free range broiler farm arapohue integrated transport ... · free range broiler farm, arapohue:...

Free Range Broiler Farm,Arapohue:Integrated transportassessment

Prepared for

Tegel Foods Ltd

Date

September 2017

Job Number

1003839

fdur

Stamp

Document Control

Title: Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue: Integrated transport assessment

Date Version Description Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Authorised by:

23/08/2017 1 Final T Broadhead A Gregory

A Brabant

J Simpson

06/09/2017 2 Final Revision 1 A Gregory J Urquhart J Simpson

Distribution:

Tegel Foods Ltd 1 copy

Northland Regional Council 1 copy

Kaipara District Council 1 copy

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 copy

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue: Integrated transport assessment Tegel Foods Ltd

September 2017 Job No: 1003839.v1

Table of contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Environmental setting 2 2.1 Site location and access 2 2.2 SH12 road environment 2

3 Existing traffic environment 4 3.1 Traffic volumes 4 3.2 Intersection modelling (existing) 4 3.3 Crash history 4 3.4 Existing travel patterns 6 3.5 Alternative modes 6 3.6 Committed changes to transport facilities 6

4 Development proposal 7 4.1 Description of proposal 7 4.2 Predicted traffic generation and distribution 8

4.2.1 Trip generation 8 4.2.2 Intersection modelling (proposed) 11 4.2.3 Predicted crash risk 12

4.3 Parking 12

5 Regulatory Requirements 14 5.1 Kaipara District Plan 14 5.2 NZ Transport Agency 17

6 Proposed mitigation 19

7 Assessment of effects 20 7.1.1 State Highway 12 20 7.1.2 Local impacts 20 7.1.3 Construction traffic 20

8 Conclusion 22

9 Applicability 23

Appendix A : SIDRA Modelling Results

Appendix B : CAS Search Results

Appendix C : Proposed Site Plans

Appendix D : Estimated Daily Traffic Patterns

Appendix E : Preliminary Intersection Design



Glossary of abbreviations / explanation of terms

Abbreviation Definition

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic – the typical daily traffic volume for a road which is averaged over the year to account for peaks in demand

AEE Assessment of Environmental Effects

CAS Crash Analysis System – a system managed by NZTA to capture information on where, when and how road crashes occur throughout New Zealand

ECM

Equivalent Car Movements - a measure of impact that different vehicles have on a section of road or intersection. It converts the various classes of vehicles to represent the number of standard cars that they represent in terms of movement delay. It is used predominantly by traffic engineers to model trips (vehicles into and out of a site) by converting actual vehicle numbers (one vehicle represents two trips) as follows:

Car/ute/light van = 2 ECM

Truck (no trailer) = 6 ECM

Truck and trailer/ B-train = 10 ECM

ITA Integrated Transport Assessment

KDC Kaipara District Council

KDP Kaipara District Plan

LAR Limited Access Road – are sections of the State Highway, usually bordered by residential or commercial properties, that can only be accessed from authorised crossing points

LOS

Level of Service – a qualitative measure predominantly related to delays experienced by road users at intersections, measured as A to F:

A – delay of < 10 seconds

B – delay of 10 -15 seconds

C – delay of 15 – 25 seconds

D – delay of 25 – 35 seconds

E – delay of 35 – 50 seconds

F – delay of > 50 seconds

NZTA New Zealand Transport Agency

ONRC

One Network Road Classification System - a classification system by NZTA which divides roads into six categories based on how busy they are, whether they connect to important destinations, or are the only route available:

National

Arterial

Regional

Primary collector

Secondary collector

Access



SH12 State Highway 12

VPH Vehicles per hour



Executive summary

Tegel Foods Ltd (Tegel) is seeking to obtain resource consents for the construction and operation of a free range broiler poultry farm in Arapohue, Dargaville. This Integrated Transport Assessment has been prepared to assess the transport effects attributed to the change in use of the site and forms part of the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) to support the resource consent application.

The main site entrance onto SH12 is a standard farm access of gravel construction. The site currently contributes approximately 18 vehicles per day (veh/day) to the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows of the State Highway, which is 1804 veh/day. There is no significant crash history on the stretch of the State Highway between the two closest intersections (Mititai Road to the north of the site and Whakahara Road to the south) and there are no recorded accidents involving the site’s access.

As part of the development of the farm, a new access is proposed which will be located 25 m north of the existing access. The new access will improve safety to the site through mitigation measures such as; a give-way control at the exit of the site, a right-turn bay into the site, widening the shoulders of the road, and providing a guard rail around the existing box culvert.

As a result of the proposed development, the traffic volumes associated with the site are expected to increase by approximately 41 vehicles per day, which is a 2% increase to the AADT flows of the State Highway. The increase in vehicles compared to the carrying capacity of the road and the current volumes it accommodates is considered minimal. The effects in terms of safety and efficiency to road users is also considered minimal as users of the State Highway travel at various different times of the day.

Overall, the proposal meets the requirements under the Kaipara District Plan and the NZ Transport Agency Planning Policy Manual. It also meets the relevant Austroads requirements as required within the NZTA design standards for intersections. With the proposed mitigation measures to the intersection, it is considered that the potential to increase risk of conflict, delay and frustration is effectively removed.

1



1 Introduction

Tegel Foods Ltd (Tegel) has entered into a sale and purchase agreement for a site at 5763 State Highway 12 (SH12), Arapohue, Dargaville (‘the site’). Tegel is proposing to develop a free range broiler chicken farm on the site.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T+T) have been engaged to prepare an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) to support the resource consent application. The ITA has been produced to assess the transport effects attributed to the change in use of the site and forms part of the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) in the resource consent application.

The construction of the proposed poultry farm will include the development of 32 free range poultry sheds that will be clustered in four groups of eight. The sheds are proposed to be located on the flat, western portion of the site. Developing the proposed farm will require earthworks, the construction of the foundations and sheds, installation of infrastructure, including an energy centre building powered by litter combustion, stormwater management devices, wastewater treatment and disposal, rainwater storage tanks, installation of groundwater bores, water reticulation and a water treatment plant. In addition, the proposed poultry farm development will require construction of associated facilities, such as workers’ accommodation, utility sheds and vehicle tracks around the sheds connecting to a new access off SH12. A planted bund is proposed to be constructed around the sheds to mitigate against flooding and provide screening.

Figure 1.1: Site location Source: Google Maps, 2017

The site

SH12

2



2 Environmental setting

2.1 Site location and access

The site is located at 5763 SH12, Arapohue, approximately 12 km south of the Dargaville township.

Figure 2.1: Site boundary Source: Northland Regional Council Local Maps, 2017

The farm currently runs 650 head of dairy cattle, with one milk tanker pick-up per day during the summer months (start of August to end of April) and no collections during May or June. The existing farm buildings on site include a 50 bale rotary milking shed, calf rearing sheds, an implement shed and five dwellings. The existing farm buildings will be retained onsite.

The site has five vehicle accessways off SH12, one servicing the dwelling to the west of the State Highway, three servicing the dwellings to the east, and one servicing the dairy shed which is the main site entrance. The main entrance is a gravel surface to the state highway seal edge, with minimal shoulders on approach (<0.5 m) and a box culvert cattle underpass which also appears to double as a stormwater drainage culvert (refer figure 2.2 below).

Wide grass berms are present, approximately 3 m in width, however power poles are present within the eastern berm and there are steep drop-offs into the road side-drainage on both sides of the highway boundary.

2.2 SH12 road environment

SH12 is classified as Primary Collector under the One Network Road Classification (ONRC) by NZTA. The existing alignment is straight and reasonably level between the Mititai Road and Whakahara Road intersections, however the road environment is quite unforgiving due to a lack of shoulders, and hazards very close to the existing edge of seal such as power poles, drainage ditches, a stock underpass, and trees at various points along the road section.

Site Location Approximate Boundary

3



The road condition appears to be reasonable given the traffic volumes, however flushing is starting to show up on the approaches to the accessway, and the Mititai Road and Whakahara Road intersections. There also appears to be severe edge-break occurring at several unsealed vehicles accesses.

Figure 2.2: Entrance to the site looking South Source: Google Maps, 2017

4



3 Existing traffic environment

3.1 Traffic volumes

SH12 has an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) count of 1804 vehicles per day (veh/day), with 10 % being heavy (sourced from NZTA Count Site 012000163). This is a two-way count total for the corridor section between Mititai Road to the north of the site, and Whakahara Road to the south.

On average, the existing farm is estimated to contribute 18 veh/day, or 26 equivalent car movements (ECM). This is depicted in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1: Average Vehicle Trips

Vehicle Type Daily Trips (one-way) Daily Trips (two-way) ECM

Trucks 1 2 10

Light Vehicles 8 16 16

All 9 18 26

3.2 Intersection modelling (existing)

Based on AADT figures, it is accepted practice to assume that 10 % of this volume will occur in the peak hours, with the rest spread out throughout the day. Being a two-way count in a rural area with employment attractors in both directions, we consider it reasonable to assume a 50 % split in traffic in both morning and evening peaks, giving an estimate of 90 vehicles in each direction.

The existing farm entrance is estimated to have an AADT of 18 vehicles per day, on the above basis giving a peak average of two passing through the intersection.

As a conservative measure, it was assumed that there would be at least one for every movement, and therefore effectively double at four movements.

When modelled using SIDRA 7 software, this gave the existing access a Level of Service (LOS) of A (refer Table 3.2 below). The full results can be found in Appendix A.

Table 3.2: Intersection Level of Service

Movement LOS Delay (s)

SH12 North (through) A 0.0

SH12 North (left) A 9.9

SH12 South (through) A 0.0

SH12 South (Right) A 10.2

Site (left) A 2.7

Site (right) A 4.2

3.3 Crash history

The Crash Analysis System (CAS) was searched for accidents along the 3 km stretch of road between Mititai Road and Whakahara Road, for a ten year period from 2006 to 2016. The full results of this search can be found in Appendix B.

During this period a total of nine accidents are recorded, however as two accidents have identical times, dates and locations (ID: 2802088 & 2802089), we consider this is a duplicate error and

5



conclude a total of eight unique crashes have occurred on this stretch of road in the ten year assessment period. These are detailed in Tables 3.3 and 3.4 below.

Table 3.3: 10 Year Crash History

Year Fatal Serious Minor Non-injury Total

2015 1 1

2014 0

2013 1 1

2012 0

2011 0

2010 0

2009 0

2008 1 1 2

2007 1 1

2006 2 1 3

Total 0 3 1 4 8

Table 3.4: Accident Cause Summary

Attributed Cause Number (Years) Injuries

Fatigue 3 (2006 (x2); 2008) 2 Serious (2006)

1 Serious, 1 Minor (2006)

0 (2008)

Hit stray farm animal (Dark) 2 (2006; 2008) 2 Serious (2006)

0 (2008)

Attention diverted looking for intersection 1 (2013) 3 Minor

Turning right in heavy rain 1 (2015) 0

Swerved to avoid other vehicle 1 (2007) 0

During the assessment period (2006-2016), no recorded crashes have occurred due to turning at any access on this stretch of SH12. The only incident involving this access was a run-off-road due to fatigue that ended up impacting the box culvert underpass.

The New Zealand Road Assessment Programme (KiwiRAP) analyses the road safety of the state highway network. It aims to reduce deaths and injuries on New Zealand’s roads by systematically assessing risk and identifying safety shortcomings that can be addressed with practical road improvement measures. The KiwiRAP assessment for SH12 as a whole (section from State Highway 1 to Dargaville) is as follows:

Table 3.5: KiwiRAP Summary

Assessment Period Collective Risk Personal Risk

2002-2006 Low-Medium Medium-High

2007-2011 Low-Medium Medium-High

6



This shows that while the number of crashes on the State Highway as a whole (Collective Risk) are relatively low, as a function of distance travelled (Personal Risk) the risk is much higher, although those assessment levels have not changed in the two published assessment periods.

3.4 Existing travel patterns

Information provided by the farm manager suggests that travel during the day is predominantly within the site, with the exception of contractors employed to undertake maintenance work or other similar ad-hoc activities.

Employees live on site, and we have therefore assumed that traffic generated through these dwellings would be ‘errand’ type traffic from the wider family (i.e. picking children up from school, going shopping, etc.) and occasional visits from other family members, tradesmen and couriers. We consider that an appropriate number of daily trips per dwelling will be two on average. With four dwellings on-site this gives an overall average of eight.

Considering Dargaville is the closest large population centre, we consider that the majority of domestic and service trips will be to the north, resulting in a predominantly right turn out and left turn in movement at the site access.

Milk tankers can arrive from either direction and so it is assumed to be a 50/50 split between left and right manoeuvres.

3.5 Alternative modes

Given the location of the site, walking is not considered to be a feasible mode of transport.

Cycling could be an option, given the low traffic volumes and long sight-distances, however the long distances between destinations and lack of a shoulder would present challenges to the majority of users. Given that the majority of employees live on site, these trips would most likely be entirely recreational.

There are no regular bus services along this route.

3.6 Committed changes to transport facilities

We are aware of a Transport Agency led project to address fatigue related crashes on this corridor. The SafeRoads Alliance have identified the need to retrofit audio-tactile markings along this section of SH12.

7



4 Development proposal

4.1 Description of proposal

As described in section 1.1, Tegel is proposing to develop approximately a third of the site into a thirty-two shed free-range poultry farm, with the remainder of the site given over to a reduced dairy herd of approximately 150 head of dairy cattle (from 650 currently). This will result in an estimated 32 equivalent full time staff to run the poultry and dairy farm.

Figure 4.1: Proposed Development Layout

Milking facilities will remain at their current location, and the property’s existing access onto SH12 will be relocated approximately 25 m north along the State Highway. This will accommodate the internal road network that will need to cross 2.5 m high flood-prevention bunds, and to provide some separation from the existing box culvert so that this feature can be made safer.

As part of this access move, the original access will be closed in favour of the one 25 m north if agreed to by NZTA.

This access is proposed to be the main access for the site, through which all traffic will enter and exit for both the chicken farm and dairy operations.

The flood protection bunds will also have the added benefit of blocking farm vehicle headlights within the site from distracting or confusing road users on SH12.

All other existing entrances onto the State Highway from the site will remain to service the existing dwellings.

8



4.2 Predicted traffic generation and distribution

4.2.1 Trip generation

The chicken farm will employ 32 equivalent full time staff and will operate on a 24 hour basis with three shifts. Catching occurs during the night, followed by cleaning, spreading litter and delivery of chicks. Maintenance staff and feed trucks will arrive during the day. Deliveries are anticipated to occur at times that avoid congestion from origin and destination in Auckland. A summary of vehicle movements for a hypothetical worst case scenario is presented in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1: Vehicle summary by operation

Operation Times Staff Vehicles

Catching 22:00 to 07:00 5 5 light vehicles

6 Chicken Truck & Trailer

Cleaning 22:00 to 07:00 3 3 light vehicles

3 Shavings Truck & Trailer

Daily operation 06:00 to 15:00 16 10 light vehicles

3 Chick Trucks

3 Feed Truck & trailer

14:00 to 23:00 15 10 light vehicles

2 Feed Truck & Trailer

Considering that a portion of the staff will live on the site, there are fewer commuting trips proposed than would be the case if staff lived off site. However, daily domestic trips will occur amounting to approximately 14 per day.

In regards to the dairy farm operations, two staff will be employed. With milking occurring early in the morning, a single milk tanker will visit the site on a daily basis usually between 5 and 6 am.

For clarity, the anticipated 24 hour traffic movements are depicted in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2: Vehicle summary

Scenario Typical vehicle movements per day by type

Expected week day traffic

(116 trips per day)

3 x Chick Delivery Trucks

3 x Shavings Trucks

6 x Chicken Collection Trucks

5 x Feed Trucks

1 x Milk Tanker

1 x Van

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjOuqLZ2OfPAhUE3WMKHagYAG0QjRwIBw&url=http://hankstruckforum.com/htforum/index.php?topic%3D15887.0&bvm=bv.135974163,d.cGc&psig=AFQjCNGk1PclKPa0iBbBHtjdZL7ZmiOksA&ust=1476994819615542

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwiz2oS01efPAhVJ1mMKHfaGCXMQjRwIBw&url=http://www.actus.co.nz/&bvm=bv.135974163,d.cGc&psig=AFQjCNFArn9GodbVT83seVjOyiVV1dL1uw&ust=1476993938497370

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi_moDg1ufPAhVE1mMKHftxDMUQjRwIBw&url=http://rogergillmitsubishi.co.nz/l300.html&bvm=bv.135974163,d.cGc&psig=AFQjCNEGQLmF2iJNRwADl2FiCb9-oo9fzg&ust=1476994303059028

9



38 x Cars

Expected Saturday traffic (72 trips per day)

5 x Feed Trucks

6 x Chicken Collection Trucks

1 x Milk Tanker

23 x Cars

1 x Van

Expected Sunday traffic (36 trips per day)

1 x Milk Tanker

17 x Cars

Note: These figures have been arrived at based on the average typical daily one-way vehicle movements expected for this activity, based on information provided by Tegel Foods Ltd.

The operation of the farm follows a cycle of approximately 56 days. Half of the chickens grow for approximately 32 days and are then removed from the sheds. The remaining birds are removed at approximately 42 days. Following this, the sheds are empty for 14 days to allow for the sheds to be cleaned, heated and dried out in preparation for the next cycle. Each shed is staggered to maximise efficiency of deliveries and collections, meaning that traffic flows are constant during normal operations.

The maximum trip intensity for the site occurs once a week when fuel and gas are delivered, increasing the daily trips from 116 to 118. A list of all movement types and traffic generated for the days of peak traffic intensity (see appendix D for trip profile) is also provided in Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3: Maximum Daily Predicted Traffic Movements

Vehicle Type Number of Vehicles (one-way trips)

Movements (two-way trips) ECM

Light Vehicle 38 76 76

Maintenance Van 1 2 2

Shavings Truck & Trailer 3 6 30

Feed Truck & Trailer 5 10 50

Livestock Truck & Trailer 6 12 60

Livestock Truck 3 6 18

Fuel Tanker 2 4 12

Milk Tanker 1 2 10

All Vehicles 59 118 258

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiX-9_j1-fPAhUE-GMKHVxwDgMQjRwIBw&url=http://www.nzrentacar.co.nz/&bvm=bv.135974163,d.cGc&psig=AFQjCNHwo7weTgxLdbaKe0_lg_L4SN9xyQ&ust=1476994548257790

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwiz2oS01efPAhVJ1mMKHfaGCXMQjRwIBw&url=http://www.actus.co.nz/&bvm=bv.135974163,d.cGc&psig=AFQjCNFArn9GodbVT83seVjOyiVV1dL1uw&ust=1476993938497370


http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi_moDg1ufPAhVE1mMKHftxDMUQjRwIBw&url=http://rogergillmitsubishi.co.nz/l300.html&bvm=bv.135974163,d.cGc&psig=AFQjCNEGQLmF2iJNRwADl2FiCb9-oo9fzg&ust=1476994303059028


10



The predicted peak (worst case) traffic movements, split into vehicle types, is shown in Figure 4.2 below:

Figure 4.2: Predicted peak hourly vehicle movements

On average, the proposed activity (chicken farm and smaller dairy operation) is expected to generate an additional 41 veh/day (or 232 ECM). The change between the existing and predicted situations is shown in Table 4.4 below:

Table 4.4: Predicted Typical Traffic Generation

Traffic Generation veh/day ECM

Existing 18 26

Predicted 59 258

NET Change +41 +232

It is expected that there will be a mixed direction of traffic due to staff movements and maintenance likely to originate from Dargaville to the north, and return that way. Feed and bird delivery / collection trucks will originate from Auckland therefore arriving from the south, and returning in that direction. The milk tanker destination is not expected to change.

This will mean that the majority of heavy vehicle movements to the site will be turning right into the site. Trying to re-route to minimise right turning would increase trip length considerably and would result in the use of inappropriate local roads.

A graph indicating estimated traffic patterns based on what is known about the proposed operation to date is available in Appendix D.

11



4.2.2 Intersection modelling (proposed)

Modelling of the traffic impact has been carried out using typical peak hourly flows obtained from NZ Transport Agency TMS website for count station 012000163 (South of Mititai Road, approx. 1.5 km north of the site). Site traffic has been based on the most intense day time hour. This provides the most conservative assessment as the peak travel times on SH12 do not coincide with the peak arrivals and departures from the site.

Figure 4.3: Typical hourly traffic profile for SH12

The proposed intersection has been modelled using SIDRA 7 adopting the same trip distribution philosophy as stated in the assessment of the current situation (section 3.2 above). The proposed activity results in an effective increase in the AADT of SH12 of 41 veh/day from 1,804 to 1,845 veh/day total, an overall increase of approximately 2%.

Table 4.5: Average Daily Vehicle Trips

Vehicle Type Daily vehicle arrivals (one-way) Daily Trips (two-way) ECM

Trucks 20 40 180


All 55 110 258

Table 4.6: Typical Peak Hour Demand

Vehicle Type Arrivals (vph) Departures (vph) SH12 2-way (vph)

Trucks 4 4 18


12



All 14 14 184

The intersection was tested using a variety of scenarios appropriate to the number and type of vehicles according to the Austroads guidelines, including a give-way control on the farm exit and right-turn bay on SH12.

The model predicts a peak hour LOS of A for all approaches, except the right-turn bay which is B due to trucks having to wait momentarily before turning into the site (refer Table 4.7).

Considering the proposed design life of the farm of 50 years, a sensitivity analysis was carried out within SIDRA to examine the LOS at the end of the design life assuming natural growth of 2 % per year from all directions. This is an assumed figure based on historic average traffic growth and includes effectively doubling the traffic generation from the site

The outcome remains unchanged with LOS of A for the through-movements, and a B for the right turn bay.

Table 4.7: Intersection Level of Service

Movement LOS Delay (s)

SH12 North (through) A 0.0

SH12 North (left) A 9.9

SH12 South (through) A 0.0

SH12 South (Right) B 10.2

Site (left) A 2.7

Site (right) A 5.3

The results can be found in Appendix A.

4.2.3 Predicted crash risk

Using the product of flow intersection model from the NZ Transport Agency Crash Estimation Compendium it is possible to predict the number of injury crashes per year for the intersection:

AT = b0 x Qmajorb1 x Qminor

b2 x CMF

The current intersection/driveway configuration has a predicted crash rate of 0.06, whereas the proposed arrangement has a predicted crash rate of 0.01 per year. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed intersection is actually safer, even though the traffic volumes increase.

4.3 Parking

Parking for whole of the activity will be confined within the boundaries of the site. Vehicular access is limited and strictly controlled due to biosecurity reasons and all movements, apart from limited domestic activities of the families living on site, are scheduled.

Parking is provided for the anticipated maximum number of vehicles by type anticipated to be present at any one time as shown in Table 4.8 below.

13



Table 4.8: Parking provision

Vehicle Type Maximum Number Parking Provision

Car/light vehicle 20 Parking is provided at dwellings (12) for staff who live on site and at strategic locations on site; i.e. milking sheds (3), energy centre (10) and between the sheds adjacent to the utility buildings (40). Visitors will be limited due to biosecurity reasons and accommodated at the energy centre. Total available spaces 65.

Maintenance Van 1 Ad hoc and planned maintenance activities will require trade vehicles to be parked adjacent to wherever they are working. This is accommodated on roadways and in hard standings adjacent to buildings.

Fuel truck 1 Fuel tankers will only park while unloading at the storage tanks.

Waste Trucks 2 Waste trucks collect litter from around the site and deposit at the energy centre where they will be based while not in use.

Trucks/truck & Trailer

9 Delivery and collection trucks will circulate the blocks of sheds, delivering shavings, feed, and picking up chickens. They will park in the loading areas adjacent to each shed they visit. Widening of the internal roadway is provided to accommodate this. A total of 24 bays are situated around the sheds.

Milk Tanker 1 The milk tanker will park where it collects from the milking shed.

Mobile plant 8 Small vehicles such as forklifts, quad bikes, and other site restricted mobile plant will be stored in sheds and used as required throughout the day.

The number of vehicle parks provided exceeds the maximum number of vehicles on site by a significant margin.

14



5 Regulatory Requirements

5.1 Kaipara District Plan

Kaipara District Plan – Rule 12.10.18 Traffic Intensity

The rule referenced in the plan states that any activity is permitted if the cumulative traffic generated on any road does not exceed 60 daily one way movements. Based on the proposed average traffic figures given in Table 4.5 for one-way movements (55) then the site will comply with the rule maximum of 60 one-way movements per day once operational (noting that construction traffic is exempt from the rules).

While there is no clear activity under Appendix 25F that the proposed activity fits within (the closest being farming) it is considered that the predicted traffic generation should form the basis of the assessment as to what is likely to be the expected generation. This is also based on information the applicant has from operating facilities and is therefore factual in nature.

Kaipara District Plan – Rule 12.10.25 Vehicle Access and Driveways

Rule 12.10.25 Vehicle Accesses and Driveways of the Kaipara District Plan, is complied with as demonstrated in table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1: Compliance with Rule 12.10.25 of the KDP

Ref Clause Measure

a. The owner or occupier of each site shall provide and maintain at all times adequate access for emergency vehicles and vehicles generally associated with activities on site;

The proposed intersection and site roads will allow full access for all vehicles.

b. For new vehicle crossings on to State Highways, all NZ Transport Agency engineering requirements have been satisfied; or For new or upgrades to vehicle crossings on to roads controlled by Kaipara District Council all Council engineering requirements have been satisfied (e.g. compliance with the Kaipara District Council Engineering Standards 2011 or other engineering standards with the agreement of Council);

Discussions have been held with the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA), and a preliminary design developed commensurate with these discussions as well as both NZTA and Kaipara District Council (KDC) requirements.

c. Where a loading ramp is required it shall not be located within 25 m of the edge of a traffic lane;

Not applicable

d. Each site shall be provided with and maintain a driveway to the following standard:

Formed with an all-weather surface;

For driveways of greater than 100 m, a passing bay shall be provided no further apart than 1 per 100 m;

For a driveway servicing up to 6 dwellings the minimum width of 3.0 m and for between 7 and 30 dwellings a minimum width of 5.5 m and for more than 30 dwellings a width of 6 m;

This is a farm access (Note 5 in the clause). The section of road connecting the internal farm road network to the State Highway, (i.e. between the property gate and the State Highway) can be considered to be the ‘driveway’ and the following standards have been applied:

The road has an all-weather surface

The driveway is 30 m long

The driveway is 6 m wide at the property gate

The driveway gradient is almost flat at 3 %

15



Ref Clause Measure

The maximum gradient shall be 1:5 for sealed and 1:8 for gravel driveway;

Shall include internal manoeuvring area sufficient that vehicles using the driveway do not need to reverse onto a road or shared driveways (in accordance with 90th percentile vehicle manoeuvring figures in Appendix 25C: Parking, Loading and Manoeuvring Standards);

Access and manoeuvring areas shall comply with the New Zealand Building Code acceptable solutions C/AS1 Part 8.1 (Fire Service Vehicular Access 2010);

Where a private driveway is gated, the gates shall be located at least 13 m from the edge of the public road carriageway (with an 80 or 100 km/h speed limit) where the gate opens into the site or 13 m plus the gate width where it opens toward the road; unless onto a State Highway (where gate setbacks may be higher and are required to be complied with);

All gated driveways shall be provided with turning provisions, such that a 90th percentile car may enter the driveway and turn around, without passing the gates or affecting through traffic on the public road; and

Stormwater drainage for at least a 10 % AEP rainfall event sufficient that surface ponding does not occur and discharge from the driveway does not result in adverse effects to adjoining properties or roads.

The farm has an internal road network and does not require any vehicles to reverse onto a public road

The farm gate would be located greater than 23m from the edge of the highway, to accommodate a truck and trailer

Appropriate storm water drainage is provided

e. The site is not within an Outstanding Natural Landscape, as identified in Map Series 2, unless the work is necessary for the maintenance of existing accesses or firebreaks.

Not applicable

Kaipara District Plan – Rule 12.10.27 Parking

Rule 12.10.27 Parking of the Kaipara District Plan, is complied with as demonstrated in table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2: Compliance with Rule 12.10.27 of the KDP

Ref Clause Measure

a. The owner or occupier of each site provides and maintains at all times spaces for the off street parking of cars and other vehicles

Sufficient parking is contained within the site (refer section 4.2).

16



Ref Clause Measure

generally associated with activities on the site; and

b. The number of parking spaces to be provided shall meet the minimum requirements outlined in Appendix 25C: Parking, Loading and Manoeuvring Standards; and

Due to the mobile nature of operations, parking is not to be provided in a single location but strategically placed near key work areas around the site, as indicated on the plan in Appendix C.

Parking requirements have been calculated based on known operations at the farm as the activity doesn’t fit clearly under an activity listed in Appendix 25C.

c. Each parking space shall be formed and maintained so that the maximum gradient on any area used for parking and manoeuvring shall be 6 %; and

Parking and manoeuvring area have a gradient of less than or equal to 6 %.

d. Parking spaces may be situated within a building provided the Council is satisfied that the spaces can be clearly defined and made available for parking at all times. The area of any parking spaces and associated access within a building shall be excluded from the gross floor area of that building for the purposes of assessing the total number of spaces required; and

Not applicable – no parking within buildings will be provided, parking shall be outside.

e. Any parking spaces required under the provisions of the District Plan are to be sited at least 15 m from the banks of any river or stream, whose bed has an average width of 3 m or more, any lake with an area greater than 8 ha or the Coastal Marine Area, except where appropriate provision is made for the collection treatment and disposal of stormwater from the areas to a Council stormwater system or other approved outlet; and

All parking spaces shall be situated greater than 15 m from the banks of a river, stream or lake.

f. Each parking space shall have adequate physical access to a road, street or service lane and the buildings or uses to which it is intended to serve. It shall be provided with such access drives and aisles as are necessary for safe and convenient movement of vehicles to and from the street or service lane for the manoeuvring of vehicles within the site in accordance with the Figures in Appendix 25C: Parking, Loading and Manoeuvring ; and

The site is large and has adequate space available to provide for appropriate manoeuvring on site.

g. Control of Access - Any parking area associated with a Commercial or Industrial Activity which adjoins a street shall be provided with a fence, kerb, nib or similar non-mountable barrier not less than 0.15 m high along those parts of the site's frontage not used for access purposes. The barrier shall be designed to prevent vehicles entering

The parking provided shall be well away from the road frontage (greater than 30 m), and that road frontage shall be fenced at all times.

17



Ref Clause Measure

or leaving the parking area other than by the access drives or aisles provided; and

h. Control of Reversing - All parking areas shall be designed so that all vehicles can enter and leave the site in a forward gear and do not have to reverse onto or off the adjacent road or street; and

The parking areas are remote from the road frontage and no circumstances are envisioned that would require a vehicle to reverse onto or off the highway.

i. Screening of Parking Areas - Any parking associated with a Commercial or Industrial Activity shall be screened from residential sites by landscaping, fencing or other suitable screening at least 2 m in height. Any landscaping is to be provided and maintained in such a manner as to create and preserve a good standard of visual amenity;

This is a farm intensification activity and therefore exempt, however the site will be surrounded by a 2.5 m high landscaped bund which will effectively screen the majority of site activities.

j. Control of Stormwater - Each parking area shall be provided with a stormwater drainage system that is designed for at least a 10 % AEP rainfall event sufficient that surface ponding does not occur and discharge does not result in adverse effects to adjoining properties or roads; and

Stormwater is managed via overland flow to surface drains which carry the water to the designed stormwater drainage system for the site providing for a minimum of the 10 % AEP event.

Internal roading and hard standings are designed to drain freely and minimise the risk of ponding.

k. The site is not within an Outstanding Natural Landscape, as identified in Map Series 2.

Not applicable.

Kaipara District Plan – Rule 12.10.28 Loading

There are no loading spaces required under the Kaipara District Plan for an intensive farming activity. However ample loading space is provided for all anticipated vehicles at strategic locations around the site.

5.2 NZ Transport Agency

NZ Transport Agency are the operators of the State Highway and therefore are considered to be an affected party in relation to the State Highway access. We have sought their early involvement in this process, having a number of discussions with Sunit Patel who is a planner located in Auckland. Due to timing constraints no guidance from NZ Transport Agency has been made available prior to the writing of this report, therefore we have not been able to include any feedback from them at this stage.

5.2.1.1 Planning Policy Manual

The NZ Transport Agency Planning Policy Manual requires assessment against the following, discussed elsewhere in this document:

District plan alignment (refer section 5.1);

The existing and proposed access arrangements onto the State Highway (refer section 2 and appendix E);

Levels of Service, existing and proposed, for the access (refer section 3.2 and 4.1.2);

Safety history and concerns, and proposed mitigation (refer section 3.3 and 6); and

Traffic volume effects (refer section 7).

18



There are no other foreseen adverse effects on the State Highway associated with this development.

Because the proposed access will receive vehicle traffic estimated to be in excess of 100 equivalent car movements, it will be treated as an intersection for the purposes of design.

5.2.1.2 Limited Access Roads

This section of SH12 is a Limited Access Road (LAR).

The existing entranceway which is proposed to be retained and upgraded was in existence prior to the LAR status coming into effect in September 1999.

The existing entrance has only been involved in one crash incident during the assessment period, and it was due to fatigue and didn’t involve any turning vehicles.

The relocated access complies with minimum sight distance requirements, as outlined below.

The only alternative to this access would be to provide one on Whakahara Road; however this would cause unnecessary extra travel distance for all vehicles arriving from the north of at least 1 km to the proposed milking shed, rather than the existing more equitable arrangement. This would also require the substantial upgrade of a significant length of Whakahara Road to a two-lane sealed surface, which would be an undue expense given the proposed mitigation outlined in section 6.

5.2.1.3 Intersection Design Standards

NZ Transport Agency design standards for intersections are required to meet the relevant Austroads requirements. Sight distance is to be a minimum of 241 m in either direction for truck turning in a 110 km/hr speed environment, as per the Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design, Table 5.6.

The relocated access is on a straight road with uninterrupted views for over 700 m both to the north and to the south (refer Appendix E for proposed intersection design).

19



6 Proposed mitigation

Based on the predicted traffic volumes and the nature of the traffic being predominantly trucks and trailer, the following mitigation is proposed:

Relocate the existing access 25 m further north to provide a sealed entrance for at least 25 m from the State Highway 12 edge line to a standard that will allow two vehicles to pass (i.e.: one entering, one leaving the site);

The relocated access will be designed to the appropriate Austroads rural intersection standard with Give-Way control on the exit lane; and

Provide a right-turn bay into the site, with a standard 1.5 m shoulder on the opposite side of the road to the access, and a 2.5 m shoulder for 180 m north and 180 m south of the access on the same side to provide extra width for decelerating and accelerating slow vehicles.

The benefits of this mitigation will include:

Extra width on SH12 will allow through traffic to pass turning vehicles more safely;

A designated turning bay will protect right-turning vehicles;

Wider shoulders provide additional space to assist trucks turning left into and out of the site without impeding through traffic;

Wider seal will provide additional recoverable seal width;

The box culvert will be extended to a point beyond the edge of seal where it no longer poses a significant roadside hazard, guardrail will be installed to help prevent errant vehicles from impacting the box culvert;

Edge break will be prevented by extending the seal back to the property gate; and

Stormwater and cattle will be separated as the underpass is no longer proposed to be used for cattle but as a stormwater culvert.

20



7 Assessment of effects

7.1.1 State Highway 12

As stated in section 4.1, the proposed development is assessed to increase average daily traffic by 41 vehicles per day, which is an increase of 2% compared to current normal traffic flows.

Due to the proposed phasing of the production cycle between different poultry sheds, the farm will not result in noticeable peak traffic movements, rather traffic movements to and from the site will be evenly distributed. The maximum trip intensity occurs once a week when fuel and gas are delivered to the site, increasing the typical daily trips by one movement (from 58 to 59 one way movements).

The maximum number of trucks visiting the site will be 20, which is 40 trips to and from the site. This is spread over three shifts with concentrations at around 7am, 3pm, and 10pm. The peak traffic movements on SH12 occur between 3pm and 4pm.

The farm operates on a 24 hour basis, with the majority of activity occurring during normal working day hours. While it will result in additional traffic on the State Highway, the increase in vehicles compared to the carrying capacity of the road and the current volumes it accommodates is minimal.

The effects in terms of safety and efficiency to road users will be minimal as the majority of traffic does not share the same travel times. With the proposed mitigation measures (intersection construction), it is considered that the potential to increase risk of conflict, delay and frustration is effectively removed.

7.1.2 Local impacts

The highest concentration of traffic is during the morning between 6am and 8am when the night shift ends and the day shift commences, this is also likely to be the main arrival period for chick and feed deliveries out of Auckland. The highest concentration of heavy traffic is when mature chickens are transported from the farm. This operation is carried out at night and the arrival profile of traffic is such that there are concentrations of heavy traffic (typically 9 vehicles or 18 trips) between the hours of 10pm and 5am. Whilst this will have negligible impact on through traffic, within the vicinity of the site trucks will be slowing down and accelerating within 500 m either side of the access.

The closest dwelling to the access which is likely to experience some adverse effects will be the one directly opposite the intersection at 5727 State Highway 12. This dwelling may experience effects such as noise from turning, accelerating and braking traffic as well as headlights sweeping across the property as vehicles turn out of the site. However, this dwelling forms part of the site and therefore will be occupied by a farm manager.

The nearest occupied dwelling that is not part of the site is located 750 m north of the entrance on SH12 (5793 SH12). It is considered that only immediate neighbours within 500 m of the entrance would be aware of any intensification of vehicle movements. Beyond this distance, traffic will be moving at highway speeds and indistinguishable from existing background traffic.

Therefore it is considered that the traffic generated through this proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the local environment.

7.1.3 Construction traffic

The proposal will generate additional vehicle movements to the site during construction over a 3 year period. It is expected that the majority of this traffic will stay on site for extended periods of time to undertake earthworks within the site boundaries. The construction works are only expected to affect the State Highway during specific deliveries such as concrete during slab pouring, or steel

21



prior to building erection, and these can be co-ordinated to be at off-peak times of day as much as possible.

A Construction Management Plan (CMP) will be prepared prior to construction commencing, which will provide further detail and mitigation measures for construction traffic.

22



8 Conclusion

This Integrated Transport Assessment has been prepared on behalf of Tegel Foods Ltd to assess the transport effects attributed to the proposed development of a free range broiler chicken farm. It forms part of the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) to support the resource consent application.

As a result of the proposed development, the traffic volumes associated with the site are expected to increase by approximately 41 vehicles per day, which is a 2% increase to the AADT flows of the State Highway. The increase in vehicles compared to the carrying capacity of the road and the current volumes it accommodates is considered minimal. The effects in terms of safety and efficiency to road users is also considered minimal as users of the State Highway travel at different times of the day.

Overall, the proposal meets the requirements under the Kaipara District Plan and the NZ Transport Agency Planning Policy Manual. It also meets the relevant Austroads requirements as required within the NZTA design standards for intersections. With the proposed mitigation measures to the intersection, it is considered that the potential to increase risk of conflict, delay and frustration is effectively removed.

23



9 Applicability

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client Tegel Foods Ltd, with respect to our letter of engagement dated 2 August 2017 and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other purpose, or by any person other than our client, without our prior written agreement.

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

Report prepared by: Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by:

.......................................................... ...........................….......…...............

Alan Gregory Jenny Simpson

Principal Transport Planner Project Director

TB p:\1003839\workingmaterial\planning\volume 2 - tech reports (pd review)\technical report g - integrated transport assessment\report - integrated transport assessment_final 15.9.2017.docx

Appendix A : SIDRA Modelling Results

Existing (Plan, Movement Summary, Intersection Summary)

Proposed (Plan, Movement Summary, Intersection Summary)

Sensitivity Analysis (Plan, Movement Summary, Intersection Summary)

LANE LEVEL OF SERVICELane Level of Service

Site: 101 [SH12 Existing Access]

Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)

All Movement Classes

South East North Intersection

LOS NA A NA NA

Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).

Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.

Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.

NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delayis not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.

SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com

Organisation: TONKIN $ TAYLOR | Processed: Thursday, 17 August 2017 10:03:55 AMProject: \\ttgroup.local\corporate\Auckland\Projects\1003839\WorkingMaterial\Transport\SIDRA\Existing Access.sip7

MOVEMENT SUMMARY



Movement Performance - Vehicles

Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueMovID

ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate

AverageSpeedTotal HV Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: SH12

2 T1 93 10.0 0.051 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.01 0.01 99.8

3 R2 1 80.0 0.051 10.2 LOS B 0.0 0.1 0.01 0.01 46.5

Approach 94 10.8 0.051 0.1 NA 0.0 0.1 0.01 0.01 98.6

East: Farm Access

4 L2 1 80.0 0.003 2.7 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.31 0.36 33.8

6 R2 1 80.0 0.003 4.2 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.31 0.36 33.3

Approach 2 80.0 0.003 3.4 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.31 0.36 33.5

North: SH12

7 L2 1 80.0 0.051 9.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 67.8

8 T1 93 10.0 0.051 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 99.9

Approach 94 10.8 0.051 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 99.4

All Vehicles 189 11.6 0.051 0.2 NA 0.0 0.1 0.01 0.01 96.9


Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement.

Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delayis not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.


Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: TONKIN $ TAYLOR | Processed: Thursday, 17 August 2017 10:03:55 AMProject: \\ttgroup.local\corporate\Auckland\Projects\1003839\WorkingMaterial\Transport\SIDRA\Existing Access.sip7

INTERSECTION SUMMARY



Intersection Performance - Hourly Values

Performance Measure Vehicles Persons

Travel Speed (Average) 96.9 km/h 96.9 km/hTravel Distance (Total) 191.4 veh-km/h 229.7 pers-km/h

Travel Time (Total) 2.0 veh-h/h 2.4 pers-h/h

Demand Flows (Total) 189 veh/h 227 pers/hPercent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) 11.6 %

Degree of Saturation 0.051Practical Spare Capacity 1810.3 %

Effective Intersection Capacity 3693 veh/h

Control Delay (Total) 0.01 veh-h/h 0.01 pers-h/h

Control Delay (Average) 0.2 sec 0.2 secControl Delay (Worst Lane) 3.4 sec

Control Delay (Worst Movement) 10.2 sec 10.2 secGeometric Delay (Average) 0.1 sec

Stop-Line Delay (Average) 0.0 secIdling Time (Average) 0.0 sec

Intersection Level of Service (LOS) NA

95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane) 0.0 veh

95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane) 0.1 mQueue Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.00

Total Effective Stops 2 veh/h 3 pers/hEffective Stop Rate 0.01 per veh 0.01 per pers

Proportion Queued 0.01 0.01Performance Index 2.0 2.0

Cost (Total) 57.85 $/h 57.85 $/hFuel Consumption (Total) 20.4 L/h

Carbon Dioxide (Total) 49.6 kg/hHydrocarbons (Total) 0.005 kg/h

Carbon Monoxide (Total) 0.115 kg/hNOx (Total) 0.160 kg/h


NA: Intersection LOS for Vehicles is Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average intersection delay is not a goodLOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.


Intersection Performance - Annual Values


Demand Flows (Total) 90,947 veh/y 109,137 pers/y

Delay 4 veh-h/y 5 pers-h/yEffective Stops 1,061 veh/y 1,273 pers/y

Travel Distance 91,860 veh-km/y 110,233 pers-km/y

Travel Time 948 veh-h/y 1,138 pers-h/y

Cost 27,770 $/y 27,770 $/yFuel Consumption 9,804 L/y

Carbon Dioxide 23,811 kg/yHydrocarbons 3 kg/y

Carbon Monoxide 55 kg/yNOx 77 kg/y



Site: 101vv [SH12 Proposed Access - Mitigation - Conversion]




LOS NA A NA NA







MOVEMENT SUMMARY





ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate



2 T1 92 10.0 0.050 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 100.0

3 R2 7 80.0 0.007 10.2 LOS B 0.0 0.3 0.25 0.61 42.2

Approach 99 15.2 0.050 0.8 NA 0.0 0.3 0.02 0.05 90.7

East: Farm Access

4 L2 7 80.0 0.020 2.7 LOS A 0.1 1.1 0.35 0.39 33.6

6 R2 7 80.0 0.020 5.3 LOS A 0.1 1.1 0.35 0.39 33.2

Approach 15 80.0 0.020 4.0 LOS A 0.1 1.1 0.35 0.39 33.4

North: SH12

7 L2 7 80.0 0.056 9.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 67.7

8 T1 92 10.0 0.056 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 99.6

Approach 99 15.2 0.056 0.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 96.2

All Vehicles 213 19.7 0.056 1.0 NA 0.1 1.1 0.03 0.07 83.0

















Degree of Saturation 0.056Practical Spare Capacity 1660.5 %

Effective Intersection Capacity 3820 veh/h








Total Effective Stops 15 veh/h 18 pers/hEffective Stop Rate 0.07 per veh 0.07 per pers

Proportion Queued 0.03 0.03Performance Index 2.8 2.8









Demand Flows (Total) 102,063 veh/y 122,476 pers/y

Delay 28 veh-h/y 33 pers-h/yEffective Stops 7,329 veh/y 8,795 pers/y

Travel Distance 103,143 veh-km/y 123,772 pers-km/y

Travel Time 1,242 veh-h/y 1,491 pers-h/y






Site: 101vv [SH12 Proposed Access - Mitigation_50yr - Conversion]

Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)Design Life Analysis (Practical Capacity): Results for 50 years



LOS NA A NA NA







MOVEMENT SUMMARY





ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate



2 T1 183 10.0 0.099 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 99.9

3 R2 15 80.0 0.015 10.9 LOS B 0.1 0.8 0.37 0.63 41.9

Approach 198 15.2 0.099 0.8 NA 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.05 90.6

East: Farm Access

4 L2 15 80.0 0.058 3.8 LOS A 0.3 3.1 0.53 0.55 32.7

6 R2 15 80.0 0.058 10.6 LOS B 0.3 3.1 0.53 0.55 32.3

Approach 29 80.0 0.058 7.2 LOS A 0.3 3.1 0.53 0.55 32.5

North: SH12

7 L2 15 80.0 0.111 9.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 67.7

8 T1 183 10.0 0.111 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 99.6

Approach 198 15.2 0.111 0.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 96.2

All Vehicles 425 19.7 0.111 1.2 NA 0.3 3.1 0.05 0.08 82.6

















Degree of Saturation 0.111

Practical Spare Capacity 780.2 %Effective Intersection Capacity 3820 veh/h








Total Effective Stops 35 veh/h 42 pers/h

Effective Stop Rate 0.08 per veh 0.08 per persProportion Queued 0.05 0.05

Performance Index 5.8 5.8









Demand Flows (Total) 204,126 veh/y 244,952 pers/yDelay 70 veh-h/y 84 pers-h/y

Effective Stops 16,943 veh/y 20,332 pers/yTravel Distance 206,286 veh-km/y 247,543 pers-km/y

Travel Time 2,498 veh-h/y 2,998 pers-h/y





Appendix B : CAS Search Results

Plan Results

English Language Results

SH12 10 Year Crash Diagram

Mititai R

oad

Whakahara

Road

SH12 All Crashes 10 YR

Plain English report, run on 30-Aug-2017 Page 1

First Street

Distance

Second streetor landmark

CrashNumber

Date Day Time

DD/MM/YYYY

Description of Events

DDD HHMM (ENV = Environmental factors)

RoadCrash Factors NaturalLight

Weather Junction Cntrl Tot InjF S MA E IT R N

D

I

R

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

201301514 08/02/2013 Fri 1552 Bright 3CAR1 NBD on SH 12 lost controlturning right, CAR1 hit Ditch onright hand bend

CAR1 too far left/right, attentiondiverted while trying to findintersection

Dry Fine X TypeJunction

StopSign

I12/153/10.068 MITITAI ROAD

2640389 08/04/2006 Sat 2104 DarkCAR1 SBD on SH 12 hit obstruction,CAR1 hit Stray Animal

ENV: farm animal straying Dry Fine Unknown Nil780S12/153/10.848 MITITAI ROAD

2844364 08/11/2008 Sat 2212 DarkCAR1 SBD on SH 12 lost control;went off road to right, CAR1 hitGuard Rail, Ditch

CAR1 fatigue (drowsy, tired, fellasleep)

Dry Fine Unknown Nil1000S12/153/11.068 MITITAI ROAD

2601910 08/01/2006 Sun 0740 Bright 1 1CAR1 NBD on SH 12 lost control;went off road to left

CAR1 driver over-reacted, fatigue(drowsy, tired, fell asleep)

Dry Fine Unknown Nil1000S12/153/11.068 MITITAI WHARFROAD

201535478 20/06/2015 Sat 1330 OvercastCAR1 SBD on SH 12 lost controlturning right, CAR1 hit Cliff Bank,Ditch on right hand bend

CAR1 lost control when turning,overseas/migrant driver failed toadjust to NZ road rules and roadconditions

Wet HeavyRain

Unknown N/A2000E12/153/11.125 BAYLYS COAST ROAD

2802089 11/03/2008 Tue 2140 Dark 1 1MOTOR CYCLE1 NBD on SH 12 hitobstruction, MOTOR CYCLE1 hit StrayAnimal

ENV: obstructed Dry Fine Unknown Nil1870S12/153/11.938 MITITAI ROAD

2802088 11/03/2008 Tue 2140 Dark 1 1MOTOR CYCLE1 NBD on SH 12 hitobstruction, MOTOR CYCLE1 hit StrayAnimal

ENV: farm animal straying Dry Fine Unknown Nil1870S12/153/11.938 MITITAI ROAD

2606178 07/11/2006 Tue 0253 Dark 2CAR1 NBD on SH 12 lost control;went off road to left, CAR1 hitGuard Rail

CAR1 alcohol test below limit, toofar left/right, fatigue due to lackof sleep, vehicle caught fire

Dry Fine Unknown Nil600N12/153/12.525 WHAKAHARA ROAD

2735983 15/06/2007 Fri 1641 OvercastCAR1 SBD on SH 12 lost control;went off road to left, CAR1 hitDitch

CAR1 suddenly swerved to avoidvehicle

Dry Fine Unknown Nil2610S12/153/12.678 MITITAI ROAD

SH12 10 Year Crash Record

Appendix C : Proposed Site Plans

Overall Proposed Site Development Plan (1003839-061,062 & 063)

Proposed Intersection Layout Plan (1003839-060)

105 Carlton Gore Road, Newmarket, AucklandTel. (09) 355 6000 Fax. (09) 307 0265

www.tonkintaylor.co.nz

DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

ORIGINAL IN COLOUR

L:\1003839\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1003839-061-062.dw

g, 061, 15/09/2017 1:54:23 p.m

., haxi



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

ORIGINAL IN COLOUR

L:\1003839\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1003839-061-062.dw

g, 062, 15/09/2017 1:54:30 p.m

., haxi



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

L:\1003839\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1003839-063.dw

g, 063, 15/09/2017 1:54:49 p.m

., haxi



DRAWING STATUS:

RESOURCE CONSENT

L:\1003839\W

orkingM

aterial\CAD

\D

WG

\1003839-060.dw

g, 060, 15/09/2017 1:54:06 p.m

., haxi

Appendix D : Estimated Daily Traffic Patterns

Graphs of average movements of vehicles to and from site on a daily basis by operation

Appendix D: Predicted Typical Trip Generation

Appendix E : Preliminary Intersection Design

Proposed entrance

Due to the increase in traffic volumes passing through the entrance, the total volume will exceed 100 equivalent car movements per day, NZTA’s Planning Policy Manual indicates that the entrance should be upgraded to a T-intersection.

It is not possible to retrofit a suitable T intersection which meets current standards, at the existing access location due to the safety implications of the box culvert to the north, and the proximity of a power pole to the south.

We propose to relocate the existing entrance approximately 25 m north along SH12 to both enable an intersection to be formed, as well as increase separation from the box culvert.

Figure 9.1: Proposed Entrance Location on SH12 looking North Source: Google, 2017

Road design

General

A rural T-intersection with a right-turn bay for low traffic volume roads is proposed as defined in the Manual of Traffic Signs and Markings (MOTSAM) Part 2: Markings, Figures 3.2(a) and 3.25.

The positioning of the road widening in relation to the existing state highway centreline is proposed to be central, meaning:

Widening will occur on both sides of the highway equally;

The road crown will be shifted to the new centreline location; and

The lead-in and lead-out tapers will be less severe to any one direction of the traffic flow.

This intersection, in addition to the standard diagrams, will also have 2.5 m wide standard shoulders on the same side as the entranceway as extra width for acceleration and deceleration of slow

moving vehicles turning left-in and left-out, along with a widened 1.5 m shoulder on the opposite side of the state highway.

It is proposed that these shoulders would be provided for the full length of the widening, which is to say 180 m either side of the right-turn bay following the lead-in and lead-out tapers.

Geometrics

Tracking Design

The intersection has been designed to be able to take fully articulated 25 m long B-Trains, as a slightly conservative proxy for the rigid truck and trailer 50 Max combination currently used, manoeuvring alongside each other without conflict (right-in / left-out and left-in / right-out).

The tracking assumed these larger vehicles would utilise the extra-wide shoulder to successfully achieve this.

Crossfall

The crossfall will be designed to match into the existing SH12 crossfall for the through-route, and match in to the designed internal road crossfall of 4 % for the side road, unless detailed design consultation with NZTA reveals a concern that can be easily removed by gradually changing the crossfall within the design work area.

Longitudinal Gradients

The longitudinal gradient along the state highway shall match, as close as possible, the existing conditions.

The longitudinal fall from the intersection to the internal road network shall not be greater than a 1 in 8 fall (12.5 %) in keeping with the design philosophy for heavy vehicles access within the site.

Pavement

State Highway 12

Total vehicle numbers were derived from an assessment of expected site traffic from Tegel, current site traffic has been estimated from discussions with the current farm owner, and the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) published from online sources.

Using the formulae in Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design, Design Equivalent Standard Axles (DESA) were calculated using the 50 year design life; this resulted in a figure of 497,639 DESA’s.

The methodology at this stage was to utilise Figure 8.4 from the above Austroads to obtain an indicative pavement depth for quantifying purposes.

Figure 9.2: Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design Figure 8.4

Assuming a CBR of 5 either under the existing road pavement, or utilising it depending on its depth, the minimum required pavement depth is 360 mm.

Side Road / Access

Vehicle numbers entering and leaving the site were calculated using expected traffic numbers from Tegel.

Using the formulae in Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design, Design Equivalent Standard Axles (DESA) were calculated using the 50 year design life; this resulted in a figure of 45,168 DESA’s.

The methodology at this stage was to utilise Figure 8.4 from the above Austroads to obtain an indicative pavement depth for quantifying purposes.

Figure 9.3: Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design Figure 8.4

Assuming a CBR of 3, the minimum required pavement depth is 370 mm, however this is reading off the lowest DESA number on this scale, which is still twice that calculated.

As a check, the formula given in the table was utilised to provide an answer for the calculated vehicles at a CBR of 3 as shown below:

𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 (𝑚𝑚) = [219 − 211(𝑙𝑜𝑔3) + 58(𝑙𝑜𝑔3)2]log (45,168

120)

This provides a pavement thickness required for the side road of 340mm.

Additional design elements

In addition to the road widening to accommodate the proposed entrance, the following works will also be undertaken as part of this proposal:

A sealed surface will be provided for 30 m back from the state highway traffic lanes to account for the longest likely vehicles visiting the site.

A concrete nib, cattle stop, or other suitable solid edge shall be provided as an interface between the sealed entrance and the unsealed internal roads to prevent edge-break.

The box culvert will be extended on both sides of the highway and it will become a stormwater culvert.

A road safety barrier will be installed to prevent errant vehicles from colliding with or falling into the culvert.

New intersection advanced warning signage PW-11 shall be provided on the state highway at least 160 m in advance of the intersection with at least 120 m visibility to the sign as per MOTSAM Part 1

It may also be necessary to relocate power-poles if the detail design shows a conflict with the

widening.

free range broiler farm arapohue integrated transport ... · free range broiler farm, arapohue:...

Documents