tion
from
NZS
4404
:201
0C
urre
nt S
eal W
idth
Var
iatio
n fr
om N
ZS44
04:2
010,
Incl
udin
g 1.
0m S
eal W
idth
Dis
pens
atio
n
Dur
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nEx
istin
g C
ondi
tion
CA
RR
IAG
EWA
Y W
IDTH
S (m
)
2014
TR
AFF
IC
VOLU
MES
BA
SED
O
N 2
%PA
GR
OW
THC
UR
REN
T TR
AFF
IC
VOLU
ME
FOR
ECA
ST 2
014
TOTA
L VO
LUM
ES
DU
RIN
G
CO
NST
RU
CTI
ON
LATE
ST
CO
UN
T YE
AR
Roa
d W
iden
ing
Asse
ssm
ent_
v4.x
lsPa
ge 1
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Appendix H: Bridge & Culvert Details, Tararua and Masterton Districts
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Tararua District Bridge and Culvert Details
ROAD RP BRIDGE/CULVERT LENGTH WIDTH SPANS BEAMS
Hamua-Rongomai Road
670 E-63 57.9 4.5 2 s
1342 E-65 13.7 7.3 1 c
5205 E-66 8.2 3.7 1 c
Kaitawa Road 1124 P-24 10.5 6.7 1 c
1420 PC-34 - Culvert full width - -
Mangaone Valley Road
2587 P-25 45.1 6.7 3 c
10197 P-26 9.4 6 1 c
12835 E-09 13.2 4.4 1 c
14513 E-08 27.4 7.3 3 c
17078 E-10 9.1 7.3 1 c
18342 E-07 6.4 3.7 1 c
3230 PC-39 - Culvert full width - -
1184 PC-63 - Culvert full width - -
20360 EC-11 - Culvert full width - -
22660 EC-120 - Culvert full width - -
Alfredton Road
6606 E-16 22.6 7.3 3 c
15953 E-14 5.8 5.5 1 c
16940 E-15 31.4 3.7 3 c
5920 EC-05 - Culvert full width - -
7980 EC-06 - Culvert full width - -
10942 EC-08 - Culvert full width - -
Rimu Road 25 A-52 13 6.4 1 c
2893 A-53 12 6.8 1 c
Waihoki Valley Road
152 E-101 13.7 4.5 1 s
1200 EC-102 - Culvert full width - -
Waitawhiti Road 4823 E-95 11.6 6.5 1 c
5307 E-96 9.1 4.4 1 c
Castle Hill Road
2575 E-75 27.4 7.4 2 c
6291 E-76 16.8 4.5 1 s
7522 E-77 23.1 4.5 1 s
8862 E-79 8.2 4.5 1 s
9551 E-80 9.1 4.5 1 s
9810 E-81 9.1 4.5 1 s
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
ROAD RP BRIDGE/CULVERT LENGTH WIDTH SPANS BEAMS
10780 EC-07 - Culvert full width - -
Daggs Road - none - - - -
Route 52 north of Alfredton (052-0121)
5395 E-17 11.6 4.2 1 c
14965 E-18 36.9 8.4 4 c
10551 EC-122 - Culvert full width - -
12432 EC-123 - Culvert full width - -
17449 EC-124 - Culvert full width - -
18037 EC-125 - Culvert full width - -
Route 52 north of Alfredton (052-0144)
0 E-19 36.9 4.7 3 c
3565 E-20 49.2 7.05 4 c
5247 E-21 50 7.1 2 c
7898 E-22 12.6 7.1 1 c
8794 E-23 31.1 8.38 3 c
Route 52 (052-0157) to Daggs Road
0 E-24 9.2 7.09 1 c
3243 EC-130 - Culvert full width - -
Alfredton-Tinui Road 7940
* The ‘C’ suffix in the ‘Bridge/Culvert’ column denotes “large culvert”. In the “Beams” column, “s” and “c” denote “steel” and “concrete” respectively. Structural analysis of these structures is covered by Aurecon.
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Masterton District Bridge and Culvert Details
ROAD NAME DISPLACEMENT ADT BRIDGE ID LENGTH KERB TO KERB NAME SPANS LANES
Alfredton Tinui Road 7940 15 125 24.7 3.6 B6/1 WINGATE 1 1
Daggs Road 1925 10 151 14.1 3.6 B386/1 DAGGS 1 1
Maringi Road 1240 24 76 9.6 3.75 B140/1 MARINGI #1 1 1
Maringi Road 3430 24 77 24.45 2.6 B140/2 MARINGI #2 2 1
Maringi Road 8440 <10 78 15.2 3.2 B140/3 MARINGI 3 1
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Appendix I: Construct ion Traffic Management Framework
Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Assessment Report
Transportation Effects Assessment.docx
Genesis Energy
Castle Hill Wind Farm
Construction Traffic Management Framework
PO Box1261, Level 6, 11 Garden Pl Hamilton 3240 P: +64 78395500 www.tdg.co.nz New Zealand transportation effects assessment.docx
July 2011
transportation effects assessment.docx
Genesis Energy
Castle Hill Wind Farm
Construction Traffic Management Framework Quality Assurance Statement
Prepared by:
Mark Apeldoorn
Director
Reviewed by:
Anna Wilkins
Principal Transportation Engineer
Approved for Issue by:
Mark Apeldoorn
Director
Status: Final
Date: July 2011
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework
transportation effects assessment.docx
Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. Purpose and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 1
3. CTMP Development Process ................................................................................................... 2
4. CTMP Content .......................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Consent Conditions .................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Construction Programme ............................................................................................ 3
4.3 Traffic Flows ................................................................................................................ 3
4.4 Road Safety Assessment ........................................................................................... 3
4.5 Wind Farm Access Points ........................................................................................... 3
4.6 Travel Routes .............................................................................................................. 3
4.7 Road Closures, Events and Cyclic Activities .............................................................. 4
4.8 Travel Plan .................................................................................................................. 4
4.9 Driver Protocols .......................................................................................................... 4
4.10 Contractor Parking ...................................................................................................... 4
4.11 Oversize Loads ........................................................................................................... 4
4.12 Passenger Transport .................................................................................................. 5
4.13 Road Improvements ................................................................................................... 5
4.14 Pavement Maintenance .............................................................................................. 6
4.15 Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 6
4.16 Incident Reporting ....................................................................................................... 6
4.17 Emergency Services ................................................................................................... 6
4.18 Contingency Planning ................................................................................................. 6
4.19 Temporary Traffic Management Planning .................................................................. 6 4.19.1 Temporary Speed Restrictions .............................................................................................. 12 4.19.2 COPTTM Variations .............................................................................................................. 13 4.19.3 Engineering Exception Decisions .......................................................................................... 13
4.20 Communication Protocols ......................................................................................... 13
5. Specific Standards .................................................................................................................. 13
5.1 Traffic Flows .............................................................................................................. 13
5.2 Wind Farm Access Points ......................................................................................... 13
5.3 Travel Routes ............................................................................................................ 14
5.4 Driver Protocols ........................................................................................................ 14
5.5 Oversize Transporters .............................................................................................. 14
5.6 Road Improvements ................................................................................................. 15
5.7 Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 16
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework
transportation effects assessment.docx
5.8 Incident Reporting ..................................................................................................... 16
5.9 Communications ....................................................................................................... 17
6. Presentation ............................................................................................................................ 18
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
1
1. Introduction
This document is the Construction Traffic Management Framework for the Castle Hill Wind Farm. It has been prepared to set out the purpose, objectives and specific standards to be applied when preparing the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) at the detailed design stage.
Some aspects of the construction methodology are to be fixed as specific standards in this Framework which must be included in the CTMP under the conditions of the resource consent for the CHWF. Other aspects, such as timing and staging (which influence traffic volumes), are to be developed at the detailed design stage when contractors are involved. It is not practical to prepare these details at this stage, and the approach of preparing the full CTMP at the detailed design stage will enable contractors to bring innovation where appropriate, enabling a substantially better outcome for other road users, the efficiency of construction, or both.
The CTMP is to be prepared by a Chartered Professional Engineer with specialist skills in Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning, appointed by the consent holder. Preparation of the CTMP will involve input from the principal civil engineering contractor, the turbine transport contractor, Tararua and Masterton District Councils, residents on the transport route who wish to be involved, emergency services and local transport operators (such as the school bus operator and livestock transporters). It will be required to meet the purpose, objectives, and specific standards set out in this Framework. The Plan is to be submitted to the Councils to be assessed and certified as meeting the requirements of the Framework.
2. Purpose and Object ives
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of the CTMP is to set out in detail the manner in which construction traffic will be managed to ensure the safe and efficient performance of the road network, to minimise adverse effects on the existing community arising from construction traffic, and to provide the community with information about Genesis Energy’s traffic arrangements.
2.2 Objectives
The objectives of the CTMP are to:
(i) ensure the specific requirements of Acts, Regulations, Bylaws and consent conditions in relation to construction traffic, are adhered to;
(ii) encourage a culture of road safety awareness and commitment;
(iii) ensure best practice in transport safety;
(iv) ensure emergency services are not obstructed;
(v) minimise disruption to the community, farming operations and rural services;
(vi) minimise traffic generation; and
(vii) encourage the participation of the community in maximising safety and minimising disruption.
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
2
These objectives will be achieved by the methods set out in the CTMP.
3. CTMP Development Process
Preparation of the CTMP will be facilitated by a Chartered Professional Engineer, specialising in Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning, appointed by the consent holder. Its preparation is to begin approximately four months before construction.
In preparing a first draft CTMP, the Chartered Professional Engineer shall:
(i) review this Construction Traffic Management Framework;
(ii) review the CHWF Transportation Assessment and relevant evidence;
(iii) review the approved consent conditions;
(iv) liaise with the consent holder, the lead civil engineer, the principal civils contractor, the turbine transport contractor, Tararua and Masterton District Councils, residents on the transport route who wish to be involved, NZ Police, NZ Fire Service, St Johns Ambulance, the school bus operator, rural transport operators (identified by residents), and vets.
Liaison may involve such meetings and conversations as are appropriate to ensure effective consultation with the parties listed above, and others considered appropriate by the Engineer.
The first draft will be circulated to the above parties for comments and suggestions. A period of at least four weeks will be allowed for comments and suggestions. These will be evaluated by the Chartered Professional Engineer and incorporated into the completed CTMP, as the Engineer determines appropriate.
The completed CTMP will be submitted to the Tararua and Masterton District Councils at least four weeks before construction of the CHWF begins along with a report outlining the comments and suggestions made on the first draft, and the extent to which they have been included. The Tararua and Masterton District Councils will assess the completed CTMP with a view to certifying it as meeting the purpose, objectives, and specific standards set out in this Framework.
Any changes required to achieve that certification will be discussed between the Councils and the Engineer and made, enabling the final CTMP to be distributed to:
(i) the consulted parties;
(ii) rural transport operators and rural service providers who regularly use the primary access roads; and
(iii) made available to residents and others who have an interest via electronic media.
Updates will likely be required from time to time as a result of project changes or issues arising, which may be identified by the consent holder, its contractors, Tararua or Masterton District Councils, or to address matters relating to residents or other road users. Suggested changes to the CTMP or issues arising will be referred to the Chartered Professional Engineer who will consider the matter and make a recommendation to the Tararua and Masterton District Councils. If the Councils certify the recommended changes to the CTMP, revised copies will be made available via digital media for the above referenced parties.
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
3
4. CTMP Content
The CTMP is to include, as a minimum, the following content.
4.1 Consent Conditions
The CTMP shall record the full set of consent conditions relating to traffic and transportation conditions in this section. The following specific actions and responses shall be developed having regard for the consent condition requirements and the bases on which the Transportation Effects Assessment has been made.
4.2 Construction Programme
The CTMP is to present the confirmed construction programme, setting out the start and end dates for the key traffic generating activities. From this, all parties will be able to understand the type of activities that are occurring and therefore the types of vehicles to expect on the road network.
4.3 Traffic Flows
Based on the programme and construction methodology, the CTMP will set out the expected profile of average daily truck and light vehicle movements from month to month during construction. It will also address the expected spread of traffic throughout the day, considering the arrangements for transporting materials and people to the Site, including the geographic spread of sources and accommodation.
4.4 Road Safety Assessment
An assessment of the road safety record as contained on the Land Transport New Zealand Crash Analysis Database for the most recent five year period shall be provided, and commentary given on any particular road safety matters that warrant consideration. Where relevant, this may be taken from the Transportation Assessment Report and updated.
A visual assessment shall also be made of the Local Roading environment to determine the nature of road safety. Any potential notable risk areas shall be identified and recorded in this report along with the mitigation planning to be implemented.
4.5 Wind Farm Access Points
The CTMP will provide details of the individual points where the Site will be accessed from the public road network including how security will be managed.
4.6 Travel Routes
The CTMP will map the travel route(s) to be used by construction vehicles and for oversize loads travelling from the receiving Port.
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
4
4.7 Road Closures, Events and Cyclic Activities
The CTMP shall be prepared in consultation with event organisers and Councils. It shall have regard for but not be limited to considering the following:
(i) car rally and/or cycling events;
(ii) other activities and works within the road environment that may occur from time to time;
(iii) the movement of stock along or across the roadways;
(iv) ram sales and mustering which typically occurs in November;
(v) lamb sales which typically occur around February; and
(vi) fertilising activities in autumn and spring. Of note in this regard is the Daggs Road access to the airstrip, which appears to service up to about seven farms.
4.8 Travel Plan
A Travel Plan shall be developed to minimise contractor generated traffic and construction traffic movements to and from the Site. This shall consider for example alternative travel modes, off-set travel times, ride sharing and opportunities for back loading of construction vehicles.
4.9 Driver Protocols
In addition to the driving standards imposed by law, all drivers involved in the project will be subject to additional protocols when travelling along the district roads. The objective of these protocols will be to ensure the safe operation of roads and to minimise existing user delay during construction.
The CTMP will set out these protocols along with the monitoring and disciplinary procedures to be followed in the event of any breaches.
4.10 Contractor Parking
Contractor parking is to be planned to be wholly accommodated On-Site and clear of the public roads. The location, quantity and provision of parking is to be specified in the CTMP to demonstrate the suitable provision and location of the activity.
4.11 Oversize Loads
The CTMP will address the movement of Over-weight and Over-dimension loads. While this work will be undertaken by specialist contractors operating under permits specific to the project, the details will be repeated in the CTMP to inform interested parties in understanding what to expect.
This part of the CTMP is to include:
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
5
(i) the over-size transport route(s);
(ii) times and locations when movement is prohibited, and an indication of the times of day when deliveries are anticipated;
(iii) procedures for working around stock movements;
(iv) operating restrictions for bridge crossings;
(v) piloting procedures;
(vi) contingency plans for breakdowns, bridge or pavement failures, severe weather conditions, accidents, or roadworks;
(vii) provisions for co-ordination with other parties, including emergency services; and
(viii) provisions for communication with school bus drivers.
Copies of the permits themselves are to be appended to the CTMP.
4.12 Passenger Transport
Specific management plans shall be prepared to show the planning provisions for reliable travel time, movement and operation of passenger transport, including stopping areas.
This is to include scheduled passenger services, scheduled community or health services (the Local or Regional Councils may be able to advise contacts or provisions in this regard) and any school services that have the potential to be affected.
4.13 Road Improvements
An appropriately detailed schedule describing the road improvement works and the temporary traffic management provisions to be put in place will be separately submitted to Council for approval under the Local Government Act. This schedule will include road improvements to facilitate movement of oversize loads, pavement upgrades, pavement maintenance obligations, and the provision of traffic management facilities at regularly used stock crossings along the transport route.
A summary of those plans will be contained in the CTMP, including:
(i) the physical extent and nature of the works;
(ii) a schedule of start and finish dates;
(iii) details for sourcing materials and disposal of spoil;
(iv) provisions for advisory signage;
(v) arrangements for temporary traffic management and supervision; and
(vi) contact telephone numbers.
Depending on the timing of these works, this component of the CTMP may be prepared and circulated in advance of the rest.
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
6
4.14 Pavement Maintenance
The CTMP will summarise the key aspects of regular pavement maintenance on roads identified in the resource consent, including:
(i) service contract arrangements
(ii) triggers for intervention (eg: size of pothole);
(iii) intervention treatments (including materials specifications); and
(iv) response times.
The CTMP will also include requirements for monitoring the oversize vehicle route from SH2 to the Site, during the turbine component delivery phase, to ensure any road damage is identified and repaired.
4.15 Monitoring
The CTMP will provide a detailed schedule of the various elements of monitoring relating to public roads and transport.
The schedule will also include the specific data to be measured, the method of monitoring, the frequency with which monitoring will be undertaken, triggers for intervention, and the corresponding response.
4.16 Incident Reporting
The CTMP will set out requirements and procedures for incident reporting.
4.17 Emergency Services
The plan shall set out emergency service planning provisions including those related to:
(i) Site access and operations;
(ii) local environment servicing and access;
(iii) strategic network continuity; and
(iv) communications provisions.
4.18 Contingency Planning
The provisioning for contingency shall be set out. It shall outline key risk areas, such as traffic congestion, potential for storm damage in construction zones, vehicle crash instances (and others) and describe what management / communication and planning provisions are to be established to avoid / minimise or mitigate potential adverse situations.
4.19 Temporary Traffic Management Planning
The planning requirements set out in COPTTM and provided for within the following pro-forma sheets shall be completed.
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
7
Traffic
Management Plan Reference
For Office Use Only
Organisation
Contractor
Client
Contract Name/Number
N/A
RCA Consent Reference
Location Road Name(s)
Road Level Speed
Limit
From - To RP
Description of Activity
Work Programme
Proposed/ Restricted Work
Hours
Traffic Details (Main Route)
AADT
Peak Hour Flow
Proposed Traffic Management
Method
Active: General Procedures Unattended:
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
8
Traffic Management Plan
Reference
For Office Use Only Night:
Proposed Speed Restrictions
Positive Traffic Management
Measures
Lane Restrictions Restricted Speed Minimum Lane Width Delineation Pedestrians Cyclists
Contingency Plans
Public Notification
Personal Safety
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
9
Traffic Management Plan
Reference
For Office Use Only
On-Site Monitoring
Other Information (eg. delay calcs, EED
issues, temporary speed issues, etc)
Layout Diagrams
EED Applicable? Y/N - YES Attached Y/N
Traffic Controllers
Name (STMS) .
Phone (24 hours)
Name (TC) Cert No:
Phone (24 hours)
TMP prepared accurately to represent Site conditions and submitted by
Contractor/Applicant Cert No:
Date
Requires Amendment
Engineer Cert No:
Date
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
10
Traffic Management Plan
Reference
For Office Use Only This TMP is Approved on the Following Basis
1. To the best of the approving Engineer’s judgment this TMP conforms to the requirements of Transit New Zealand’s Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management.
2. This plan is approved on the basis that the activity, the location and the road environment have been correctly represented by the applicant.Any inaccuracy in the portrayal of this information is the responsibility of the applicant. The STMS for the activity is reminded that it is the STMS’s duty to “Postpone, cancel or modify operations due to the adverse traffic, weather or other conditions that affect the safety of this Site” (reference A4.5).
Approving Engineer: ........................................................................................................................................................... (Name and Certificate Number) ........................................................................................................................................................... (Signature)
Acceptance by:
TMC: ................................................................. Cert No: ................................................................. Signature: .................................................................
Date: ..............................................
Acceptance by:
.................................................................................................................................. (Signature) .........................................................................................................................................(Name) ........................................................................................................................................... (Title) ...........................................................................................................................................(Date)
Acceptance by:
................................................................................................................................... (Signature) .........................................................................................................................................(Name) ........................................................................................................................................... (Title) ...........................................................................................................................................(Date)
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
11
Traffic Management Plan
Reference
For Office Use Only
Acceptance by: Applicant
................................................................................................................................... (Signature) .........................................................................................................................................(Name) ........................................................................................................................................... (Title) ...........................................................................................................................................(Date)
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
12
4.19.1 Temporary Speed Restrictions
Application for temporary speed restrictions shall be made on the following form (also included in COPTTM). APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY SPEED RESTRICTION
Pursuant to Section 23(1) of the Traffic Regulations ……………. Sought by (Contractor) For (Client) Contract No. (if appropriate) Road Name / State Highway Situated at From Route Position From the date of To the date of Between the hours of: Approval granted by: Name: ……………………………………………………… Position: …………………………………………………… Signature: …………………………………………………. Date: ……………………………………………………… Special Conditions to apply: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
13
4.19.2 COPTTM Variations
Variations from the provisions within COPTTM (and the Local Authority supplement) shall be made in accordance with the relevant COPTTM provisions and necessary approvals from the relevant Territorial Authority.
4.19.3 Engineering Exception Decisions
Application for an Engineering Exception Decision, as provided for within COPTTM shall be made on the pro-forma form within COPTTM.
4.20 Communication Protocols
Communication protocols are important to the success of the CTMP. Primary contact details will be clearly recorded as the point of contact for road users.
Specific contact arrangements will be made for farmers to advise the project team of planned stock movements. These will then be communicated to project drivers enabling them to avoid that time or otherwise modify their travel as appropriate.
Finally, the CTMP will record a list of people and organisations that the CTMP will be distributed to. All amendments and updates to the CTMP, as approved by the Councils, will then be made accessible to those named on the list.
5. Specific Standards
A number of specific standards have been identified as necessary components of construction traffic management and are therefore mandatory standards to be included in the CTMP. They are:
5.1 Traffic Flows (i) contractor vehicle movements to and from the Site shall be minimised by adopting
shared travel, return waste carriage, and other vehicle number minimisation techniques.
5.2 Wind Farm Access Points (i) the primary Wind Farm Access points shall be located and constructed as
described in the application or as otherwise approved;
(ii) all CHWF construction traffic must use the primary access points, with the exception of:
- specific exception sites to be listed once confirmed
(iii) other Site access transport conditions of consent to be identified here once established.
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
14
5.3 Travel Routes (i) All conditions of consent relating to the management and control of travel on the
defined routes are to be recorded here.
5.4 Driver Protocols (i) drivers travelling to or from the Site must do so safely, in full compliance with the
law, including in respect of speed limits, following distances, forward sight when overtaking, being able to stop within the length of road visible (or half the length on roads without centrelines), and not driving carelessly or dangerously;
(ii) drivers with CB radios must radio in to the gatehouse when leaving the nearest town for traffic updates or notifications;
(iii) when aware of any emergency vehicles (including vets responding to emergency calls), approaching from in front or behind, drivers must pull over well in advance to provide unimpeded movement;
(iv) drivers must reduce their speed to 20km/h when passing a school bus which is slowing down, stopped, or accelerating in relation to picking up or setting down children;
(v) drivers must reduce their speed to a maximum of 30km/h when:
- passing children walking, cycling or waiting on the side of the road
- passing an oncoming school bus (which isn’t slowing down, stopped or accelerating such that the 20km/h limit applies)
- passing someone riding or leading a horse along the road
- approaching a stock crossing with the amber flashing light operating
- approaching an area where a stock shift is known to be occurring
(vi) truck drivers must not use engine brakes (particularly Jacobs Brakes) on define relevant sections of road here, except where the load being carried and the grade of the road make use of such braking absolutely necessary for safe driving.
(vii) truck drivers travelling on school bus routes at the same time as an oncoming school bus must use their CB radio to identify the location of the bus and pull over in a safe location before the school bus reaches and passes them;
(viii) truck drivers must let traffic behind them pass at regular locations including those opportunities that occur at intersections, wide driveways, sections of road with adequate forward sight distance, gravel pits etc;
(ix) disciplinary procedures shall include consideration of a requirement that a vehicle tracking system (with driver behaviour functionality) be installed in the vehicle of any project driver who is the subject of a credible complaint or identified breach of the road rules or Construction Traffic Management Plan. Any subsequent breaches identified by the system shall result in disciplinary action.
5.5 Oversize Transporters (i) the arrangements for the delivery of overweight and Over-dimensioned loads and
turbine components to the Site should avoid peak periods of traffic on the network
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
15
and minimise as far as practicable disruption and disturbance to the residents. This shall include:
- list travel time restrictions here
(ii) overweight and Over-dimension load permits for turbine components shall be appended to the CTMP;
(iii) pilots shall be in radio contact with other trucks to ensure passing occurs at safe and convenient locations;
(iv) in the event of a breakdown, accident or road failure, the transporter crew shall do the following:
- park the pilot vehicles in locations where they maximise safety, considering overhanging components, and blind bends on approaches
- contact emergency services (including Police) in the case of an accident;
- contact the project manager
- contact the road controlling authority (Tararua District Council, Masterton District Council or NZ Transport Agency)
- contact the security gate to advise all other project traffic, and local traffic via CB radio
- follow all instructions from Police and the road controlling authority
- in the case of an accident, the vehicles involved should not be moved until instructed by Police.
5.6 Road Improvements (i) List the road improvement and maintenance requirements here from the
conditions of consent;
(ii) any damage to the roads on the oversize vehicle route between SH2 and the Site caused by oversize vehicles travelling to the Site shall be repaired by the Consent Holder, with intervention triggers, response modes and response times as set out in the relevant Tararua and Masterton District Council road maintenance contracts;
(iii) close liaison shall occur with Tararua and Masterton District Council engineers in designing and planning Local Road improvements to maximise the benefit to the district road network;
(iv) the management of traffic at road improvement sites shall be in accordance with the NZTA Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management, including the Local Roads Supplement;
(v) subject to the approval of individual farmers, the Consent Holder shall supply and install remotely operated flashing amber lights at regularly used stock crossings on the roads defined for maintenance in the conditions of consent. The Consent Holder shall not be responsible for the operation of the lights, but shall be required to maintain them for the duration of the construction project;
(vi) signs shall be erected advising all drivers of a channel for CB communication in the area east of Alfredton;
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
16
(vii) subject to monitoring, additional pull over bays may be constructed where required on the turbine component transport route to facilitate passing.
5.7 Monitoring
Monitoring of public roads and traffic management is to be undertaken as indicated in Table 1.
MONITORING FREQUENCY REPORTING
Traffic movements through Wind Farm Access Points, including date, time, driver, vehicle type, number of passengers, Wind Farm Access Point used
Continuously Monthly, to Tararua and Masterton District Councils
Safety and effectiveness of temporary traffic management at public road improvement sites
Daily when working Weekly, to Project Manager
Safety and effectiveness of temporary traffic management at public road improvement sites and management of construction traffic as a whole
Weekly Monthly, to Tararua and Masterton District Councils
Condition of Waitahora Valley Road between Waitahora Road and Site, including checks for ruts, pot holes, flushing and bleeding, and the condition of the whole oversize vehicle route between SH2 and the Site during the turbine component delivery phase
Weekly Monthly, to Tararua and Masterton District Councils
Safety and effectiveness of oversize load piloting procedures
Once, at start of turbine delivery
Within a week to Project Manager, NZTA and Tararua and Masterton District Councils
Structural condition of bridges As required by overweight load permits
As required by permits, to NZTA and Tararua and Masterton District Councils
Register of incidents and public comments/complaints
Continuously Weekly, to Tararua and Masterton District Councils
Serious incidents, including those involving any injuries
As they arise Immediately to Project Manager and Tararua and Masterton District Councils
Table 1: Public Road and Traffic Management Monitoring
5.8 Incident Reporting (i) road incidents must be reported, including:
- any road crashes, including damage only;
- any near misses, which includes occurrences where evasive action was required by one or more parties and/or where heavy braking was required; and
- any breakdowns or similar requiring a recovery vehicle;
(ii) incidents shall be recorded in the register along with all comments and feedback received from the public;
(iii) serious incidents, including those involving any injuries, must be reported immediately to the project manager and Tararua and Masterton District Councils;
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
17
(iv) the register shall be reviewed weekly by the project manager and any corrective actions recorded. The register shall then be forwarded to Tararua and Masterton District Councils weekly.
5.9 Communications (i) the Consent Holder shall ensure the relevant provisions of the CTMP and road
safety issues are included in the Site induction and regular “toolbox talks”;
(ii) subject to the approval of school bus service operators and individual residents, the Consent Holder shall supply and install CB radios for school buses on roads subject to a maintenance or traffic management control due to the CHWF, to enable communication with construction traffic and the gate house;
(iii) a freephone number shall be established for public enquiries relating to any aspect of the project including comments on driver behaviour;
(iv) vehicles which are committed to the CHWF construction project shall have the freephone number displayed, along with a vehicle identification number for use in any public feedback regarding driver behaviour;
(v) the freephone number shall also be available to be used:
- to note any issues relating to temporary traffic management at public road improvement sites, oversize vehicle movement, or construction traffic management in general;
- to notify the project team of any planned stock movements along or across Waitahora Road or Waitahora Valley Road; and
- to notify the project team of any events or activities around which construction traffic should be arranged
(vi) where information is to be relayed back to project drivers, it shall be done by notifying the security guard at the gate house (Site access point), who will in turn advise drivers when they radio in from the town departure, or when they drive out of the Site;
(vii) copies of the CTMP shall be provided to at least the following:
- consents manager, Tararua and Masterton District Councils;
- roading manager, Tararua and Masterton District Councils;
- regional state highways manager, NZ Transport Agency;
- NZ Police;
- NZ Fire Service ;
- St Johns Ambulance;
- Alfredton primary school;
- List other identified schools here;
- List VET Services here;
- List commercial carriers here;
- Rural Fuel;
- Allied Petroleum;
Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx
18
- BP;
- Transport Officer, School Support Ltd, Napier;
- Castle Hill CHWF Community Liaison Group; and
- shall be made available on a digital media site for general access.
(viii) any updates to the plan, as approved by Tararua and Masterton District Councils, shall be provided to the above.
6. Presentation
The CTMP is to be well presented in a format that clearly and efficiently conveys the information to the range of recipients included on the distribution list.
If appropriate, a summary shall also be prepared for wider distribution.
Traffic Design Group Ltd July 2011
top related