043&044 - Hrg - Auckland Council - (Mairi Joyce) _ Transport Planning - Parking

Evidence of Mairi Joyce FINAL - 26271780 v 1.DOCX

BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management

Act 1991 and the Local

Government (Auckland

Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER Of Topic 043 (Transport

Objectives and Policies) and 044

(Transport Rules and Other)

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF MAIRI JOYCE

ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL

(TRANSPORT)


INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Mairi Joyce. I am an Associate at Flow Transportation Specialists Limited

(Flow), a consultancy firm that specialises in traffic engineering and transportation

planning. I hold a Master of Engineering Studies (Transportation) degree from the

University of Auckland and a Master of Arts degree in Geography from the University

of Edinburgh.

2. I have 13 years professional experience, including nine years in the traffic engineering

and transportation planning consultancy field in New Zealand. I am an Affiliate

member of the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) and a

member of the IPENZ Transportation Group.

3. I have been employed by Flow for five years and before that I was a Senior

Transportation Consultant at Traffic and Transportation Engineers (T2) Ltd, where I was

employed for four years. Prior to this, I worked for the former Auckland City Council as

a Project Manager. A full description of my qualifications and relevant experience is

set out at Attachment A to this evidence.

4. I have been assisting the Auckland Council (Council) in relation to the transport related

parts of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) since August 2011.

5. I have read and understood the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the

Environment Court of New Zealand Practice Note 2014 and I have complied with the

Code in preparing this evidence. I can confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of

evidence are within my area of expertise and that I have not omitted to consider

material facts known to me that might alter or detract from my opinions.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

6. I am engaged by Auckland Council to provide evidence on Topics 043 (Transport

Objectives and Policies) and 044 (Transport Rules and Other). I have advised on traffic

and transportation matters in respect of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP),

since 2011. I have been involved in reviewing submissions received, drafting of a

position paper and attendance and participation at the various mediation sessions with

submitters with respect to Topics 43 and 44.


7. My evidence addresses the traffic and transportation issues in relation to the proposed

rules regarding the supply of ancillary and non ancillary parking and loading spaces.

8. Accordingly, my evidence focuses on the following matters:

a) Brief background to my involvement in the development of the objectives,

policies and rules contained within Topics 43 and 44.

b) An overview of the proposed approach to and rationale for the parking and

loading supply rules proposed in the PAUP.

Further evidence on specific issues raised by submitters including the following:

c) The maximum parking rate proposed for the City centre zone.

d) The removal of proposed minimum parking rates.

e) The re-introduction of minimum parking rates where they are proposed to be

removed.

f) Removing proposed maximum parking rates or limiting their application to the

City centre and city centre fringe areas only.

g) Other specific amendments to parking rates.

h) Effects of relaxing rules to provide non-accessory parking.

SUMMARY

9. In summary, I support the parking loading and supply rules outlined within Rule 3.2 of

the PAUP, including the amended provisions in Attachment C to Mr Wong Toi’s

evidence in chief. However, I have recommended the following amendments in

response to submissions received and discussions during mediation:

a) An increase in the Gross Floor Area (GFA) threshold used to determine the

requirement for a loading bay for retail and industrial activities.

BACKGROUND

10. In 2011 Flow was commissioned by Auckland Council to recommend standards for the

supply of parking and loading spaces for inclusion in the Unitary Plan. I acted as lead

transport planner and project manager for the life of the project.


11. In developing the standards summarised in the Flow report1 guidance was obtained

from:

a) A review of the current parking rules as contained in the existing operative

District Plans (including relevant recent Plan Changes).

b) A literature review of existing best practice with regard to parking and loading

supply rules, including studies already completed by the Legacy Councils and

international examples.

c) The outcomes of a workshop held with Council officers who are experienced with

the application and outcomes of the existing parking and loading supply rules.

12. At the same time, Transport Planning Solutions Ltd (TPS) was commissioned to

complete a similar piece of work for the Auckland City Centre, and outlined their

findings and recommendations in a report dated 25 January 2012.

13. Further to the completion of both these pieces of work, Flow was then commissioned

to complete additional work on the parking rules proposed for the City centre fringe.

This work involved further consultation with officers from Auckland Council and

Auckland Transport and analysis of parking supply rule options specific to the fringe

area. The findings of this further work are summarised in the Flow report2 and are the

basis for the proposed rules of the City centre fringe overlay. Again, I was responsible

for the completion of this work.

14. The reports completed by Flow and TPS were used as the base for developing the

parking and loading rules included in the draft PAUP. The Section 32 Analysis reports

prepared by Council on Accessory3 and Non Accessory parking4 for the PAUP outline

Council’s decision making process.

15. The recommended parking and loading supply rules developed following this review of

relevant material are consequently considered a robust set of default rules,

appropriate for inclusion in the Unitary Plan.

1 Unitary Plan Parking Standards: “Number of Parking and Loading Spaces Required”, January 2012, Ref

R1B120117 2 Unitary Plan Parking Standards: Auckland City centre Fringe, June 2012, Ref R1C120629

3http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/unitaryplan/Documents/Sectio

n32report/2.9%20Accessory%20parking%20v2%202013-09-17.pdf 4http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/unitaryplan/Documents/Sectio

n32report/2.38%20Non-accessory%20parking%20v2%202013-09-17.pdf


16. Flow was re-engaged by Council following the release of the draft PAUP and

subsequently reviewed a number of the early submissions, providing technical support

to Council prior to the release of the PAUP.

17. Since the start of 2015 I have been working with Council with respect to reviewing the

submissions received, consultation and mediation with affected parties and preparing

position papers and evidence in support of the technical matters with respect to Topics

43 and 44.

PROPOSED APRPOACH TO PARKING AND LOADING SUPPLY RULES AND RATIONALE

Accessory Parking

18. The PAUP provides for off-street parking through accessory parking (i.e. on-site parking

required or permitted in association with development on the same site) and non-

accessory parking (i.e. parking which is provided as the primary activity on the site

which may be available to the public). The management of accessory parking can

involve the application of parking maximums (i.e. a limit or cap on the amount of

parking provided) and parking minimums (i.e. a requirement to provide a minimum

amount of parking). Where parking maximum rules apply without parking minimum

rules there is no requirement to provide any parking and conversely where minimum

parking rules apply without parking maximum rules there is no limit on the amount of

parking (in terms of the parking rule).

19. A review of best practice literature5 reveals the removal of minimum parking rates and

the application of maximum parking rates are associated with the following benefits:

a) Achieving intensive and mixed use developments through not requiring

developments to provide parking and encouraging more efficient use of

parking through sharing parking resources and restricting the oversupply of

parking.

5 Including Litman (2007) Parking Management Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy

Institute, Marsden (2006) The evidence base for parking policies – a review , Journal of Transport Policy and

Shoup (1999) The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements, Transportation Research Part A Volume 33.


b) Encouraging the use of public transportation and walking and cycling through

reducing parking supply, allowing the true cost of parking to be realised and

encouraging intensification.

c) Improving housing affordability through not requiring residential

developments to provide parking with every dwelling, enabling residents who

would rather not own a car (or only have one car) to pay less or overall costs

to reduce.

d) Reducing development costs through not requiring developments to provide

parking in excess of requirements or apply for consent for a parking shortfall.

e) Fostering safe, convenient and attractive walking environments through

reducing vehicle crossings created to access on site parking, reducing

congestion, encouraging use of alternative transport options to driving and

encouraging intensification.

The above points are supported by the evidence of Joshua Arbury, Stewart Donovan

and Ian Munro.

20. To help achieve the aims and objectives of the Auckland Plan6, the PAUP extends the

areas in which minimum parking rates are removed and maximum parking rates are

applied. This approach currently applies to the Central Area as well as to various

extents in recent plan changes to the Legacy District Plans including Massey North7 and

Hobsonville Village8. Other centres such as New Lynn9 and Newmarket10 applied

(reduced) parking minimums and maximums except on smaller sites where parking

minimums are removed.

21. The PAUP proposes extending the approach of removing minimum parking rates and

applying maximum parking rates to the Metropolitan centre, Town centre, Local centre

(other than those classified as Rural Satellite Centres11), Mixed Use, Terraced Housing

and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zones as well as the City centre fringe overlay.

6 This is addressed in more detail in the evidence of Mr Joshua Arbury

7 Waitakere City Council, Operative Plan Change 15 to the Waitakere City District Plan, Massey North

8 Waitakere City Council, Operative Plan Change 14 to the Waitakere City District Plan, Hobsonville Village

Centre 9 Waitakere City Council, Operative Plan Change 17 to the Waitakere City District Plan, New Lynn

10 Auckland City Council, Isthmus Section, Plan Change 196 to the Auckland City Isthmus District Plan

11 Those being Helensville, Kumeu-Huapai, Pukekohe, Warkworth, Wellsford, Karaka, Kaukapakapa, Leigh,

Matakana, Riverhead, Snells Beach, Te Hana, Waimauku and Waiuku


22. Parking in excess of the maximum or below the minimum rate is allowed for in the

PAUP as a restricted discretionary activity.

23. The proposed approach is to concentrate the removal of minimum parking rates in

particular zones in which increased density is being encouraged, land values are

relatively high and alternative transport options are available, or will become

increasingly available as intensification occurs.

24. The Metropolitan, Town centre, Local centre and City centre fringe areas have all been

identified for growth and intensification and have land use policies and rules enabling

this development. In addition the majority of these zones are located in close

proximity to the 2022 Frequent Services Network (FSN)12. The THAB and Mixed Use

zones are located in close proximity to the centres and have also been identified for

growth and intensification. It is for these reasons that these zones have been selected

for the removal of minimum and the implementation of maximum parking rates.

25. In all other zones (ie all except the City centre, Metropolitan centre, Town centre, Local

centre (other than those classified as Rural Satellite Centres13), Mixed Use, THAB zones

as well as the City Centre Fringe overlay), the minimum parking rates have been

retained (albeit reduced) to reflect the fact that alternative transport options are not

necessarily available and increased density is not anticipated and to such an extent in

these zones.

26. The proposal reflects a “transitional” approach, whereby minimum parking standards

are removed and maximum parking standards are applied in areas which will result in

the most benefit. However, in recognition of the fact that this policy has been applied

in limited areas of Auckland to date and therefore represents a significant shift in

policy for much of the region, the extent of the removal of minimum parking rates has

been limited.

27. This approach also provides some comfort to Auckland Transport that any resources

which may be required to manage on street parking can be concentrated in and

around centres.

12

Defined in the Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan (2013) as where public transport services will be available in 15 minute frequencies between 7 am and 7 pm by 2022 13

Those being Helensville, Kumeu-Huapai, Pukekohe, Warkworth, Wellsford, Karaka, Kaukapakapa, Leigh, Matakana, Riverhead, Snells Beach, Te Hana, Waimauku and Waiuku


28. The exception to the general approach is office activities, which are subject to a

maximum parking rule regardless of location (with a more restrictive maximum applied

in the City centre and City centre fringe overlay for reasons discussed below).

Maximum and minimum parking rates apply in all of the zones where other activities

are subject to minimum parking rates. This is to reflect the fact that trips generated by

office activities contribute significantly to travel during peak times and tend to be

easier to convert to public transport or walking and cycling trips. The rule aims to

avoid office activities locating away from centres in order to gain additional parking

and thus encourage office activities to locate adjacent to centres and therefore public

transport.

Rational for the Maximum Parking Rates Proposed

29. The maximum parking rates proposed are very similar to the minimum parking rates

included in the operative District Plans.

30. A review of the existing District Plans reveals the current minimum parking rates are

very similar to rates provided in industry standard documents14. These industry

documents are widely used to predict parking demand for different land use activities.

The rates provided are based on parking surveys undertaken in NZ, Australia and the

US, predominantly in the 1990s, and usually from suburban locations which provide

free parking15. These rates generally represent an average of between 85 % and 100 %

of regular peak on site parking demand recorded at these sites.

31. Therefore, in theory, maximum rates proposed at these levels generally limit the

supply of parking to between 85 % and 100 % of peak parking demand.

32. It is noted that general parking rates are only ever an average of parking demand

observed in particular surveys and the range of data can be large. As a result in many

cases the proposed rate will provide for significantly more or significantly less than

85 % of peak parking demand.

33. However, as these rates are generally based on parking demand data from suburban

sites with free parking and little access to alternative transport options I consider the

14

Transfund New Zealand Research Report No 209, Trips and Parking Related to Land Use (2001 and updated 2012, NZ), The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), Guide to traffic Generating Developments, version 2.2 (2002, Australia), The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, Parking Generation (2004, US) 15

Austroads, 2008, Guide to Traffic Management, Part 11, Parking


rates to provide a generous “upper limit” for land use activities located within or close

to centres. This allows developers to determine the most appropriate level of parking

for their land use activity, whist also providing protection from significant parking over

supply.

34. The proposed maximum parking rates are slightly less restrictive (ie allow more

parking) than the current maximum rates included in Plan Change 14 and 15 for the

Hobsonville and Massey North town centres and Plan Change 196 for Newmarket. This

is as a result of consultation with stakeholder groups during the preparation of the

PAUP. These groups expressed concern regarding the application of restrictive

maximum parking rates. The less restrictive rates also reflect the fact that the

proposed maximum rates will be applied to a wide variety of centres throughout the

Auckland region, and therefore need to provide greater flexibility.

35. The number of land uses for which parking rates have been included has also been

significantly reduced in the PAUP to simplify the rules as well as to reflect the fact that

the maximum rates are proposed to provide an “upper limit” to parking supply rather

than prescribe the number of parking spaces which should be provided for specific

activities.

36. Overall, it is my opinion that the proposed maximum parking rates are likely to be

generous and will not significantly restrict parking supply for land use activities.

Rationale for the Minimum Rates Proposed

37. Where they are proposed, the Minimum parking rates are also based on the existing

rates included in the operative District Plans. As outlined previously, in most cases the

car parking rates included in the existing District Plans are based on the industry

standard rates which represent between 85 % and 100 % of regular peak parking

demands from suburban sites.

38. Feedback from Council officers16 and my own experience gained from preparing and

assessing traffic impact assessments for resource consents, reveals that in some

locations this has resulted in either:

16

Feedback from Council officers in a workshop held in September 2011 and a subsequent meeting with Angela Crang, Team Leader Consents Auckland Council


a) An oversupply of parking: for example cafes and taverns have been known to

lease parking in order to avoid a consenting process but the parking is not

required for the business to operate, or parking is provided but not well

utilised.

b) A significant number of consent applications for parking shortfalls:

Particularly in areas such as Parnell and Newmarket where ground conditions

make excavation expensive and areas such as Ponsonby due to heritage

buildings. Other land uses which regularly apply for parking shortfalls despite

location include bulky goods retail, mixed use developments, warehousing and

industrial activities and cafes and taverns.

c) The limiting of development: for example smaller developers deciding not to

develop due to the costs associated with providing parking or applying for a

parking shortfall.

39. Whilst the aims and objectives of the revised parking rates primarily relate to the

provision of parking in areas of growth and intensification, many are also relevant to

the region as a whole, specifically improving housing affordability, decreasing

development costs and encouraging active modes of transportation. It is therefore

considered that reducing minimum parking requirements outside of centres will also

support these aims and objectives.

40. Based on the above information, my recommendation is that the minimum parking

rates included in the Unitary Plan aim to provide for approximately 75 % of regular

peak parking demand, as opposed to the estimated 85 % to 100 % currently provided

for. This results in a drop in minimum parking requirements of between 10 % and 25 %

from the existing District Plan rates.

41. The figure of 75 % has been selected on the basis that it reflects only a small increase in

potential demand for Auckland Transport to manage overspill effects (if any) on the

road network.

42. As noted previously, any parking demand data is an estimate, based on the average of

the data available and there is always a margin of error when applying these averages

to specific sites. As a result, the proposed reduction in rates will not result in all land


use activities providing the minimum parking requirement having a 25 % parking

shortfall during regular peak times.

43. The reduction in the minimum rates is intended to provide increased flexibility to allow

developers to select the most appropriate parking provision for their site whilst

providing protection from a significant undersupply of parking. Therefore the rules will

allow developers to provide slightly less parking than currently, without the need to

apply for a consent.

44. Whilst this was the general approach to selecting all rates, following the release of the

PAUP some further evidence was provided by submitters on various land use activities

which resulted in the amending of particular rates. This is discussed further later in

this evidence.

45. The number of land uses has also been reduced to simplify the rules as well as to

reflect the fact that the minimum rates are intended to provide a “lower limit” to

parking supply rather than prescribe the number of parking spaces which should be

provided for specific activities.

46. Overall, it is my opinion that the proposed minimum parking rates are appropriate as

they allow increased flexibility to developers whilst still providing protection from

significant negative effects of overspill parking in out of centre locations.

The City Centre Zone

47. The PAUP’s City centre parking rules continue the approach adopted in the operative

Auckland City District Plan – Central area section of applying maximum with no

minimum parking rules.

48. Analysis of the current City Centre transport conditions indicates that there is a need to

further manage the number of vehicles entering the city centre if additional growth is

to be achieved17. In addition, the City Centre Masterplan (2012) aims to create a more

people orientated environment for the entire City centre zone. As a result the overall

maximum parking rate needs to be reduced to limit increases in the total supply of

parking as the City centre grows.

17

City Centre Future Access Study, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council, 2012


49. The PAUP proposes to manage further increases in parking supply through applying a

blanket maximum parking rate of 1 per 200 m2 across the entire City centre zone. This

rate is very similar to rates used in the centres of Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane

which currently apply rates of 1 per 200 m2 or 1 per 250 m2 and much of the Auckland

City centre is already subject to this rate.

50. In my opinion, this rate is appropriate given the anticipated development and the

accessibility of the City centre to alternative transport options. This matter is

addressed in detail below.

Loading

51. It is considered that the current methodology used in the operative District Plans of

requiring a minimum number of loading bays on the basis of the size of the site and

whether the activity handles goods or not is appropriate for the PAUP. As a result it is

proposed to require retail and industrial activities (which traditionally handle goods) to

require more loading bays than other activities which generally do not handle

significant amounts of goods. Two sets of loading rates are therefore proposed in the

PAUP.

52. A review of industry best practice literature found limited guidance with regard to the

number of loading spaces required for a site. However, a review of the existing rates

provided in the operative District Plans for each geographical area reveal they are

similar but vary slightly, with Rodney District having the highest requirements.

53. The feedback received from Council officers18 was that generally the requirements for

loading were appropriate with the exception of loading within town centres where it

was felt that further flexibility was required. This is consistent with my experience.

54. As a result it was recommended that the general rates for loading spaces should

remain similar to the existing rates. In recommending a single rate for the Auckland

region, the lowest rate currently used was selected, which will result in a slight

reduction in loading requirements in the former Rodney District and Waitakere City

boundaries and little change in the other areas.

18

Feedback from Council officers in a workshop held in September 2011


55. To recognise the fact that further flexibility is required with regard to loading in

centres, it was determined that small sites (specifically retail and industrial activities

less than 100 m2, and all other activities less than 5,000 m2) are not required to provide

a loading bay. It is noted that developers of these land uses are able to provide loading

if they wish, but that they do not have to apply for consent if they do not.

56. This recognises the fact that small sites are generally located in centres where on street

loading or alternative arrangements may be more appropriate than an on site loading

bay. Further information on the provision of on street loading is outlined in the

evidence of Mr Scott Ebbett.

57. During mediation, the threshold for retail and industrial activities to require loading

was increased from 100 m2 to 300 m2, to address retailers' concerns that the 100 m2

threshold was too low. In my opinion the 300 m2 threshold is acceptable as it

represents a retail activity of a size which in most cases will be able to operate with on

street loading without creating significant safety or operational effects. For retail

activities larger than 300 m2, I consider the loading operations and requirements

should be assessed on a case by case basis and therefore require a consent.

58. Overall, in my opinion, the proposed approach for the loading provision rules is

appropriate as it continues to manage the potential negative effects of off site loading

through requiring large sites to require on site loading, whilst providing increased

flexibility to allow for situations where on street loading (or another arrangement) is

the most appropriate option.

Non Accessory Parking

59. Non accessory parking is defined in the PAUP as parking which is provided as the

primary activity on the site which may be available to the public.

60. The provisions seek to manage non-accessory parking by having varying levels of

restrictiveness depending on whether the non-accessory parking is long-stay (more

than four hours) or short-stay (four hours or less) and if the facility is located in the City

centre and City centre fringe or outside of these areas.

61. Long stay non-accessory parking is non-complying in the city centre and city centre

fringe overlay and discretionary in the Metropolitan centre, Town centre, Local centre

and Mixed Use zones.


62. Short stay non-accessory parking is discretionary in all of the above zones and the City

centre fringe overlay.

63. These proposals represent an increase in control on both short and long term non-

accessory parking from the operative District Plans. The purpose of this is to ensure

the supply of non accessory parking does not undermine the aims and objectives of the

proposed parking supply rules for accessory parking.

64. In particular, the provision of long stay non-accessory parking is non complying in the

City centre zone and City centre fringe to align with Council’s policy of maintaining the

supply of long term parking at a similar level to today to manage the negative effects of

congestion on the City centre environment and the capacity of the road network into

and out of the area (including through the City centre fringe). This activity is

discretionary in other centres to recognise the fact that some further long stay parking

may be required to support growth in other centre locations but that this will need to

be managed in line with the particular characteristics of that centre.

65. Short stay non accessory parking is a discretionary activity in all locations as it is

recognised that some supply of short stay parking for visitors to centres is required and

should continue to be provided. However, as with long stay parking there are negative

effects associated with congestion (during peak and inter peak times),

pedestrian/vehicle conflict and impact on planned intensification which need to be

assessed and managed.

66. Overall, I consider the proposed activity status’ for non accessory parking to be

appropriate from a transport planning perspective.

ISSUES RAISED BY SUBMITTERS

MAXIMUM RATES PROPOSED FOR THE CITY CENTRE ZONE

67. As outlined previously, the PAUP’s City Centre parking policy continues the approach

adopted in the operative Auckland City District Plan – Central area section of applying

parking maximum with no minimum parking rules. However, parking rates for the City

centre have been simplified in that they are no longer differentiated by road type and

the overall maximum parking rate has been tightened to 1 per 200 m2 for the entire

Central city zone (i.e. less parking is permitted).


68. Submissions were received from some land owners within the City centre zone seeking

to retain the operative City centre parking controls based on road types which the

submitters are of the view represents a more fine grained approach to the provision of

accessory parking. These submitters are from owners of land located in areas which

are currently subject to maximum parking rates of 1 per 105 m2 or 1 per 150 m2. The 1

per 200 m2 GFA parking ratio is considered by these submitters to be too onerous and

does not take into account current and immediate future traffic and parking demands.

69. The graduated maximum parking rates in the operative District Plan are based on the

maximum capacity of the road network during peak periods, average vehicle

occupancy and predicted public transport mode share calculated over 20 years ago.

The difference between the existing vehicle numbers and theoretical capacity of the

road network was used to calculate the maximum number of additional long stay

parking spaces which could be accommodated on the road network at that time.

70. This rate was not applied uniformly across the area but five road types were used to

provide differentiation between the number of accessory car parks permitted for a

particular site (ranging from between 1 per 105 m2 to 1 per 200 m2 or none on Type 1

roads). The road types are based on the roading hierarchy and whether the roads are

located in identified “pedestrian orientated areas” or “non pedestrian orientated

areas”. The road types are illustrated in Figure 1 overleaf.


Figure 1: Existing Road Types in the Operative District Plan

71. As can be seen from Figure 1, much of the central core of the existing central area is

already subject to a zero parking rate (Type 1 Roads) or a maximum parking rate of 1

per 200 m2 (Type 2 roads). These include roads which were then highly trafficked

and/or had a high public transport or pedestrian function. Roads with a maximum

parking rate of 1 per 150 m2 (Type 3 roads) include those which 20 years ago were

considered to be the main traffic distributors into and out of the central area including

much of Nelson Street, Hobson Street, Greys Avenue, Quay Street, Beach Road,

Mayoral Drive and Greys Avenue. Roads subject to a maximum rate of 1 per 105 m2

(Type 4 Roads) include those areas on the outskirts of the central area which at that

time were primarily undeveloped (for example Cook Street depot, Quay Park and the

Parking Rates

Type 1: 0

Type 2: 1 per 200

m2

Type 3: 1 per 150

m2

Type 4: 1 per 105

m2

Type 5: Wynyard

Quarter Precinct


Viaduct) and therefore were granted a less restrictive parking rate to encourage

development19.

72. Today, many of the roads into the City centre are considered to be at capacity and

there is a limited ability to provide additional vehicle capacity on the city centre road

network20. The City Centre Masterplan includes no planned roading upgrades which

increase private vehicle capacity into the City centre. As a result the principle of basing

the proposed parking rates on “spare” capacity on the road network is no longer

appropriate.

73. The Auckland City Centre Masterplan indicates that by 2041 the number of employees

in the City centre will grow from around 90,000 people to between 145,000 and

160,000 people21. However, due to the existing road network capacity constraints, the

number of vehicles entering the City centre will be the same as today. Therefore,

growth in person trips will need to be accommodated through increased vehicle

occupancy and other modes such as public transport, walking and cycling. For example

the Auckland Plan (2012) aims to increase the proportion of all vehicular trips made by

public transport into the City centre during the morning peak from 47 % to 70 % by

2040.

74. The provision of too much readily available parking not only results in more people

choosing to drive to the City centre (which will extend the peak periods of congestion)

but also increases congestion within the centre itself, making public transport, walking

and cycling less attractive options. This again works against the Auckland Plan mode

share targets.

75. In addition, the Auckland City Centre Masterplan (2012) places emphasis on making

the City centre a desirable destination and a pedestrian friendly and attractive place to

walk around22. A high number of vehicles conflicts with this aim as it reduces the

amenity of the area, increases pollution and can increase pedestrian safety issues.

76. Details included in the City Centre Masterplan also indicate that the existing Road

Types on which the current maximum parking rates are based on are no longer

19

Number of Parking and Loading spaces required for the City centre, TPC, 25 January 2015, plus further discussions with TPC in May 2015 20

City Centre Future Access Study, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council, 2012 21

Auckland City Centre Masterplan, 2012, page 47 22

Auckland City Centre Masterplan (2012), Outcome 1 and Outcome 6


relevant. For example the plan states that Quay Street (which is currently classified as

a Type 3 road and therefore one of the less restrictive parking rates) will “progressively

change over the life of the plan from a car dominated road to an important meeting

and greeting place and a world class waterfront boulevard”23. As a result encouraging

more cars into this area based on the role of Quay Street is no longer seen as

appropriate.

77. Similar plans are also described in the Masterplan for Hobson and Nelson Street. It is

also noted that these plans are in addition to the already implemented streetscape

improvements to roads such as Fort Street, Federal Street and O’Connell Street, which

are also subject to less restrictive parking rates in the current road type hierarchy.

78. Improvements to public transport in the last 20 years have also resulted in all of the

city centre having excellent access to public transport. In addition, planned

improvements (such as the City Rail Link) combined with the existing and planned

walking and cycling improvements will increase this accessibility further.

79. Overall, the approach of graduating the parking rates based on the existing Road Types

is no longer seen as appropriate as the PAUP does not map or indicate a road hierarchy

in the City centre (reflecting ‘acceptable’ levels of traffic volumes on different roads).

In my opinion, the current levels of congestion on the road network, recent and

planned improvements to public transport and the streetscape improvements outlined

in the City Centre Masterplan result in the existing Road Types now being irrelevant

and there is now a need to treat the City centre as one zone.

80. Given the information outlined above, Council’s parking strategy for the City centre

proposes that the number of long stay parking spaces located within the City centre

should remain at roughly the same level as today, even with the planned growth in

place. To achieve this, the supply of accessory parking for new developments needs to

be further restricted. It is therefore proposed to adopt the most restrictive current

parking rate used in the central area and use this for the entire City centre. The

exception is Type 1 Roads and the newly developed Shared Zone streets on which no

additional parking will be permitted.

23

Auckland City centre Masterplan, 2012, Page 89


81. Accommodating an additional 65,000 employees24 at one car parking space per 200 m2

GFA would increase the total GFA in the City centre by around 1.04 million m2

(assuming 16 m2 per employee25). This allows a maximum of an additional 5,200

ancillary parking spaces. Even assuming that some of these parking spaces would be

allocated as visitor parking (ie not used for travel during peak times), this amount of

additional traffic into the City centre will not be able to be accommodated within the

traditional peak periods.

82. Therefore, as development occurs and additional accessory parking is provided, the

supply of publicly available long stay parking spaces (eg parking buildings) will also be

reduced (through either converting the spaces into short stay parking spaces and/or

eventually developing parking buildings into alternative land uses as appropriate).

83. The rate of 1 per 200 m2 is very similar to the maximum rates used in Melbourne,

Sydney and Brisbane, all of which have maximum parking rates of between 1 per

200 m2 and 1 per 250 m2 in their CBD areas and much of the Auckland City centre is

already subject to this maximum rate. Therefore the proposed rate is not, in my view,

significantly onerous and represents a balance between addressing the existing and

future traffic capacity issues, the aims and objectives of the City Centre Masterplan and

the needs of individual businesses.

84. It is acknowledged that the Wynyard Quarter and Port Precincts have their own

parking standards to address site specific access limitations and capacity constraints

and, in the case of Ports, a specific and unique land use and transport situation.

However, these rates have been determined following significant transport planning

analysis. If submitters consider that additional parking on top of that proposed in the

PAUP is required and can be accommodated then they can apply for this parking as a

restricted discretionary activity consent, the effects of which can be assessed at that

time.

24

Assuming a total of 155,000 people are employed in the City Centre by 2041, being a figure between 145,000 and 160,000 people as determined in the Auckland City Centre Masterplan, 2012

25 Zoltan Moricz, 2009, Statement of Evidence from the Auckland City Council Plan Change 235 hearing, CBRE,

states that the average office space per worker in the Auckland CBD in 2008 was around 16 m2


85. Overall, based on the evidence available, I consider the maximum parking rate

proposed for the City centre zone is appropriate for all of the City centre zone.

REMOVE MINIMUM PARKING RATES

Residential Activities

86. As outlined above, minimum parking rates are not proposed for residential activities

located in the City centre, Metropolitan centre, Town and Local centre, Mixed Use and

THAB zones, as well as the City Centre Fringe parking overlay. In all other residential

zones, minimum parking rates apply, with the Mixed Housing Urban zone being subject

to both minimum and maximum parking rates.

87. Submissions were received regarding the removal of minimum parking rates from

residential zones and specifically the Mixed Housing Suburban and the Mixed Housing

Urban zones. The majority of submissions relate to the impact of minimum parking

rates on housing affordability.

88. As outlined previously, the approach used in the PAUP has been to concentrate the

removal of minimum parking rates on areas where intensification is proposed and

where alternative transport options are available or will become increasingly available

as intensification occurs.

89. Through mediation, the minimum parking rate in the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone

and all other areas was reduced to one parking space for all dwelling sizes. In my

opinion, the reduced minimum is an appropriate balance between the benefits of

removing minimum parking rates, the relative level of intensification associated with

these zones and the likely alternative transport options available away from centres.

90. The arguments for the removal of minimum parking rates in the Mixed Housing Urban

Zone are stronger than the Mixed Housing Suburban zone given the relatively higher

level of intensification associated with this zone. However, as with the Mixed Housing

suburban zone, there are risks associated with the complete removal of minimum

parking rates due to the location away from centres.

91. Following a review of the submissions, the transport case team reconsidered the

proposed rates for this zone. On balancing the issues, it was determined to remove

minimum parking rates for studio dwellings, but retain minimum rates for all other


dwelling sizes. In my opinion, this approach is appropriate as it allows increased

flexibility for small dwellings, whilst still managing the potential adverse effects

associated with parking overspill in areas outside of centres.

92. A submission has been received outlining the effects that garages and car-parking can

have on special character areas. The Special Character (heritage) case team is

proposing to amend the underlying zone minimum car parking requirements to help

retain or enhance special/historic character values. The approach that has been

discussed with the Special Character team is to not have a parking requirement (i.e. no

minimum) for Special Character sites less than a certain site area to support the

outcome of maintaining and enhancing the coherency and special streetscape

character of the historic parts of Auckland. From a transport planning perspective,

much of the special character overlay is located in areas around centres and therefore

this approach is unlikely to result in any significant concern.

93. Overall, I consider the extent of residential areas in which minimum parking rates have

been removed is appropriate from a transport planning perspective and represents the

transitional approach of the PAUP parking standards as a whole.

Special Purpose Zones

94. Submissions were received on removing the proposed minimum parking rates from

activities located within some of the Special Purpose Zones including the Tertiary

Education, Healthcare facility and Major recreational facilities.

95. As outlined above, the proposed approach is to concentrate the removal of minimum

parking rates in particular zones in which increased density is being encouraged,

relative land values are high and alternative transport options are available.

96. Some of the land located in these Special Purpose zones is located adjacent to centres

and on the FSN and as such alternative transport options may be available. However,

there are exceptions to this and there is no requirement for any future zoned land to

provide alternative transport options.

97. In addition there is a wide range of activities, some of which are very large, which are

permitted within these zones which can have varying levels of intensification and

characteristics influencing parking demands.


98. It may be appropriate for some of these activities located within these zones to provide

less parking than the minimum rate but in my opinion these issues are best analysed

on a case by case basis. As a result I consider the Auckland wide parking rates should

apply as a default rate with further analysis undertaken at the precinct level to

determine an appropriate parking rate as required on a case by case basis.

Neighbourhood Centres

99. Consideration has been given to the removal of minimum rates from the

Neighbourhood Centre zone as it is acknowledged that in some locations there may be

benefits associated with the ensuring efficient use of land. For example in

Neighbourhood Centres located in central Auckland suburbs or in the THAB zone, it

may be appropriate to develop a shop or café with no parking. However, in some of

the more outlying suburbs in the residential zones with less intensification, it is likely

that the services within a Neighbourhood Centre are likely to serve a wider catchment

area than can be covered within a walking/cycling distance and will therefore create a

parking demand.

100. Given the differing locations of this Zone, my recommendation is to maintain the

existing minimum parking rates for Neighbourhood Centres.

Warkworth and Pukekohe

101. As outlined previously, the PAUP proposes extending the approach of removing

minimum parking rates to all Town centre and Local centres other than those classified

as Rural Satellite centres26.

102. Submissions have been received seeking the removal of minimum parking rates from

Warkworth and Pukekohe due to the size of these towns, planned growth and the

urban design benefits associated with their removal.

103. I note that both Warkworth and Pukekohe have been identified for growth in the

Auckland Plan. However, these towns have different characteristics to the majority of

the Centres in Auckland as they predominantly serve surrounding rural areas. Whilst

both towns have some public transport options, neither town is anticipated to be part

of the FSN by 2022, and the majority of the surrounding rural areas will have no

26

Those being Helensville, Kumeu-Huapai, Pukekohe, Warkworth, Wellsford, Karaka, Kaukapakapa, Leigh, Matakana, Riverhead, Snells Beach, Te Hana, Waimauku and Waiuku


alternative to private vehicles. For this reason I consider that the existing proposal of

maintaining minimum parking rates should remain in these centres.

Taverns

104. Submissions were also received requesting the removal of minimum rates from taverns

for the reason that minimum parking rates may encourage drink driving. I am not

aware of any evidence which explicitly links minimum parking rates to encouraging

drink driving. However, on further review of the evidence, it was determined that the

land use of taverns could be classified under standard food and beverage retail. This

results in a reduction in the minimum parking rate proposed, which in my opinion is

appropriate.

RE-INSTATE MINIMUM PARKING RATES

Residential Activities

105. With regard to submissions relating to the re-introduction of minimum parking rates

for residential activities in the Centre and THAB zones and the City centre fringe

overlay, concern has been raised regarding the effects on the availability of on street

parking for existing residents located within these zones.

106. In my opinion there is a particularly strong case for the proposed removal of minimum

parking rates for residential activities within these zones due to both the intensification

proposed and the accessibility to alternative transport options. The removal of

minimum parking rates for residential activities in these zones is considered to be

consistent with both the aims and objectives of the Auckland Plan and the Regional

Policy Statement (RPS) provisions which aim to improve the attractiveness and

efficiency of more sustainable transport choices through managing parking supply.

107. As outlined previously, the removal of minimum parking rates will not result in all

developments providing insufficient parking. The intention is to provide increased

flexibility to let developers determine the most appropriate parking rate for residential

developments. I would expect that in areas where on-street parking is constrained

developers will still wish to provide some on-site parking where this will be desirable

for future owners.


108. Specific concern has been raised by residents located within the City centre fringe

overlay. Competition for on street parking is high in areas such as Freemans Bay due

to heritage properties having a low supply of on site parking, the mixed use nature of

development and the proximity of the area to the City centre, all of which result in a

demand for commuter parking.

109. It is considered that this on street parking resource can be managed to be used more

efficiently through the use of Comprehensive Parking Management Plans (CPMPs) and

tools such as Residents Parking Permits. This is discussed further in the evidence of Mr

Scott Ebbett. It is noted that these areas are also well served by public transport and

have good walking and cycling access to the City centre and surrounds.

Retail and Office Activities

110. The main reason for objections to the removal of minimum parking rates for other

activities, such as retail and office activities in Centres, Mixed Use and the THAB Zones

again relate to concerns regarding parking overspill effects.

111. For existing residents, concerns relate to the ability for them to be able to use the on

street parking. There is particular concern in areas where there is already a high

demand for on street parking due to character housing having limited off street parking

and/or due to the proximity to offices such as in Mixed Use Zones or areas surrounding

the City centre. For Business Associations or members of the Key Retailers Group,

concerns relate to users of surrounding land uses parking in their private car parking

areas which they provide for customers, as well as concerns regarding surrounding

communities objecting to their developments due to increased competition for on

street parking.

112. It is acknowledged that the removal of minimum parking rates may result in an

increased demand for on street parking. As outlined previously to address this issue,

Auckland Transport has committed to developing CPMPs for the various centres.

113. For business owners or owners of large retail activities, the concern relates to the

potential for people to utilise their private car parking areas, affecting their businesses.

I agree that there is potential for the increased demand for on street parking to result

in people parking in neighbouring private car parks which are accessible by the public


(such as supermarket car parks etc), although I am not aware of any evidence as to the

extent of this problem or how it impacts on business.

114. For owners of private car parking areas there may be an increased need to manage this

parking resource through similar measures as proposed by Auckland Transport, such as

implementing time restrictions or introducing a charge. It is noted that this is currently

done at some of the larger shopping centres in Auckland (for example Newmarket).

LIMIT APPLICATION OF MAXIMUM PARKING RATES TO THE CITY CENTRE AND FRINGE

115. A number of submission points were received from key retailers and businesses

seeking amendments to limit the application of parking maximum rules to areas well

serviced by public transport with a high proportion of peak period commuter trips

which they consider to be limited to the City centre and City centre fringe. A variation

was also proposed to only apply maximums to the City centre and apply minimums and

maximums to other areas to recognise that most activities will generate some parking

demand and that some of this demand should be met on site so that parking

requirements are not externalised (to adjacent streets and surrounding sites).

116. The reasons provided for the objection to the general introduction of maximum

parking rates mainly relate to a concern that a reduction in on site parking will result in

an increased demand for on street car parking and other private parking areas. This is

covered in the above section.

117. However, in addition to this, the Key Retailers Group has also submitted that maximum

parking rates should not apply to retail activities as the majority of trips to retail are

currently, and will continue to be made by, private vehicles. The submissions state

that it is not appropriate to manage parking supply to retail activities as trips made to

these land use activities generally occur outside of the peak times and therefore do not

contribute to peak hour congestion. As a result the submissions seek that retail

activities are only subject to maximum parking rates in the City centre Zone and the

City centre fringe overlay.

118. I agree that private vehicle trips are currently the predominant transport mode for

retail trips and that many retail trips occur outside of peak times. However, I do not

support the opinion of the submitters that alternative transport options to private

vehicles are not suitable for trips to retail activities. Whilst some retail activities (for


example bulky goods stores) may require private vehicle use in certain circumstances,

it is noted that options around on line shopping mean that it is no longer a

requirement.

119. I also consider there is significant potential for an increase in walking, cycling and

public transport travel to retail activities for the following reasons:

a) Increased intensification in and around centres will result in more people

living within a convenient walking and cycling distance of shopping centres.

Numerous studies indicate that as density increases per capita vehicle

ownership and travel tends to decline and use of alternative modes

increases27. The 2013 Census reveals that in the more dense parts of

Auckland, car ownership is lower. For example parts of the Auckland City

Centre up to 60 % of households do not own a car, in Newmarket the figure is

15 %, in Freemans Bay 14 % and Parnell 9 %. By implication, these households

access retail activities without the use of a private vehicle.

b) Significant improvement is planned for public transport services28 which will

make using public transport, particularly outside of general peak times, more

attractive. For example, there is evidence that residents of Transit Oriented

Developments (TODs) with high quality public transport services tend to own

10-30 % fewer vehicles, drive 10- 30% fewer kilometres, and use alternative

modes 2-10 times more than in automobile-oriented areas27.

OTHER SPECIFIC AMMENDMENTS TO PARKING RATES

120. A number of submissions were received on the parking rates for specific land used

activities and locations. This includes a reduction in the proposed minimum parking

rates for industrial activities, warehousing and storage (currently classed with industrial

activities), industrial activities in general, large format retail, residential dwellings and

other activities based on specific locations. There were also submissions requesting

specific rates for additional land use activities such as supermarkets, dog day care

centres, drive through facilities, retail when attached to service stations and schools

when located within places of worship.

27

Land Use Impacts on Transportation, Victoria Public Transport Institute, Todd Litman et al, April 2015 28

See Evidence presented by Don Munro for the Regional Policy Statement B3.3 Transport, October 2014


121. Increases in the proposed minimum and maximum rates were also requested for

residential units, retail, town centres and care centres, due to concerns with overspill

parking effects in the surrounding residential streets. An increase in the maximum rate

was also requested for offices proposed for the City Centre Fringe Overlay.

122. As outlined previously, the proposed minimum and maximum rates for different

activities generally reflect a reduction in parking requirements from those included in

the operative District Plans. There has also been a significant reduction in the number

of activities proposed, with the aim of simplifying the proposed rules and providing

increased flexibility. Generally, where it was considered there is insufficient best

practice evidence for a separate parking rate for a land use classification, it has been

removed.

123. For land use activities which are considered to be quite specialised or which may be

subject to location specifics which may influence parking demand, it is considered that

the current approach of a general parking rate is appropriate. However, based on the

submissions received, I further considered the proposed parking rates for warehousing

and storage, sports and recreation activities, large format retail and supermarkets.

Further details are provided in the following sections.

Warehousing and Storage

124. Submissions were received from industrial land activities and in particular warehousing

and storage land uses indicating that the proposed minimum parking rate was too

onerous. For warehousing and storage, I agree that the evidence indicates a reduced

rate for this type of industrial activity is appropriate, due to the fact they these facilities

tend to have a large GFA but attract few trips. The minimum rate has therefore been

reduced from 1 per 50 m2 to 1 per 100 m2 or 0.7 per full time employee whichever is

the lesser. For other industrial activities the existing rate is proposed to remain as 1

per 50 m2 or 0.7 per full time employee whichever is the lesser.

Sports and Recreation Activities

125. A large number of submissions were received from sports organisations requesting

that the proposed minimum parking rates be reduced (ie require less parking) to reflect

the fact that more people are using public transport and cycling to these facilities and

that their concern that too much recreational land is used for car parking.


126. I do not have access to any specific additional data regarding car parking demand for

sports and recreational activities in Auckland. The proposed rate for club rooms

(currently a minimum of one space per five people the facility is designed to

accommodate plus 12.5 spaces per hectare of land used for organised sport and

recreation) represents an overall reduction in minimum parking rates from the current

operative District Plans. The existing rates vary according to location but generally

require one parking space per three or four people the facility is designed to

accommodate for the club room. The requirement for the playing fields is in line with

the current Isthmus District Plan which requires 12.5 spaces per hectare for medium

intensity activities.

127. Feedback was sought from Council’s Sports Field Technical Working Group who agreed

that some sports field users are utilising public transport and cycling to training and

competition games at the weekend, although the vast majority of users are still driving

to and parking at facilities. Concerns were raised regarding potential on street parking

issues around parks with neighbours being affected should minimum parking rates be

reduced significantly. This may become an issue in out of centre locations where

Auckland Transport does not specifically manage parking overspill effects.

128. In my opinion, the proposed parking rates, which include some reduction from the

existing, are appropriate given the evidence available.

Bulky Goods Stores

129. Submissions were received from operators of some large format retail stores which

traditionally sell bulky goods, that the proposed minimum parking rate of 1 per 25 m2 is

too onerous. I have reviewed the evidence available and agree that a minimum rate of 1

per 45 m2 is appropriate, given the large GFA required to support these types of stores.

Supermarkets and Discount Department Stores

130. Submissions have been received from other large format retailers such as

supermarkets and discount department stores (for example the Warehouse) who are

concerned with the proposed maximum rate of 1 per 20 m2 will not let them provide

sufficient parking for their needs.

131. The concerns raised by the Key Retailers Group were recognised during the

development of the parking rates. In particular, to recognise the fact that some retail


uses are less suited to public transport trips than other land uses (such as offices or

educational facilities which generate a higher number of commuter trips), the

maximum rate for general retail was increased from 1 per 25 m2 to 1 per 20 m2.

132. Following the submissions, I have reviewed some available data29 with regard to

parking supply and peak parking demand for a number of retail categories including

shopping centres and discount departments stores (as outlined in the following tables).

Table 1: Examples of Information From Supermarket Consents

Location and Notes Parking Supply Rate Or Recorded Peak Parking Demand

Supermarket in Papakura , stand alone GFA of 3081 m2, 156 parking space provided

Supply rate is 1 per 20 m2

Supermarket in Orewa, stand alone GFA of 3,740 m2, 145 spaces provided

Supply rate is 1 per 25 m2

Supermarket in Takapuna, stand alone Maximum on site parking demand recorded (weekday PM peak) is 1 per 22 m2

Supermarket in Mangere Maximum on site parking demand recorded (weekday PM peak) is 1 per 24 m2

Supermarket in Grey Lynn Maximum on site parking demand recorded (weekday PM peak) is 1 per 32 m2

Table 2: Examples of Information From Discount Department Stores

Source Land Use Surveyed Parking Demand

NZ Trips and Parking Database

The Warehouse Two Auckland The Warehouse sites surveyed; peak demand ranging from 1 per 12 m2 to 1 per 35 m2 GFA

Surveys of peak parking demand on Saturday at The Warehouse stores in Auckland (undertaken by Flow and Opus Consultants)

The Warehouse Average of 1 per 25 m2 GFA ( 1 per 28 m2, 1 per 21 m2 and 1 per 25 m2 GFA), based on three survey sites in Auckland

133. It is noted that the proposed maximum parking rate only applies in centres, where

alternative transport options are available and will become increasingly available as

intensification occurs. Based on the evidence available I am comfortable that the

29

Taken from consent applications and supporting traffic impact assessments provided by Auckland Council and industry standard documents


proposed rates for general retail (being a maximum of 1 per 20 m2 in the Centre, Mixed

Use and THAB zones) provides a range in which the current parking demands for

supermarkets and discount department stores can be accommodated.

Offices in the City Centre and City Centre Fringe Area

134. Submissions have been received on the proposed rate for offices in the City fringe area,

which are proposed to be a maximum of 1 per 60 m2, as opposed to a maximum of 1

per 200 m2 in the City centre and a maximum of 1 per 30 m2 in all other zones.

135. The reason for the more restrictive rate in the fringe area relates to the aims and

objectives of the City fringe office overlay. The objective of the overlay is to provide

opportunities for substantial office activities in the Mixed Use zone and the Local

centre zone in areas surrounding the city centre, recognising their proximity to the city

centre and availability of excellent public transport services.

136. Given these particular characteristics of the city fringe, I consider it appropriate to

apply a more restrictive rate to office activities to enable the desired intensification

and to recognise the high potential for employees travelling to this location to use

alternative transport options due to the high level of accessibility to public transport,

as well as the existing and planned residential development in the area.

137. During early consultation on the development of the parking rates there was also

concern expressed by Council officers regarding the large difference in parking rules

between the maximum parking rates included in the City centre and the existing

minimum parking rates which are operative in the fringe areas. The concern relates to

the possibility that allowing significantly more parking in the fringe area will deter

office development in the City centre. It is also noted that many of the roads accessing

the City centre run through the city fringe area, resulting in the capacity of the road

network also being a concern in the fringe. It was therefore determined that there was

a need to apply a graduated approach to reflect the uniqueness of the fringe area due

to its close proximity to the City centre.

138. In considering the most appropriate maximum rate I note that the existing minimum

parking rate for office activities in this area is 1 per 40 m2. Plan Change 196 reduces

this minimum to 1 per 60 m2 for Newmarket, which is located within the fringe area.

Given the PAUP objective of increasing intensive office and residential activities in the


fringe and the existing and planned improvements to public transport services

(particularly the City Rail Link), I consider a maximum rate of 1 per 60 m2 provides a

good balance between meeting these aims and objectives and allowing office activities

to provide sufficient parking for their needs.

139. It is noted that the difference between the maximum rate of the City centre (being 1

per 200 m2) and the proposed rate of 1 per 60 m2 is still large (albeit a reduction from

the existing). However, on balance I consider a more onerous rate than a maximum of

1 per 60 m2 may not be appropriate in some areas of the fringe. Although these areas

have excellent access to public transport, they are generally less accessible than the

City centre zone.

Residential

140. With regard to residential activities, the submissions relate mainly to increasing the

supply of parking to limit overspill parking effects in the surrounding residential streets

through either removing/increasing the maximum rate in the Mixed Housing Urban,

THAB, Mixed use and centre zones, or increasing the minimum rates in all other

residential zones. A submission has also been received regarding the application of

maximum parking rates for the Single House zone in the City centre fringe parking

overlay.

141. As discussed previously, the proposed rates aim to meet the aims and objectives of the

Auckland Plan and RPS provisions, in particular housing affordability, increased density

and the increased use of non-car modes.

142. It is my opinion that the removal of minimum parking rates for residential dwelling in

the THAB, Mixed Use and centre zones is a key policy to enable the PAUP to achieve

these aims and objectives. The reduction in minimum rate for residential dwellings in

all other areas is also considered to be an important element of the proposal. I

therefore do not recommend any change to these rules.

143. The application of maximum parking rates to residential activities is considered to be of

secondary importance, although still desirable to enable increased density and

encouraging use of alternative transport options. This is of particular importance in

areas of close proximity to public transport, where increased density can directly

impact on the use of public transport. As outlined previously, residents of Transit


Oriented Developments (TODs) have been shown to own 10 % to 30 % fewer vehicles,

drive 10 % to 30 % fewer kilometres, and use alternative modes two to ten times more

than more traditional developments30.

144. The maximum parking rates proposed (being one parking space for studio and one bed

units and two spaces for dwellings with two bedrooms or more) are not considered

onerous, given they are only to be applied in areas with good access to public

transport. The proposed maximum parking rates in these locations again act as a

“safety net” to ensure the desired level of intensification and mode shift is achieved in

these locations.

EFFECTS ON RELAXING RULES TO PROVIDE NON ACCESSORY PARKING

145. Submissions have been received regarding the activity status of non accessory parking

in the City centre and City centre fringe area. The relief sought is to ‘lessen’ the activity

status of non-accessory long term parking from non complying to discretionary or

restricted discretionary.

146. As outlined previously, the parking strategy for the City centre proposes that the total

number of long stay (both ancillary and non ancillary) parking spaces located within the

City centre should remain at roughly the same level as today, even with the planned

growth in place. This is because long stay non accessory parking induces more private

vehicle travel into the centre.

147. To achieve this, the supply of accessory parking for new developments needs to be

further restricted. The restriction of additional non accessory long stay parking is also a

key element of this approach.

148. The restriction of long stay non accessory parking in the City centre fringe area is also

considered a key element of this approach as many of the arterial routes running into

and out of the City centre run through the fringe area. Therefore additional traffic on

these routes will result in increased congestion and an extension to the peak

congestion periods.

149. In addition, the proximity of the fringe area to the central city means that controlling

long stay accessory parking in the fringe area is also important due to its potential

30

Land Use Impacts on Transportation, Victoria Public Transport Institute, Todd Litman et al, April 2015


impact on the mode share targets for the City centre. People driving to the fringe and

then walking or catching the bus from there is not a desirable outcome as it does not

relieve congestion on the main arterial routes into the city centre or enable

intensification in the city fringe area.

150. Short stay non-accessory parking is classified as a discretionary activity as opposed to

non-complying, which recognises the fact that some supply of short stay parking for

visitors to centres is required and should continue to be provided. However, as with

long stay parking, there are negative effects associated with congestion (during peak

and inter peak times), pedestrian/vehicle conflict and impact on planned

intensification, which need to be assessed and managed. It is also noted that there is

scope to increase the supply of short stay parking through the conversion of long stay

parking spaces as outlined above.

151. This is of particular importance in the City centre and City centre fringe due to the

levels of existing congestion already being experienced. Acknowledging that provision

of short stay parking is intended for visitors who are less likely to travel in the peak

periods, an additional assessment was completed by Flow31 to understand the capacity

of the network in the interpeak periods.

152. This assessment reveals that some increase in traffic flows can reasonably be

accommodated during the interpeak on some streets, although the traffic flow profiles

on other streets are already somewhat “flatter”, meaning there is limited capacity for

increases in traffic flow during the interpeak periods. Additional congestion during the

interpeak periods can have significant negative effects on business trips around the city

during the day, as well as people visiting the centres for entertainment etc.

153. In my opinion, it is therefore prudent to ensure that Council has significant control over

the future locations of any additional short term parking, to ensure any wider negative

effects (on top of the more localised effects) can be assessed and managed.

154. It is noted that special zones or precincts can provide a different activity status for a

specific site or location which may include non-accessory parking. This process allows

for an activity status for non-accessory parking to be determined which is informed by

31

Technical Note: Future Traffic Flows in the Auckland City Centre, Flow Transportation Specialists, 26 April 2012


relevant contextual analysis of parking supply and demand (e.g. Comprehensive

Parking Management Plan).

SUMMARY

155. My evidence addresses the traffic and transportation issues in relation to the proposed

rules regarding the supply of ancillary and non ancillary parking and loading spaces.

156. Overall, I support the proposed parking and loading supply rules including the

amendments made outlined in Attachment C to Mr Wong-Toi's evidence in chief.

Mairi Joyce

2 June 2015

curriculum vitae

Mairi Joyce Associate

MA HONS (Geog) MEngSt (Transportation)

Committee Member of the IPENZ Transportation Group Affiliate member of IPENZ

Areas of Expertise The preparation of Integrated Transport Assessments (ITA) and Traffic

Impact Assessments for private developers and local authorities

Area wide transport studies

Design of roading infrastructure including facilities for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists

Peer review of TIAs and design work

Experience in all stages of Road Safety Audits

Transportation strategy and policy work, particularly the recommendation and use of parking provision rules.

Career Summary Mairi is an Associate with Flow Transportation Specialists Limited. She holds a

Master of Arts degree in Geography from the University of Edinburgh and a Master of Engineering Studies (Transportation) degree from the University of Auckland. Mairi has over 13 years professional experience including over nine years in the traffic engineering and transportation planning consultancy field in New Zealand. Mairi’s experience includes traffic impact assessments, traffic design, road safety audits, traffic modelling using aaSIDRA, economic analysis, Real Time Passenger Information Systems, LATM design and peer reviews of multi-modal traffic assessment reports. Mairi has a particular interest in streetscape design and has recently completed a Guidance Note on the design of shared spaces for the IPENZ Transportation Group.

Professional History March 2010 to November 2014– Flow Transportation Specialists Ltd

Associate (2014 – present) Principal Transportation Planner (2011-2014) Senior Transportation Planner (2010-2011)

July 2006 to February 2010 – Traffic and Transportation Engineers Ltd (T2)

Senior Transportation Consultant (2009 – 2010) Transportation Consultant (2006-2009)

February 2005 to July 2006 – Auckland City Council

Project Manger

January 2002-October 2004 – Southern Housing Group (UK) Project Manger (January 2004 – October 2004) Senior Development Officer (2003-2004) Trainee Development Officer (2002-2003)

MJ CV 150529 2

Recent Career Summary and Sample Projects

Preparation of an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) for a Special Housing Area (SHA) in Swanson. The report assessed the transport effects of a proposed plan change and Qualifying development application (2015)

Developing recommendations for the parking provision rules for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). This work involved research into international best practice, analysis into current practice in New Zealand and the development of parking and loading supply rules for the PAUP (2011 and 2015)

Completion of the North West Sub Regional Area Plan (Sub RAP) study investigating the transport implications of potential growth in the north western area of Auckland. Work included analysing results from traffic modelling completed in SATURN as well as assessment of walking, cycling and public transport requirements (2015)

Peer review of ITAs prepared for various Special Housing Areas in Auckland (2015 and ongoing)

Peer review of Christchurch City Council ITA Guidelines (2014)

Peer review of various resource consent applications for Auckland Transport. Providing advice of traffic generation, parking and access issues (2014 and ongoing)

Completion of the Burns Avenue Corridor Study to develop concept designs for the future layout including consideration of anticipated growth around Takapuna, capacity and safety issues and provision for pedestrians and cyclists. This work includes using outputs from the Auckland Transport Burns Avenue Paramics model (2013)

A discussion paper on the applicability of the UK Manual for Streets (MfS) and its applicability to the management of the Auckland Road network. This work was completed for Auckland Transport and included a review of the MfS guides and analysing how the guidance relates to the management and development of the road network in the Auckland region (2011)

Design of multiple pedestrian crossing facilities for Auckland Transport as part of the Safety Around Schools programme. This work includes investigation work such as transport surveys (all transport modes) and the development of concept designs through the provision of preliminary designs to take forward to construction (2012 and ongoing)

An assessment of walking and cycling accessibility to the Sylvia Park town centre to illustrate a methodology for assessing accessibility to all town centres within the AMETI corridor. This project included walkability audits, GIS analysis and community consultation, the results of which were used to generate a set of short, medium and long term recommendations to increase accessibility (2010)

An analysis of required walking and cycling facilities on the local road network following the implementation of a cross harbour walking and cycling facility on the proposed additional Auckland harbour crossing. This work involved the creation of a cycling and walking demand estimation tool and identification of recommended facilities (2010)

Completion of a Regulatory Strategy for assessing resource consent applications for parking in the Auckland CBD (2010)

Team Leader for NZTA Road Infrastructure Safety Assessments (RISA) in Opotiki and Kaipara. Works involve completing three days of road safety assessments throughout the sealed rural network as part of a team of auditors, compiling and analysing data and presenting findings to the Road Controlling Authority (2008-2009)

Traffic advice for the proposed Plan Change at Ruakaka racecourse in Northland. The Plan Change aimed to allow the development of the racecourse whilst maintaining the equestrian land use. The work included participation in a workshop with key stakeholders, traffic modelling using the regional TRACKS model outputs and SIDRA Intersection, assessment of trip generation and access and parking arrangements and liaison with NZTA and the local roading authority (2010)

043&044 - Hrg - Auckland Council - (Mairi Joyce) _ Transport Planning - Parking

Documents

Transcript of 043&044 - Hrg - Auckland Council - (Mairi Joyce) _ Transport Planning - Parking